BACKGROUND: In Shenzhen, the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) system has been in service since 1997. This study aims to examine the operation of Shenzhen 120 EMS center and to identify the reasons of calling EMS. METHODS: In this retrospective quantitative descriptive study, the data from the Shenzhen 120 EMS registry in 2011 were analyzed. RESULTS: Shenzhen 120 EMS center is a communication command center. When the number of 120 are dialed, it is forwarded to the closest appropriate hospital for ambulance dispatch. In 2011, the Shenzhen 120 EMS center received 153160 ambulance calls, with an average of 420 calls per day. Calling emergency services was mainly due to traffic accidents. Trauma and other acute diseases constituted a majority of ambulance transports. The adult patients aged 15–60 years are the principal users of EMS. There are no recognized 'paramedic' doctors and nurses. The pre-hospital emergency service is under the operation of emergency departments of hospitals. Shenzhen at present does not have specialized pre-hospital training for doctors and nurses in post-trauma management. Moreover, specialized pre-hospital training, financial support, and public health education on proper use of EMS should be emphasized. CONCLUSION: The Shenzhen 120 EMS center has its own epidemiology characteristics. Traumatic injury and traffic accident are the main reasons for calling ambulance service. In-depth study emphasizing the distribution and characteristics of trauma patients is crucial to the future development of EMS.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a technology-assisted intervention in a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program among patients with coronary heart disease. Methods: This study was a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight patients with coronary heart disease were randomly assigned to either the intervention group, receiving a 12-week technology-assisted intervention (n = 14), or the control group (n = 14), receiving usual care. Guided by the Health Belief Model, the intervention group received three center-based, supervised exercise training sessions, a fitness watch that served as a cue to action, six educational videos, and a weekly video call. The Self-efficacy for Exercise, exercise capacity, and Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II were assessed at baseline and immediately post-intervention (12-weeks). Results: Among the 28 patients who participated in this study, 85.7% completed the program, with a relatively low attrition rate (14.3%). The number of exercise training sessions accomplished by the participants in the intervention group was 51.27 ± 19.41 out of 60 sessions (85.5%) compared to 36.46 ± 23.05 (60.8%) in the control group. No cardiac adverse events or hospitalizations were reported throughout the study. Participants in the intervention group showed greater improvement in health-promoting behaviors when compared with the control group at 12 weeks. Within-group effects demonstrated improvement in exercise self-efficacy and exercise capacity among participants in the intervention group. A participant satisfaction survey conducted immediately post-intervention revealed that participants were “very satisfied” (23.1%) and “satisfied” (76.9%) with the technology-assisted intervention. Conclusions The findings demonstrated that technology-assisted intervention in a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program was feasible and suggested to be beneficial in improving exercise self-efficacy, exercise capacity, and health promoting behavior among patients with coronary heart disease. A full-scale study is needed to determine its effectiveness in the long term.