During the Local Services Realignment exercise in 2000, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care legislated that response times for high priority emergency calls should not be longer than those experienced in 1996. Based on this concept, there is no consistent across the Province response time “standard” but rather a unique standard for each service area.
The following summarizes historical Emergency Medical Services response time information for the City of Thunder Bay and for the District including the City:
This data indicates that the lowest response times occurred in 1996 when the average 90th percentile response time for the City of Thunder Bay was 10 minutes and 14 seconds and 12 minutes and 41 seconds for the District of Thunder Bay. The average 90th percentile response times for both were higher in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 when this program was under Ministry of Health and Long Term Care control.
A 2002 survey of select Ontario municipalities indicated their average 90th percentile response time was 11 minutes and 21 seconds while the average 90th percentile response time for these same municipalities was 10 minutes and 54 seconds in 1996. Many urban centres aspire to a 90th percentile response time of 7 minutes and 59 seconds as is widely used in the U.S.
At the same time demand for high priority emergency medical services has generally increased in Thunder Bay.
In 2002-2003, EMS providers across Ontario faced severe staff shortages. These shortages result in “downstaffing” where less than a full complement of vehicles is provided from time to time. While selective scheduling of available staff during higher demand periods can minimize the impact of downstaffing it can also increase response times particularly if downstaffing occurs during high demand periods.
In September 2001, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care introduced their Response Time Framework initiative that provided additional funding to municipalities to help reduce response times. Thunder Bay’s proposal was partially approved in late 2002, early 2003. Report No.2002-363 detailed that process. The awarding of funds was based on proposed measures to improve response times throughout the district.