Abstract
Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled EMS, Fire, or Other. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (n = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as EMS, 9.9% as Fire, and 3.9% as Other. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat, and Motor Vehicle. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a Fire versus an EMS incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to Fire incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to EMS incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.