Accuracy of automatic geolocalization of smartphone location during emergency calls — A pilot study. (1st January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ecker, Hannes; Lindacher, Falko; Dressen, Jan; Wingen, Sabine; Hamacher, Stefanie; Böttiger, Bernd W.; Wetsch, Wolfgang A.
• Is Part Of: Resuscitation. Volume 146(2020)
• Page Start: 5
• Page End: 12
• Publication Date: 2020-01-01
• Subjects: Resuscitation -- Emergency call -- Emergency communication -- Geolocalization -- Geolocation -- Dispatching; Resuscitation -- Periodicals; Resuscitation -- Periodicals; Réanimation -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.025
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.10.030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-9572

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Widespread use of smartphones allows automatic geolocalization (i.e., transmission of location data) in countless apps. Until now, this technology has not been routinely used in connection with an emergency call in which location data play a decisive role This study evaluated a new software automatically providing emergency medical service (EMS) dispatchers with a caller's geolocation. We hypothesized that this technology will provide higher accuracy, faster dispatching of EMS and a faster beginning of thoracic compressions in a cardiac arrest scenario. Material and methods: Approval from the local Ethics Committee was obtained. 108 simulated emergency calls reporting a patient in cardiac arrest were conducted at 54 metropolitan locations, which were chosen according to a realistic pattern. At each location, a conventional emergency call, with an oral description of the location, was given first; subsequently, another call using an app with automatic geolocation was placed. Accuracy of localization, time to location, time to EMS dispatch and time to first thoracic compression were compared between both groups. Results: The conventional emergency call was always successful (n = 54). Emergency call via app worked successfully in n = 46 cases (85.2%). Automatic geolocation was provided to EMS in all these n = 46 cases (100%). Deviation from estimated position to actual position was 1173.5 ± 4343.1 m for conventional and 65.6 ± 320.5 m for automatic geolocalization (p < 0.001). In addition, time to localization was significantly shorter using automatic geolocalization (34.7 vs. 71.7 s, p < 0.001). Time to first thoracic compression was significantly faster in the geolocalization group (83.0 vs. 122.6 s; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This pilot study showed that automatic geolocalization leads to a significantly shorter duration of the emergency call, significantly shorter times until the beginning of thoracic compressions, and a higher precision in determining the location of an emergency.