Driving Me Crazy: The effects of stress on the driving abilities of paramedic students

Introduction

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the USA has previously reported that an annual average of 4,500 motor vehicle collisions involved an ambulance, with almost 60% of these during the course of emergency driving. Of these, 34% resulted in injury, with an average of 33 fatalities and 2,600 injuries annually (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2011a, 2011b; Smith, 2015). Figures for Canada are elusive, highlighting a lack of easily accessible national figures. However, Alberta emergency vehicles are involved in approximately 300 collisions per annum (Yasmin et al., 2014), while approximately 400 collisions occur per annum in B.C (Tyakoff et al., 2014). UK figures are as elusive as Canadian figures; however, a search of the grey literature and news websites has indicated that the Welsh Ambulance Service experienced 735 emergency vehicle crashes between April 2011 and March 2016, with 150 occurring while on emergency calls (BBC, 2011). Between April 2009 and August 2014, 148 ambulance collisions occurred in Berkshire, 310 in Hampshire, and 240 across Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire (BBC, 2014), while 81 ambulances in the West Midlands crashed between 2012 and 2014 (Lumb, 2015). It should be noted that these figures are highly dependent on the definition of “collision” used by each agency, which is often unclear, or unreported. As can be seen from the sources that can be accessed, ambulances and paramedics operating them are not immune to vehicle collisions.

The majority of ambulance collisions appear to occur while driving under emergency driving conditions with lights and sirens on during emergency calls (Murray and Kue, 2017), although it is unclear whether these collisions are predominantly the fault of the driver of the ambulance, or the drivers of other vehicles involved in the collisions (Kahn et al., 2001; Saunders, 1994). In the United States more than twice the number of collisions occurred during the transport of a patient phase while using lights and sirens compared to no lights and siren use during transport. The authors estimated that when lights and sirens are used it would account for an “approximately 1 additional crash per 10,000 transports” (Watanabe et al., 2019). Given the volume of these events, it seems prudent to investigate some of the potentially contributory factors in these collisions.

Stressors such as adverse road conditions, other drivers, personality type, time constraints, and occupational stress have previously been linked to an increase in critical driving errors (Cartwright et al., 1996; Cœugnet et al., 2013). Stressors in other domains of life unrelated to driving, such as work stress, daily hassles, and mental health issues can also adversely affect driving errors, concentration, and traffic violations (Rowden et al., 2011). There is however, a lack of research on the impact of stress on the driving performance of paramedics. Paramedics often work in inherently stressful environments. Sources of stress in clinical practice include high acuity patients that decompensate quickly, performance of highly-intensity procedures, working while fatigued, a lack of personal time, and a disruption of social support (LeBlanc, 2009). Tasks that divide attention and require a person to combine multiple sources of information while under stress can lead to a reduction in performance of the person performing the task. In addition, stress has been determined to have a hindering effect on working memory, that is, the memory used to keep track of multiple stimuli and or multiple sources of information at one time (LeBlanc, 2009). The connection between high stress levels and the number of critical errors paramedics make while performing procedural medical skills was previously examined by LeBlanc and colleagues who discovered that “paramedics overall performance, communication skills, ability to recall accurate information, and provide adequate ventilations all suffered after engaging in high stress scenarios” (LeBlanc et al., 2012).

LeBlanc et al., (2005, 2009) also reported that the current literature on stress and performance is ambiguous and conflicting; some studies demonstrate no impact or even improvement of task performance, while other studies have demonstrated a negative impact on performance while stressed. Improvement of performance is thought to be influenced by selective attention under stress, allowing for more focus on the stressful situation which is causing the stress and filtering out other non-related stimuli. Other literature has found that while under stress there is a lack of attentional resources, which decreases our ability to filter out irrelevant stimuli such as loud noises, leads to an increase in distractibility and therefore a shift in focus away from the relevant stimuli (LeBlanc., 2009).

