EMS System Review - State of New Jersey

State of New Jersey, DHSS, OEMSConsulting Services: EMS System ReviewTriData facilitators led the group in a discussion of the state of the New Jersey EMSsystem in regards to each component. Group members identified specific strengths andweaknesses for each component and each participant independently evaluated each component.Participants assigned one of the following ratings to each component:• Excellent – NJEMS has already achieved the Agenda for the Future attribute.• Very Good – NJEMS has either achieved or has plans to achieve the Agenda for theFuture attribute.• Satisfactory – NJEMS has minimally achieved most of the Agenda for the Futureattribute. A specific plan is needed to complete this attribute.• Marginal – NJEMS has recognized what is needed to achieve the Agenda for theFuture guidelines but does not have a plan of action.• Unsatisfactory – NJEMS has not recognized this Agenda for the Future attribute aspart of the EMS system.The afternoon session involved a component-by-component review of the strengths andweaknesses determined in the morning session. Using a nominal process, participants identifiedfuture needs for NJ EMS and prioritized each. Each participant anonymously identifiedpriorities, indicating their order on an index card. Analysis of the data was not provided to theparticipants.Data Analysis MethodsData was analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2003 and GB-STAT 10.0 statistical softwarepackage. The goals were to determine the current status of NJEMS and the priorities for thefuture of NJEMS. This included the attempt to determine whether there is consensus amongEMS leaders or if variation was pervasive within the EMS community’s leadership.Current State of NJEMS – Data from the scoring documents were transferred to aMicrosoft Excel 2003 file where scores were tabulated by focus group and by component. Scoresincluded averages for each focus group and each component. Tests for normality were calculatedand score distributions were analyzed by the above groups. Appropriate chart and graphicmodels were developed.Priorities by Component – Data from the scoring cards were transferred to aMicrosoft Excel 2003 file where scores were tabulated by components for each focus group.Data were considered ordinal as they indicated the priority for improvement. Scores werecalculated to determine the number of times the idea was identified and the priority of the idea.TriData, a Division of 15September 2007System Planning Corporation