EMS Week is also a timely opportunity to reflect on how well the prehospital and hospital phases of care are working together.National EMS Week, observed each year in mid-May, recognizes the emergency medical services professionals who deliver the first layer of clinical care for millions of patients before they ever reach a hospital. First established by presidential proclamation in 1974 and coordinated today by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the week honors the EMTs, paramedics, flight crews, EMS medical directors, and dispatchers whose early decisions often shape what happens during the first critical hour of care. For clinicians working in emergency departments, EMS Week is also a timely opportunity to reflect on how well the prehospital and hospital phases of care are working together. The patients most vulnerable to complications often pass through multiple hands during that first hour. A paramedic makes initial decisions at the scene, a transport crew manages airway and hemodynamics en route, and an ED team takes over at the bay, all within minutes. Every transition represents both a risk point and an opportunity. This article examines what clinicians on both sides of the bay can do to strengthen the prehospital-to-ED continuum, with a focus on structured handoff frameworks, pre-arrival notification and resource activation, the cost of communication breakdowns, and the role of shared clinical reference in time-sensitive emergencies. By recognizing the continuum as a single system rather than a series of separate encounters, emergency clinicians can improve coordination and patient outcomes.
The Handoff as a Clinical Checkpoint
Patient handoffs are among the highest-risk moments in emergency care. The transition from prehospital to ED providers involves not only a transfer of physical responsibility but also the rapid transmission of complex clinical information under time pressure. When that information is incomplete, unstructured, or inconsistent, the consequences can be significant.
The Joint Commission has identified breakdowns in hand-off communication as a recurring contributor to serious adverse events and has issued formal guidance urging healthcare organizations to standardize their handoff processes. In emergency medicine specifically, where initial assessment and treatment depend heavily on information gathered in the field, the quality of the handoff directly influences diagnostic accuracy, treatment timing, and early clinical decisions.
A well-executed handoff is not about volume. It is about structure. Twenty seconds of relevant, organized information almost always outperforms two minutes of narrative, particularly when the receiving team is managing multiple patients, preparing for resuscitation, or activating specialty resources. The goal is to provide a coherent clinical picture quickly enough that the ED team can mobilize the right people, equipment, and interventions before the patient arrives at the bay.
Treating the prehospital-to-ED transition as a shared clinical checkpoint, rather than a simple physical transfer, reinforces its importance. Both sides carry responsibility. The prehospital team is accountable for delivering concise, relevant information. The receiving team is accountable for active listening, focused clarifying questions, and accurate real-time documentation of what has been shared.
Structured Handoff Frameworks
Standardized communication frameworks consistently improve the quality of clinical handoffs. Two of the most widely used in emergency medicine are MIST and SBAR. Each provides a reliable structure that reduces omissions and helps ensure critical information is delivered in a predictable order.
MIST, originally developed in military and trauma settings and now used by many civilian EMS systems, covers Mechanism of injury or illness, Injuries or relevant findings, Signs and vital signs, and Treatments administered. It is particularly well suited to trauma and acute presentations, where rapid orientation to mechanism and physiologic status drives the initial resuscitation approach. An expanded variant, IMIST-AMBO, has been studied in Australian emergency departments and was associated with more complete information transfer at the point of handover.
SBAR, developed originally in the United States Navy and widely adopted across healthcare through patient safety initiatives, covers Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation. SBAR tends to perform well in medical presentations, shift-to-shift handoffs, and consultations, where context and clinical reasoning matter as much as the immediate findings.
The specific framework matters less than the commitment to using one consistently. Research on clinical handovers between prehospital and hospital staff has repeatedly shown that structured frameworks reduce omissions, decrease miscommunication, and improve both clinician satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. Systems that train prehospital and ED staff to use the same framework tend to see stronger handoff quality than those that leave the approach to individual preference.
Consistency benefits receivers as well. When an ED team knows what to expect, which information will come first and in what order, the cognitive load of extracting key facts drops, and the team can begin planning care while the handoff is still in progress.
