Citation

Pirrallo RG, Cady CE. Prehosp. Emerg. Care 2004; 8(2): 171-174.

Affiliation

Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA. pirrallo@mcw.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, National Association of EMS Physicians, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

15060852

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a pilot study, finding that many households that experienced fires had received prior emergency medical services (EMS) visits, but few had operational smoke alarms. The study hypothesis is that dwellings that received smoke alarms and/or batteries during an EMS call were more likely to have an operational alarm, less property dollar loss, and decreased morbidity and mortality at the time of a subsequent fire. METHODS: Smoke detectors and batteries were provided to an urban fire department for placement in unprotected homes at the time of an EMS call from March 1, 1999, through January 31, 2001. After addressing the reason for the 911 EMS call, verification or installation of an operational smoke alarm was performed. The authors examined records for dwellings that had a subsequent fire for outcomes of smoke alarm status, estimated property dollar loss, and number of injuries and fatalities. RESULTS: This program placed 1,335 smoke detectors. Of these, 99 dwellings were found to have a fire or smoke condition with 20 exclusions. Our final number was 79; 28 (35%) still had an operating smoke alarm. In homes with operational alarms, the mean dollar loss was 2,870 dollars (U.S. 2001) (95% confidence interval [CI], 143-5,596). In homes without operational alarms, mean loss was 10,468 dollars (U.S. 2001) (95% CI, 5,875-15,061). No injuries or fatalities occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: This program was successful in placing 1,335 smoke alarms in at-risk dwellings and reaffirmed that an operational smoke alarm significantly decreases property dollar loss. However, if the goal is to have all homes protected by smoke alarms, this program has long-term effectiveness limitations.