Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Response Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wake County EMS proposes cutting red‑lights‑and‑sirens responses to improve safety and reliability
Summary
Wake County EMS officials proposed phasing a policy change that would cut routine use of lights and sirens from about 80% of responses to a targeted ~20% so that the 10–15% of calls requiring time‑critical interventions get faster, more reliable service; staff outline trainings, community meetings and a March 2026 implementation target.
Wake County EMS officials presented a plan on Oct. 27 to reduce routine use of red lights and sirens and better match response type to patient need.
John, the Wake County EMS presenter, told the Public Safety Committee that the system responds to more than 10,000 emergencies each month and transports roughly 8,500 patients, and has “well over 500” staff. He said analysis shows only about 10–15% of 9‑1‑1 callers need time‑critical, life‑saving interventions, while roughly 80% of current ambulance responses use lights and sirens. “Since January of this year, Wake County EMS has been involved in 21 accidents when we have had our red lights and sirens activated, and that's resulted in the total loss of 2 ambulances,” he said, urging that lights and sirens be treated as a clinical intervention reserved for those who need them.
The proposed operational change would intentionally limit lights‑and‑sirens responses to capture the 10–15% of patients who need immediate intervention by directing a lights‑and‑sirens response to about 20% of calls overall. John said the change is safety‑driven — noting research from peer systems and the National Lights and Sirens Collaborative — and argued that reducing unnecessary lights‑and‑sirens responses can make resources more reliably available for truly critical patients.
Staff outlined a phased rollout that includes frontline dispatcher training with Raleigh‑Wake and Cary 9‑1‑1 partners in November, phased implementation with municipal first‑responder partners, and six community meetings planned in November to explain what residents will see and to gather feedback. John said full implementation is targeted by the end of March 2026, subject to modifications based on community and partner input.
Committee members pressed staff for more data on expected impacts to response times. John gave a systemwide average response time of about 15–17 minutes across incidents, and reiterated the county’s benchmark for highest‑priority calls as 12 minutes 59 seconds, saying the project’s principal goal is reliability for the sickest patients rather than lowering the overall average. “That is our reliability goal when we implement this plan,” he said, describing a 90% reliability target for highest‑priority calls.
Why it matters: Commissioners and staff agreed this is a substantive change in how publicly funded EMS will prioritize and dispatch resources, with trade‑offs between perceived timeliness for low‑acuity callers and safety for responders and the public. The committee asked staff to return with additional comparative data and to consider a follow‑up briefing after community sessions.
