“Does your department have enough personnel available to respond to 911 emergency calls in its service area?”
Year-over-year, this is the most telling and worrisome question in the What Paramedics Want survey and the growing number of respondents who answer, “No,” is a 5-alarm fire for EMS agency leaders and the profession.
Over the past three years, from 2024 to 2026, the response has worsened from 57% of respondents saying “No” to 61%. Most of the respondents don’t believe their agency has enough personnel for emergency calls. Wow!
| DOWNLOAD: What Paramedics Want in 2026
EMS staffing concerns are getting worse
Though not measured in the What Paramedics Want (WPW) survey, it is commonly reported by many agencies that patient call volume has remained high post-COVID. In addition, survey respondents have consistently reported that the state of recruitment and retention in their agencies is poor. Only 15% of respondents selected 8, 9 or 10 (10 = excellent) when rating the state of recruitment or retention for their agency.
In addition, WPW respondents consistently report that staffing is one of the most stressful aspects of their job. With high and possibly rising call volumes and challenging staffing conditions, having enough personnel available isn’t solved by simply hiring more staff. One path forward for EMS leaders is to better leverage technology to make more personnel available for 911 calls in their service area.
Technology should give EMS crews time back
From the first year (2016) of the state-of-the-industry survey, initially known as the EMS Trend Report, until this year’s What Paramedics Want survey, EMS personnel have been asked about the technology and equipment their agency is using. For example, about half of the 2016 respondents reported using a mechanical chest compression device. That number grew to 76% in 2026.
A mechanical chest compression device is an EMS robot that does one important job well. A machine, even if the AHA questions its efficacy to improve patient outcomes compared to high-quality manual compressions, frees up one of our scarce EMS providers to perform other assessments and treatments to our patients. The increasingly common power-lift stretcher, not measured in 2016 or 2026, is another machine that helps our EMS providers, but unlike a chest compression device that is used on about 1% of patients, a power-lift cot is an EMS robot used on every patient transport.
Other robotic and technology solutions that can be applied to most or all calls will benefit our personnel and reduce the stress of low staffing. For example, telemedicine, which just 12% of respondents report using, is the pathway to alternative means of transportation and alternative destinations, utilized by 7% and 13% of respondents respectively.
The slow adoption of ultrasound is a cautionary tale for EMS leaders. Only 8% of respondents, a number that has been stable since we began asking, reported adopting a technology that has been available since the early 2000s. Though portable ultrasound has a growing number of clinical applications, its cost and initial training requirements, as well as the time to use and interpret its results, doesn’t impact the immediate need to reduce the stress on the workforce or increase the amount of time crews are available to respond to 911 calls.
The growing use of AI-powered tools for clinical care or documentation, up from 6% in 2025 to 22%, is another technological solution that can have a broad impact on the workforce. Already available AI-powered tools help recognize life-threatening conditions, recommend clinical care pathways and assist with the patient care report.
4 questions EMS leaders should ask before adopting new technology
Because of AI, we are experiencing a rapid evolution in the capabilities of our public safety software tools. AI is also likely to power rapid innovation in medications, treatments and robotics. Ten years ago, at the dawn of the EMS Trend Report, respondents were asked about use of ePCR vs. hand-written paper reports and if they still carried Medical Anti-Shock Trousers (MAST). What was once rare (ePCR) has become common, while another rare thing became obsolete.
As you evaluate new EMS technology and hardware, reducing provider stress and having the staff available to answer more 911 calls within your service area should be top of mind.
Here are four questions to ask and answer:
1. How much staff time and training resources are required to onboard a new technology? How much time is required each year to maintain competency?
Training and competency maintenance are critical to the job. But every hour in the classroom or in an online course is time away from patient care. EMTs and paramedics don’t join the profession to complete computer-based training. They serve their community so they can care for others.
2. Will this AI-powered software or EMS task robot actually reduce the time it takes to run a call from page to return to service? If yes, how much time will be saved?
For most service areas and providers, GPS-powered navigation software has reduced response times by dispatching the closest unit and then routing that unit as efficiently as possible to the call. Before turning on AI features in your ePCR or inventory management software, ask the vendor how much time other customers are saving by using these features. AI tools need to make the work better and faster, not more complex.
3. If we adopt nurse triage, treatment in place, alternative transport destinations and community paramedicine, how many fewer 911 calls will crews respond to and how many fewer low-acuity patients will receive time-consuming transport to the hospital?
The math is simple. If we want our crews to be available more often for 911 calls within their jurisdiction, we either need more crews, fewer calls or both. The current labor market and challenging reimbursement economics of EMS make more staff an unlikely solution, especially for services that aren’t even staffed to budget.
As you consider the adoption of technology and services, it’s important to model the potential impact on transport volume. Adding a new solution or service line that doesn’t lower call volume won’t lessen the high stress our personnel are reporting or exhibiting when they choose to walk away from EMS for another career.
4. How much will the solution lower the physical, emotional or cognitive burden of each call?
Burnout continues to be a critical issue in EMS. For two years in a row, 32% of respondents picked burnout as the most critical issue facing EMS. In 2026, a staggering 59% ranked it in their top three most critical issues, up from 51% in 2025. Whether respondents are experiencing burnout themselves or seeing it in their colleagues, this is a serious issue for our profession.
| MORE: Is EMS ready for the future? At PWW XI, Donnie Woodyard challenged EMS leaders to look beyond today’s staffing, funding and operational pressures and embrace the innovations that could redefine the profession
Prioritize technology that reduces provider burden
Wellness programs might help some of the symptoms of burnout, but they don’t cure the underlying problem of too few staff expected to respond to too many calls.
Leaders, focus your scarce resources and attention on software and EMS robots that lessen onboarding time; lower the difficulty of maintaining competency; reduce the total time spent from page to return to service; meaningfully reduce call volume; and lower the average physical, emotional and cognitive burden of each call.
Our EMS providers need and deserve more tech that assists with 99% of calls.
