Objective: To investigate the application of emergency medical service (EMS) of Hebei Province and preliminarily analyze its value in the treatment of acute stroke patients. Methods: We collected data of 4 147 acute stroke patients admitted to the Emergency Department between January 2016 and December 2016 in 49 hospitals of Hebei Province. Patients were divided into the EMS group and non-EMS group according to the pattern of arriving hospital. The general data, the onset-to-door time, door-to-treatment time, thrombolytic rate, length of hospital stay and prognosis were compared between the two groups. LSD-t test, Mann-Whitney U or Chi-squared test or Fisher exact test was used for statistical analysis as appropriate. Results: A total of 4 147 acute stroke patients were enrolled, including 589 patients (14.2%) with hemorrhagic stroke and 3 558 patients (85.8%) with ischemic stroke. A total of 750 patients (18.1%) were admitted to the hospital by EMS. The proportion of patients with hemorrhagic stroke who used EMS was higher than that of ischemic stroke (33.4% vs 15.5%, P<0.01). The median onset-to-foor time in the EMS group was less than that in the non-EMS group (1.75 h vs 4.57 h, P<0.01). The median time of onset-to-door time within 1 h in the EMS group was longer than that of the non-EMS group (0.67 h vs 0.53 h, P<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in 1-<2 h period and 2-<3 h period. The median time of onset-to-door time of ≥3 h in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group (5.0 h vs 9.47 h, P<0.01). In the EMS group, the proportion of patients with onset-to-door time <3 h was higher than that of the non-EMS group (66.13% vs 57.44%, P<0.01). Compared with the non-EMS group, the time of door-to-treatment time was much shorter in the EMS group (87 min vs 101 min, P<0.01). The length of hospital stay in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group [11 (7,14) days vs 12 (6,16) days, P<0.01]. In the EMS group, 15.9% patients received thrombolytic therapy, whereas only 11.0% patients in the non-EMS group received this therapy (P=0.001). In the EMS group, 88.8% patients achieved more favorable outcomes at discharge, which was higher than that in the non-EMS group (85.5%, P=0.02). Conclusions EMS is considered as effective in shortening onset-to-door time, reducing door-to-treatment time, improving thrombolytic rate, reducing hospitalization days, and enhancing the prognosis of acute stroke patients.