Background: Japan and South Korea, two advanced East Asian nations with universal health coverage and similar demographic challenges, have developed markedly different emergency medical services (EMS) systems. Despite growing interest in international benchmarking, structured, comparative studies that yield policy-relevant insights remain limited. Methods: We conducted a multisource comparative health-systems analysis using statutory laws, government publications, academic society reports, peer-reviewed literature, and national statistics. Key domains included EMS governance, workforce, prehospital organization, hospital-based emergency care, legal obligations for EMS patient transport and hospital acceptance, and governance and quality assurance mechanisms. Data were synthesized in comparative tables and narrative summaries to highlight structural and operational differences. Results: Japan’s EMS system operates under decentralized municipal control through 722 fire departments, serving 4,100 designated emergency institutions with 6,139 board-certified emergency physicians. In 2023, over 6.64 million ambulance dispatches occurred, and 8.6% were classified as critical cases (1.3% death and 7.3% severe). Korea’s EMS system is centrally governed with 412 designated facilities in a tiered system and 2,464 specialists. Annual ambulance activations exceeded 3.5 million, with severe cases accounting for approximately 5% to 10%. Japan employs a multilayered legal–institutional structure, primarily involving the Fire Service Act and the Medical Practitioners Act, allowing clinical discretion, whereas Korea enforces unified regulations with stricter obligations and criminal penalties for hospital refusal of emergency patients. Conclusion The contrasting systems suggest that hybrid governance that combines centralized standard settings with local operational flexibility may optimize EMS performance. These findings provide lessons for EMS reform, cross-border collaboration, and disaster preparedness in high-income nations facing similar demographic and healthcare challenges.

Purpose: There has been no report of sex-specific, pediatric age-adjusted shock index (PASI) for pediatric trauma patients in previous studies. We aimed to determine the association between the PASI and in-hospital mortality of pediatric trauma patients and whether this association differs depending on sex. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, multinational, and multicenter cohort study using the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcome Study (PATOS) registry in the Asia-Pacific region, conducted in pediatric patients who visited the participating hospitals. The main exposure of our study was abnormal (elevated) PASI measured in an emergency department. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. We performed a multivariable logistic regression analysis to estimate the association between abnormal PASI and study outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders. An interaction analysis between PASI and sex was also conducted. Results: Of 6280 pediatric trauma patients, 10.9% (686) of the patients had abnormal PASI. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, abnormal PASI was significantly associated with increased in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–2.47]. Abnormal PASI had interaction effects with sex for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.19–2.91 and aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.58–2.99 for male and female, respectively) (p<0.01). Conclusion Abnormal PASI is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in pediatric trauma patients. The prediction power of PASI for in-hospital mortality was maintained only in male patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the demographic characteristics and trauma service structures and processes of hospitals in 15 countries across the Asia Pacific, and to provide baseline data for the integrated trauma database: the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS).METHODS: Medical directors and emergency physicians at PATOS-participating hospitals in countries across the Asia Pacific were surveyed through a standardized questionnaire. General information, trauma care system data, and trauma emergency department (ED) outcomes at each hospital were collected by email and analyzed using descriptive statistics.RESULTS: Survey data from 35 hospitals across 15 countries were collected from archived data between June 2014 and July 2015. Designated trauma centers were identified as the highest hospital level for trauma patients in 70% of surveyed countries. Half of the hospitals surveyed had special teams for trauma care, and almost all prepared activation protocol documents for these teams. Most hospitals offered specialized trauma education programs, and 72.7% of hospitals had a hospital-based trauma registry. The total number of trauma patients visiting the ED across 25 of the hospitals was 300,376. The overall survival-to-discharge rate was 97.2%; however, it varied greatly between 85.1% and 99.7%. The difference between survival-to-discharge rates of moderate and severe injury groups was highest in Taiwan (41.8%) and lowest in Thailand (18.6%).CONCLUSION: Trauma care systems and ED outcomes vary widely among surveyed hospitals and countries. This information is useful to build further detailed, systematic platforms for trauma surveillance and evidence-based trauma care policies.
Asia ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Education ; Electronic Mail ; Emergencies ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Epidemiology ; Humans ; Physician Executives ; Taiwan ; Thailand ; Trauma Centers