Page 71 - JSOM Winter 2021

TABLE 2 Multivariable Regression Analysis for Frequency of EMS Providers Being Verbally or Physically Assaulted on Scene
Estimate
Variable (95% CI) a p Value
Age (per 10-y increase) –0.06 (–0.12 to –0.01) .03
Female gender (vs male) –0.01 (–0.29 to 0.26) .93
White (vs nonwhite) 0.34 (0.10 to 0.58) .006
Bachelor’s degree or higher education (vs no bachelor’s degree) –0.11 (–0.28 to 0.07) .23
EMTP training (vs < EMTP) 0.38 (0.21 to 0.55) <.001
Work environment
Urban (vs not) 0.25 (0.09 to 0.41) .003
Suburban (vs not) 0.06 (–0.11 to 0.22) .52
Rural (vs not) –0.08 (–0.26 to 0.09) .34
Never working in a setting with a direct active threat (vs has worked in setting) –0.39 (–0.64 to –0.13) .003
Prepared to defend yourself from someone who originally called you for help (vs not) 0.00 (–0.14 to 0.15) .96
Work as a tactical medic (vs not) 0.26 (–0.03 to 0.54) .08
Comfort level with tactical EMS providers carrying weapons 0.03 (0.01 to 0.06) .006
EMS = emergency medical services; EMTP = emergency medical technician–paramedic.
a The multivariable model was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, level of training, and work environment (urban, suburban, rural).

TABLE 3 Multivariable Regression Analysis for Comfort Level With Tactical EMS Providers Carrying Firearms
Estimate
Variable (95% CI) a p Value
Age (per 10-y increase) –0.07 (–0.29 to 0.16) .55
Female gender (vs male) –0.97 (–2.08 to 0.13) .09
White (vs nonwhite) 1.10 (0.15 to 2.05) .02
Bachelor’s degree or higher education (vs no bachelor’s degree) –0.98 (–1.68 to –0.27) .007
EMTP training (vs < EMTP) 0.61 (–0.07 to 1.29) .08
Work environment
Urban (vs not) 0.30 (–0.35 to 0.96) .36
Suburban (vs not) 0.17 (–0.50 to 0.85) .62
Rural (vs not) 0.88 (0.19 to 1.57) .01
Frequency of verbal or physical assault on scene 0.56 (0.16 to 0.95) .006
Never working in a setting with a direct active threat (vs has worked in setting) 0.46 (–0.59 to 1.51) .39
Prepared to defend yourself from someone who originally called you for help (vs not) 0.94 (0.35 to 1.54) .002
Work as a tactical medic (vs not) 1.01 (–0.15 to 2.16) .09
EMS = emergency medical services; EMTP = emergency medical technician–paramedic.
a The multivariable model was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, level of training, and work environment (urban, suburban, rural).

FIGURE 1 Nontactical emergency medical services (EMS) provider most EMS providers to wear protective gear (73%) and carry
survey of respondents’ comfort level with tactical EMS providers a weapon on the job (19%). 2
carrying weapons on duty (1, not comfortable; 10, very comfortable)
(n = 401).
Our study has several key limitations. A low proportion of
survey respondents were engaged in tactical EMS, and most
respondents were white men. However, 83.3% of EMTs and
10
paramedics in the US are white, and 66.3% are men. A ma-
jority of survey respondents did not have a bachelor’s degree,
but this level of education is not required for EMS providers in
the US. The survey was conducted only among EMS provid-
ers in northeast Ohio, so our results may have been different
had we conducted a national survey. The lack of racial, gen-
der, and geographic diversity among our survey respondents
greatly limits the generalizability of our findings. The risk of
workplace violence and attitudes about firearms are complex
and controversial topics, and our survey did not account for
all confounding variables.

Conclusions
The majority of EMS providers we surveyed in northeast
Ohio felt comfortable with tactical EMS providers carrying

EMS Providers Having Firearms | 69