By Adam Hursh
EMS agencies handle high-risk calls every day, yet many still use airway and resuscitation tools past their useful life. The stakes are well known in the EMS industry. A single failed airway kit, a worn laryngoscope or an unreliable suction unit can change the outcome for a patient who needed quick action. The problem is simple. Replacing these items can exceed local budgets and supply delays make the process harder. Grants help fill that gap but only when the request is based on real needs and clear data.
Agencies across the country are turning to grants to update airway tools, ventilators, suction units and CPR devices. These items support both fire-based EMS and private service EMS. They can be used on calls ranging from respiratory distress to cardiac arrest to everything in between. The need is widespread and the case for funding is strong. Still, EMS leaders need to know how to present this need clearly and convincingly. A general wish list will not work. Reviewers look for proof that the tools will change daily operations and improve patient care.
What are the options?
Many agencies begin with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. AFG continues to fund key EMS equipment. Airway tools, cardiac monitors, bag-valve masks, capnography, ventilators and mechanical CPR devices remain eligible. AFG reviewers expect to see a clear story that shows how the request ties to the most common risks in the service area. Calls for breathing trouble, chest pain, overdoses and trauma all rely on airway and ventilation skills. When equipment is old, damaged or in short supply, response times slow down and patient care suffers. That simple link needs to show up in the narrative.
State EMS offices also offer grants for tools that support patient care. These programs vary but most will fund airway kits, pediatric bags, suction devices and updated training tools. Some states will fund ventilators or CPR devices when the agency shows that current units are out of date or unreliable. Local EMS foundations or hospital partners may also back these upgrades. Chiefs should not overlook these small funding streams. A mix of sources often covers more ground than a single large request.
Making the request
A strong request begins with an honest look at current inventory. Many agencies still carry airway kits that are more than 10 years old. Laryngoscope handles can have worn contacts or the suction unit batteries can fail at the wrong time. Some agencies use ventilators that no longer meet standards for volume control or alarms. Mechanical CPR devices reach the end of their life and replacement parts become hard to find. Chiefs know this but the narrative should present it in simple terms that a reviewer can understand without guessing. A chart listing each unit’s age, condition and maintenance history is useful and does not need to be complex. Straight facts carry weight.
Call data is the next step. Reviewers want to see how many respiratory calls, cardiac arrests, trauma events and overdose responses the agency handles each year. This data shows the demand for the equipment. If an agency runs 800 respiratory calls a year with only three reliable suction units, the need is clear. If a service has nine ambulances but only five working mechanical CPR devices, the gap is clear. It is important to avoid softening the message. Reviewers appreciate clean and direct statements. They want to know what the agency faces and how the tools will help address it.
Agencies should also explain how limited tools slow response. Medics often share stories about searching for a working laryngoscope or calling for another unit because a ventilator alarm will not reset. These delays add risk to both providers and patients. Leaders should describe these moments professionally. It shows a real-world effect that data alone cannot.
Another part of a strong request is a training plan. Reviewers want to see that new tools will be used well. A simple plan is enough. Describe how paramedics and EMTs will train on new airway tools, ventilators or CPR devices. Explain how the agency will update skill checks and maintain equipment. Reviewers want to know the agency will protect the investment.
The cost argument should be clear and honest. Airway tools, ventilators and mechanical CPR devices are not cheap. Most budgets struggle to cover daily costs including fuel, payroll and repairs. When an agency needs to replace four ventilators, three mechanical CPR devices and twenty airway kits, the numbers climb fast. Many small towns and counties cannot absorb that cost without outside funding. This should be stated plainly. It shows the grant is needed and not a luxury.
Interoperability matters as well. Fire-based EMS and private service EMS often work side by side during major events. Shared tools and common training improve care in these scenes. If one agency uses updated ventilators and the other does not, patient care becomes uneven. Grants help both sides reach the same level. EMS leaders should note this in the narrative. It shows the request supports the region, not just one department.
A good request also shows what happens if funding is not secured. There is no need for dramatic language. A steady, factual tone is enough. If ventilators fail, medics must rely on manual ventilation for long transports. If airway blades are unreliable, intubation becomes harder. If suction units fail during trauma calls, airway control becomes difficult. These are real risks that matter to reviewers.
Finally, the request should show the long-term plan. Reviewers want to see that the agency will track the equipment and replace items before they fail again. A basic replacement cycle shows good planning. It tells the reviewer that the grant will not be wasted and that the agency takes upkeep seriously.
Close the gap
Grants will not fix every challenge in EMS but they help close the gap between what agencies need and what local budgets can carry. Airway, ventilation and resuscitation tools shape the first minutes of patient care and those minutes decide outcomes. When equipment fails, the patient pays for it. A clear, honest grant request explains why updated tools matter, how they will support patient care and why the investment is worth it. Reviewers expect that level of focus and it is the best way to show that this request is about the people who rely on EMS when they have no one else to call.
Looking to navigate the complexities of grants funding? Lexipol is your go-to resource for state-specific, fully developed grants services that can help fund your needs. Find out more about our grants services here.
