Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency official outlines Newington EMS response times, CAD integration and contract timing
Summary
An agency official told the committee AMR average response times have hovered around eight minutes for priority-one calls, CAD integration is near completion but case reports are not yet auto-populating, and the committee will await AMR's proposed contract before calling a possible special meeting to meet a June/July timeline.
An agency official representing Newington EMS told the committee that AMR’s average response times for priority-one calls have been about eight minutes and that Newington’s response times are similar. “It’s 8 minutes for each,” the official said, reading monthly averages and noting March’s priority-one average was 7.98 minutes and priority-two times ranged around 10–11 minutes.
The official said the town and Newington have a continuing partnership and that call volumes are up “across the board,” but that mutual aid helps cover staffing shortages. They argued that national surveys and five-year local data show that “lights and sirens don’t really save time,” and said vehicle availability and stationing, not frequent use of lights and sirens, drive safer response performance.
The committee heard an update on CAD integration between Newington dispatch and AMR. The official said dispatch links are operational and the town’s IT and the vendor (ESL) are converting dispatch data into a format intended to feed PCRs and hospital case reports, but that the data is not yet populating into crews’ case reports. “Once that’s done, then we’re going to be able to sign off on that,” the official said, describing this as fine-tuning rather than an operations failure.
On contracts, the official said the building lease and the EMS service contract are being separated and that the committee is charged with drafting the service contract terms. The group is attempting to sync town, Newington EMS and AMR contract periods; AMR’s contract was described as technically up in June and the target discussed was a June 30 alignment. The official emphasized state oversight and designated-provider rules, saying the state of Connecticut determines provider designation and that AMR would not simply stop responding if a town contract was unsigned: “It’s actually not allowable under state laws,” they said.
Officials discussed finances: Newington EMS said it is currently “breaking even,” that COVID-related funding helped buy two vehicles, and that two more vehicles will need replacement without identified funds. The official also described the C‑Med allotment as a per-resident charge the town once funded at $10,000 then $20,000; they said the allotment is likely to cost about $36,000 next year and that Newington EMS currently pays more than one-third of the fee.
Procedurally, the committee agreed it is in a holding pattern until AMR submits a proposed contract. When the proposal arrives, the committee can call a special meeting on short notice to review and make a recommendation to the council; members discussed canceling the regular July meeting if the special meeting is held earlier. With no public comments, the committee moved, seconded and approved a motion to adjourn.
The committee did not take final action on any contract at the meeting; members said they will reconvene when AMR’s proposed contract is available for review.
