Filling the Gaps

Emergency responders have needs. The Department of Homeland Security's TechSolutions program exists to help solve them. Established by the department's Science & Technology Directorate, its goal is to identify capability gaps for the various emergency services that can be bridged with research and development efforts in partnership with industry. The intent is to have relatively short turnaround times in developing new products--in the range of 18 months to 2 years.

In February 2009, the directorate created the First Responders Research Development Test and Evaluation Working Group. This group is part of a new Integrated Product Team, or IPT. At the time of the group's creation, the directorate already had 12 other IPTs in areas ranging from border protection to explosives detection and removal. Since the First Responders group's inception, it has met three more times and created four subcommittees: Law Enforcement, Fire, Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Management.

Those serving on the First Responder Working Group are volunteers--nothing is reimbursed but their travel expenses. Members of the group's EMS subcommittee were recommended by organizations like the International Association of EMS Chiefs, National Association of EMTs and National Emergency Management Association. Members include chief officers from some of the largest EMS systems in the country and some of the smallest, super-rural and frontier systems. The subcommittee's chair is Charleston, SC, EMS Chief Don Lundy; the vice chair is Los Angeles Fire Department paramedic Andy Wordin.

Each subcommittee was tasked with identifying technology gaps that could be addressed by the DHS S&T formula. While the Fire Suppression, Law Enforcement and Emergency Management subcommittees each identified 4-6 potential projects, EMS, being the overachievers we are, identified 13.

The next step was more challenging. Each subcommittee had to identify its top three ideas to focus R&D efforts on. More than one S&T facilitator likened this process to herding cats. One item that emerged from each of the four subcommittees, though, was the need for common platforms in areas like radio communications, electronic data transfer and even battery systems. Whatever was developed from the process needed to be out-of-the-box interoperable with other systems already on the market.

The EMS subcommittee's top three identified projects were:

AMBULANCE SAFETY

One thing we know about ambulance safety is that our fellow medics are being hurt, crippled and killed in these vehicles as they are currently designed and configured. Those in the back of the ambulance are the most likely candidates for injury or worse.

We decided to concentrate on Type 1 ambulances first, as this would include Type 3s and have significant crossover to Type 2s as well. One example of what we wanted to look at is the industry-standard exhaust fan system. There is no actual scientific reason for the volume of air movement/exchange in the back of ambulance represented by the current Triple-K purchase standard. It was a wild guess a contractor came up with for the GSA in the 1970s, when it was writing specifications for ambulances purchased by the federal government. Without any understanding of how the threshold was created or whether it actually works, it has become the de facto standard for air exchange/vent fans in the back of every ambulance in America.

However, with today's concerns about pandemic flu and weapons of mass destruction, does the current air-handling standard actually meet the needs of those riding in the backs of our ambulances? If not, what can be inexpensively developed to meet those needs?

An even greater threat to medic safety is vehicle accidents. Attendants in the back are frequently unrestrained. Projectiles can suddenly be created by unsecured equipment flying through the air. Can our ambulances be built and configured in a way that's safer for occupants in back?