Pre-Arrival Notification and Resource Activation
The information that reaches the ED before the patient arrives is often as important as what is delivered at the bedside. A well-constructed radio report or pre-arrival notification allows the hospital to prepare in ways that can materially change patient outcomes.
For time-sensitive conditions, pre-arrival notification drives resource activation. A STEMI call prompts cath lab team mobilization. A stroke alert triggers CT, neurology consultation, and thrombolytic preparation. A trauma activation brings surgery, anesthesia, blood bank, and imaging into the bay. A pediatric critical care notification ensures appropriate weight-based dosing preparation and specialty support. Without advance notice, these resources must be assembled after patient arrival, adding minutes that can influence outcomes.
Clinical guidelines reflect the importance of these workflows. The American Heart Association guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction emphasizes the value of prehospital 12-lead ECG and advance cath lab activation in reducing first medical contact-to-device time. Guidelines for the early management of acute ischemic stroke similarly describe the critical role of prehospital stroke recognition and notification in improving time to thrombolysis or endovascular therapy. In trauma, prearrival notification has been associated with faster time to definitive intervention and better coordination of multidisciplinary resources.
Effective pre-arrival communication shares several features. It is delivered early enough for the receiving team to respond rather than moments before arrival. It includes the minimum necessary information to activate resources, including chief complaint, pertinent history, vital signs, interventions, and estimated time of arrival. It uses consistent terminology that aligns with the receiving system’s activation criteria. And it flags specific resource needs clearly, so teams are assembled correctly on the first call.
When prehospital and ED teams agree on the structure and content of pre-arrival notifications, the entire system runs more efficiently, and patients benefit from a compressed time-to-intervention.
The Cost of Handoff Breakdowns
The consequences of poor handoff communication are well documented. Studies have shown that communication failures during transitions of care contribute to medical errors, delays in treatment, and missed diagnoses. In emergency medicine specifically, where patients frequently present with incomplete histories and rapidly evolving conditions, the cost of a degraded handoff can be substantial.
Common breakdowns in the prehospital-to-ED transition include:
- Loss of information continuity. Critical data points such as medication allergies, anticoagulant use, last known well time, or mechanism details are not transmitted or are lost between the radio report and the bedside.
- Parallel conversations. ED staff begin intervening before the handoff is complete, leading to duplicated questions or missed details.
- Ambiguous language. Imprecise descriptions such as “he looks sick” or “vitals are unstable” without specific values delay the ED team’s ability to triage internally.
- Missing context. Scene findings, medication containers, witness accounts, or environmental factors known to the prehospital crew are not communicated, leaving the ED team to rebuild context from scratch.
- No structured close. The handoff ends without confirming the receiving clinician has received and understood the information, creating ambiguity about clinical ownership.
Any of these can be addressed through training and system design. Establishing a predictable handoff structure, designating a receiving clinician to listen without interruption, documenting the handoff in real time, and standardizing the information exchanged all reduce variability and improve the reliability of the transition.
Health systems that invest in handoff quality, through joint training, simulation, and shared debriefs between EMS and ED teams, typically see measurable improvements in communication consistency, clinician satisfaction, and patient safety metrics over time.
Shared Clinical Reference Across the Continuum
Beyond communication structure, another dimension of the prehospital-to-ED continuum is whether both teams are working from a consistent clinical reference base. When prehospital protocols, ED clinical decision support, and drug dosing information align, care is more coherent. When they diverge, patients experience gaps and inconsistencies that must be reconciled in real time at the bedside.
Several areas benefit meaningfully from shared clinical reference:
- Weight-based pediatric dosing. A paramedic administering a medication in the field and the ED team continuing care should ideally be calculating doses with consistent references and safety thresholds. Divergent dosing guidance introduces confusion at exactly the moment when clarity is most important.
- Drug interactions. Patients taking multiple medications, especially older adults on anticoagulants, antiarrhythmics, or psychiatric medications, require thoughtful consideration of interactions when new medications are administered. Prehospital and ED teams benefit from access to consistent interaction data.