Research also suggests that more experienced paramedics (the population in most of these studies) are not unaffected by stress but rather have developed more effective coping strategies to deal with stress (LeBlanc et al., 2012, 2005). It was observed that the performance of advanced care paramedics decreased during high-stress scenarios as well as their ability to accurately recall information about the scenarios, reporting information that had not occurred on reports following the high stress scenario (LeBlac et al., 2012). It was also observed that the level of training and work experience in paramedics does not appear to prevent higher levels of anxiety and paramedics of all grades demonstrated a decreased ability to calculate drug dosages following a stressful scenario (LeBlanc et al., 2005). This suggests that less experienced paramedics, including paramedic students and recent graduates, may be more susceptible to performing critical errors under stress than their more experienced counterparts as they have not yet developed these more effective coping strategies. However, both experienced and non-experienced paramedics performance can be impacted by high levels of stress. In addition, those with less experience and perhaps education could benefit from additional ambulance operations training, in an attempt to reduce the number of ambulance collisions (Whiting et al., 1998).

This study aimed to examine the effects of stress on the number of critical driving errors made by paramedic students. We hypothesized that paramedic students would demonstrate riskier driving resulting in increased critical errors after experiencing a high-stress clinical scenario.

Methods and materials

Materials – driving simulation

The simulated driving scenario was conducted using a PatrolSim ambulance driving simulator [Version 4, L3 Training Solutions, Salt Lake City, UT] based at [redacted for peer review]. This is an open-cabin simulator which simulates driving conditions in both emergency and non-emergency modes, visually and aurally (see Figure 1). It does not have the ability to simulate motion. While the evidence related to validity of driving simulators is mixed (Mullen 2011, Wynne 2019), the use of a driving simulator in this pilot study was designed to minimize ethical concerns and risks related to the operation of real vehicles by participants, especially in the post-stress phase. Driving simulators are a poor choice for the assessment of real world driving (for example as a substitute to road testing), but they are generally considered a valid tool for researching driving. The simulator provides navigation directions on screen using large arrows which denote route of travel similar to that of commonly used global positioning system car navigation units. This simulator is also capable of recording a number of critical driving errors. Participants were initially provided with an orientation and test run in the simulator prior to any data collection (driving or clinical scenario) in order to provide them with the opportunity to understand the simulator functions. Participants were then given a brief overview of the HTA and Ambulance Act to ensure that all participants understood the rules of the road. A baseline driving assessment was then performed whereby each participant drove the simulated ambulance under emergency driving conditions from a known starting position to a denoted endpoint. Pre-programmed, standardised “EMS_City_2” and “EMS_City_3” routes were used, each consisting of a 2-3 minute drive with a set start and end location. These routes are simulated driving routes, and do not represent a real city driving route that students would be familiar with.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Data were collected using several approaches. First, a computer generated log of driving errors was captured by the PatrolSim software. These errors included: failure to wear a seatbelt (not exempted under HTA); exceeding the posted speed limit (exempted); and collisions. Critical errors not recognized by the driving simulator were recorded by the researchers, and included: failure to stop at a stop sign (exempted with conditions under HTA), running a red light (exempted with conditions), and loss of vehicle control. We define loss of control of the vehicle as “the act of the driver being unable to successfully maneuver the vehicle, resulting in the simulated vehicle skidding off the road surface and requiring the vehicle to come to a stop to regain control”. The “baseline” drive and “post-stress” drive were standardized for each participant.

Results

A total of 36 participants completed the study with 29 first year students (81%) and 7 second year (19%). Critical driving errors occurred more often “post-stress” than at baseline. Forgotten seatbelt, failure to stop for red lights or stop signs and loss of control of the vehicle all demonstrated an increase after exposure to stress compared to “baseline” (see Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Critical driving errors at baseline and post-stress

Participants reported an increased level of stress during the “post-stress” drive (overall weighted stress score of 67.59/100) compared to “baseline” drive (overall weighted stress score of 63.81/100) via the NASA-TLX (Figure 3). When stress scores were broken down into specific categories, it was found that on average participants rated “mental demand” the highest source of stress (73.1/100), followed by “frustration” (64.86/100), “effort” (63.47/100), “temporal (time) demand” (61.39/100), performance demand” (54.58/100), and finally “physical demand” (26.39/100). No participants reported experiencing simulator sickness.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Mean NASA-TLX reported stress scores baseline and post-stress.

