Introduction
The EMS industry has a documented staffing problem. Recruitment and retention of EMS professionals remains one of the top challenges for EMS providers nationwide. When looking at the industry’s staffing challenges, researchers see a pattern of predominantly male (76%) and white (85%) practitioners.1
Where are the female and BIPOC practitioners? EMS offers dynamic emergency care that is not only essential; EMS practitioners are warmly praised heralds in the fight against death, beloved to their communities.
Why is it that staffing does not reflect the population they serve? To be able to better connect to patients, better treat patients, and integrate more closely with their communities, EMS agencies and organizations should have a workforce that reflects their community demographics.
In Part 1 of this three-article series, Adapting to Survive EMS Workplace Shortages, researchers set out to find a reason why. In this article, we’ll dive into the data – and what researchers found may surprise you.
Investigating the Problem
The Savvik Foundation and Delaware State University, alongside the Savvik Buying Group, began investigating barriers for underrepresented groups to the EMS profession. More specifically, researchers pursued a rationale to explain why females and BIPOC individuals are:
- Not entering the EMS workforce and/or
- Not being retained.
This is being done in the hopes that findings aid in the recruitment and retention of a workforce that reflects the communities they serve. Researchers worked with EMS educators, field training officers and EMTs to develop, validate, and distribute a survey to assess equity within the EMS profession. The details of this process are outlined in a previous article entitled, Adapting to Survive EMS Workplace Shortages – Part 1.
Results
The study surveyed over 700 members of the EMS community to identify barriers to entry and retention for underrepresented first responders, including members of the BIPOC community and women.
Based on responses from the participants, groups reported significantly different perceptions of the leadership opportunities, welcoming, and national exam opportunity factors that were available to them.
- Most participants reportedly agreed that educational programs were generally available to a diverse population of candidates; however, individuals who identified as black agreed significantly less about the availability of educational programs that would lead to a national certification.
- Women reported less optimistic perspectives on the opportunity to advance into a leadership role when compared to men.
- Individuals who identified as BIPOC reported that a diverse workforce requires a diverse leadership and mentorship team, with women agreeing most strongly.
- Men perceived a more welcoming environment toward diversity than women and a higher optimism for advancement into leadership opportunities.
- People from the Midwest were more optimistic than those from the Northeast regarding the opportunity to pass the National Exam
- High School students reported a more positive perspective than the Master/Doctorate group regarding an organization’s welcoming factor.
Conclusion
Despite the differences in perception on many items, all agreed mentorship is important. Over 90% of participants in this study agreed that a strong mentorship program can drastically improve retention, however, only 49% of participants reported that their organization had a mentorship process.
This study also produced data regarding invisible barriers for women and BIPOC communities when it comes to educational opportunities, advancement to leadership roles, their perspective on their agency’s welcoming or openness to diversity, and their organization’s structure as far as mentorship.
Black, Indigenous, people of color and women who participated in the study saw barriers that other races and genders did not.
The data shows us a clear picture: we see things differently here. EMS researchers and subject matter experts have long acknowledged workplace shortages and a lack of diversity; however, very few have asked “what are we seeing differently, and why are we seeing this differently?” The research is showing us that identifying and rectifying those differences is where the effort will make the most impact.
Researchers divided this undertaking into two phases. Phase 1 was building the study, and gathering the data that not only shows us that recruitment efforts need revisiting, but that there’s a fundamental difference of opinion that needs to be addressed.
In the next, and final, article in this series we’ll introduce the Phase 2 effort, where the real work begins.
Reference
1. Rivard, M. K., Cash, R. E., Mercer, C. B., Chrzan, K., & Panchal, A. R. (2020). Demography of the National Emergency Medical Services Workforce: A description of those providing patient care in the prehospital setting. Prehospital Emergency Care, 25(2), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2020.1737282
