Use of Body Armor by EMS Clinicians, Workplace Violence, and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Care
Sarayna S. McGuire, Fernanda Bellolio, Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, Michael J. Sveen, Chad P. Liedl, Aidan F. Mullan, Casey M. ClementsImportance
There is a clear benefit to body armor against firearms; however, it remains unclear how these vests may influence day-to-day patient encounters when worn by emergency medical services (EMS).
Objective
To determine the association of ballistic vests worn by EMS clinicians with workplace violence (WPV) and disparities in care among racial and/or ethnic minority patients.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Prospective cohort study of a volunteer-based sample of EMS clinicians at a large, multistate EMS agency encompassing 15 ground sites across the Midwest from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Data were analyzed from May to June 2024.
Exposure
External ballistic armor being used by a group of self-selected clinicians on every run.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Prevalence and characteristics associated with WPV and with declines of treatment and/or transport compared between crews with 1 or more vested vs no vested members.
Results
A total of 156 of 415 staff (37.6%) opted in to wear the vests, including 77 male participants (49.4%). Prevalence of WPV was higher for vested crews (1.11 vs 0.85 cases per 100 runs; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.50; P = .001) and was due to higher rates of verbal abuse. The presence of 1 or more vested crew members increased the likelihood of all patients declining EMS treatment and/or transport; however, effect size was highest among patients with an unknown race and/or ethnicity (2234 [21.1%] vs 2134 [16.5%] patients; aRR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.27; P < .001), followed by racial and/or ethnic minority patients (708 [16.7%] vs 399 [13.8%] patients; aRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.33; P = .01). Analyses of individual minority groups revealed a significant increase only in Black or African American patients declining treatment and/or transport by vested crews (461 [17.6%] vs 223 [13.7%] patients; RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.49; P = .002).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this cohort study, vested crews experienced increased prevalence of WPV compared with nonvested crews. Use of vests increased the frequency of all patients declining EMS treatment and/or transport. Among minority groups, there was a significant increase in Black or African American patients declining treatment and/or transport. Agencies should consider benefits and unintended consequences of EMS clinicians wearing body armor.