Discussion

The results of this pilot study demonstrate that paramedic students make more critical driving errors when stressed, namely failure to wear a seat belt, failure to stop at stop signs or red lights (intersections), and loss of control of the vehicle. They also reported higher levels of stress after a stressful clinical scenario, in particular in the domain of mental demand. These findings are important to reflect on given the potential consequences for both paramedic and patient safety. They suggest that the link between stress and driving performance is worthy of further exploration, and that existing guidance related to driving under emergency conditions may need to be revisited or clarified.

Increased occupational stress and time constraints are regularly encountered by paramedics during transports to the hospital (LeBlanc et al., 2012). The types of errors made after stress exposure suggest that paramedic students may drive in a manner that is less defensive and more unsafe during transport after stressful calls. We discovered that participants were 3.3 times less likely to wear their seatbelt when driving “post-stress”. Failure to wear a seatbelt is inherently dangerous when driving and results in significantly higher mortality rates when compared to collisions where seatbelts were worn (Abbas et al., 2011). Fatal ambulance collisions are also more prevalent when the lights and sirens are activated during emergency driving (Kahn et al., 2001). If paramedics are more likely to not wear seatbelts after stressful calls, this could be a contributing factor to fatalities associated with lights and sirens collisions.

Failure to stop at stop signs or red lights before exercising exemption and proceeding through them under emergency driving conditions increased post-stress, resulting in increased risk for participants and their vehicle occupants. This is one of the leading causes of ambulance accidents in the United States of America (Retting et al., 2003). Injuries are more likely in collisions involving missed stop signs or red lights than in other crash types; injuries were reported in 45% of red light crashes compared to 30% in other types of crashes (Retting et al., 2003). Researchers in Alberta, Canada also found that failure to stop at stop signs and red lights led to more injuries during accidents involving an emergency vehicle (Yasmin et al., 2014). In addition, most fatal ambulance crashes in the United States occur while going through an intersection with the emergency lighting and sirens activated (Kahn et al., 2001). This suggests that activation of lights and sirens may not be sufficient to prevent collisions at intersections; emergency vehicle operators are generally advised to come to a complete stop at stop signs and red lights under emergency driving conditions before exercising exemptions under legislation, in order to reduce these types of collisions (Krkachovski, 2008). In addition, the provision of advanced driver training may mitigate some of these forms of collisions through earlier recognition and anticipation of potential issues.

Participants also reported increased mental demand during the simulated drives. A possible cause for the rise in the specific critical errors reported in this study is cognitive overload from the stressful stimuli that were induced. We are all constantly overloaded with perceptual information in our daily lives and activities. Our ability to process this information is limited, and under stressful conditions, the cognitive system becomes overloaded, decreasing resources devoted to attention, and therefore our ability to concentrate and perform a specific task (LeBlanc, 2009). This increased mental demand may potentially contribute to risky decision making or lack of awareness when operating an ambulance under emergency driving conditions.

Though not studied directly within our study, our preliminary work focused on gathering the data and identifying the literature to support the rationale for our study highlighted some significant issues which we have discussed elsewhere (redacted for peer-review). In particular, the lack of easily accessible statistics on the incidence of emergency vehicle and ambulance collisions. The lack of a national reporting database makes it difficult for researchers and policymakers to base recommendations on appropriate evidence. It also leads to a lack of standardization - the definition of collision in the various sources we identified is often ambiguous, undefined or conflicts with a definition used elsewhere. This lack of standardization poses a challenge when attempts are made to quantify the scale of the issue. Future endeavours to implement national, standardized reporting measures should remain aware of this issue.

Conclusion

Paramedics are subjected to stressful situations on a regular basis in their careers, which may affect both their ability to perform medical tasks and drive safely. Our results demonstrate that paramedic students reported higher levels of stress after a stressful simulated clinical scenario. In a simulated driving environment they made more critical driving errors after a stressful simulated clinical scenario than before. These critical errors are contributory factors in many ambulance collisions and crashes. The findings of this study should stimulate increased dialogue on the nature of occupational stress in paramedic practice, and its potential implications for both providers and patients.