- Clinical decision rules. PECARN for pediatric head trauma, the HEART score for chest pain, NEXUS and Canadian C-spine rules for imaging decisions, and Wells criteria for pulmonary embolism all rely on standardized scoring. When applied consistently across settings, these tools support more coherent decision-making as the patient moves through the continuum.
- Toxicology reference. In poisoning or overdose cases, the specific agent, timing, and quantity are often identified by the prehospital team. An ED approach aligned with the same toxicology reference used in the field reduces the likelihood of contradictory management plans.
Shared clinical reference does not require a single unified system across a region. What it does require is awareness on both sides of which references, protocols, and decision tools the other team is using. When clinicians across the continuum acknowledge and build on each other’s work, patients experience a more coherent arc of care.
Building a Stronger Continuum of Care
The prehospital-to-ED continuum is not a series of disconnected episodes. It is a single arc of care, and patients experience it that way. Every handoff, every radio report, and every shared reference tool either reinforces that continuity or introduces friction. EMS Week is a fitting occasion to step back and examine how well the continuum is functioning in each clinician’s own practice environment.
The strategies outlined here, structured handoff frameworks, effective pre-arrival notification, attention to the cost of communication breakdowns, and shared clinical reference, do not require major system overhauls. They require commitment from clinicians on both sides of the bay to treat the transition as a shared clinical responsibility rather than a logistical one.
EMS Week honors the prehospital clinicians whose early decisions often determine how the next hour of care unfolds. The most meaningful acknowledgment of that work is to build systems that receive and extend it well. When ED teams take seriously the information, context, and care provided in the field, and when prehospital teams deliver that information in structures that make it usable, the continuum functions as it should: one team, one patient, one coherent course of care.
References
American College of Emergency Physicians. (n.d.). EMS Week. American College of Emergency Physicians. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.acep.org/emsweek
Haig, K. M., Sutton, S., & Whittington, J. (2006). SBAR: A shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 32(3), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(06)32022-3
Iedema, R., Ball, C., Daly, B., Young, J., Green, T., Middleton, P. M., Foster-Curry, C., Jones, M., Hoy, S., & Comerford, D. (2012). Design and trial of a new ambulance-to-emergency department handover protocol: IMIST-AMBO. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21(8), 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000766
Jensen, S. M., Lippert, A., & Østergaard, D. (2013). Handover of patients: A topical review of ambulance crew to emergency department handover. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 57(8), 964-970. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12125
The Joint Commission. (2017). Inadequate hand-off communication (Sentinel Event Alert No. 58). Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.jointcommission.org/resources/sentinel-event/sentinel-event-alert-newsletters/sentinel-event-alert-58-inadequate-handoff-communications/
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians. (n.d.). EMS Week. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.naemt.org/initiatives/ems-week
O’Gara, P. T., Kushner, F. G., Ascheim, D. D., Casey, D. E., Jr., Chung, M. K., de Lemos, J. A., Ettinger, S. M., Fang, J. C., Fesmire, F. M., Franklin, B. A., Granger, C. B., Krumholz, H. M., Linderbaum, J. A., Morrow, D. A., Newby, L. K., Ornato, J. P., Ou, N., Radford, M. J., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Zhao, D. X. (2013). 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation, 127(4), e362-e425. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182742cf6
Powers, W. J., Rabinstein, A. A., Ackerson, T., Adeoye, O. M., Bambakidis, N. C., Becker, K., Biller, J., Brown, M., Demaerschalk, B. M., Hoh, B., Jauch, E. C., Kidwell, C. S., Leslie-Mazwi, T. M., Ovbiagele, B., Scott, P. A., Sheth, K. N., Southerland, A. M., Summers, D. V., & Tirschwell, D. L. (2019). Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: 2019 update to the 2018 guidelines for the early management of acute ischemic stroke. Stroke, 50(12), e344-e418. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000211
Wood, K., Crouch, R., Rowland, E., & Pope, C. (2015). Clinical handovers between prehospital and hospital staff: Literature review. Emergency Medicine Journal, 32(7), 577-581. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2013-203165