為了探討緊急(119)救護車使用的城鄉差異，我們回溯性的收集臺南縣市從1993年 10 月至 1994 年 9 月一年期間總共 15,808 次的緊急救護車出勤案件。在臺南地區，車禍 佔出勤最大的比例臺南市 54.9%， 臺南縣 57%)。 出勤反應時間臺南市有82.8%、臺南縣有 84.8%在接案後 8 分鐘內到達現場， 而在 10 分鐘內到達現場則市、縣分別為 92% 及 91.4 %。臺南市比臺南縣有較長的救護車現場停留時間(3.9±3.7vs.3.1±3.6分鐘,p<0.05)、較 短的出勤運送時間 (15.5 ± 7.3vs.26.1 ± 16.2 分鐘,p<0.05)、 而且有較高的使用(率每 天每萬人口 0.34 比 0.19 次); 以及較高的出勤空跑率 (37.8% 比 23.3%)。 臺南市的救護 案件中有 94.7% 被送至責任醫院，而臺南縣只有 72.4% 被送至責任醫院。研究發現，在 城鄉之間的確存在著因一些資源及地理因素所造成的差異，這是在規劃設計各地區的緊急救 護計畫時應該考慮的。此外，發展建立一個廣泛、一致的緊急救護到院前資料收集系統對改 進臺灣緊急救護網的品質是極為重要的。(中華衛誌 199；16(2)：177-184)

　　　　　To investigate ambulance utilization in rural and urban districts, a retrospective analysis of total 15,808 emergency ambulance calls within the Tainan City and Tainan County from October 1993 to September 1994was performed. In both areas, traffic accident was the leading cause of ambulance calls (54.9% in city and 57.9% in county, respectively). The response time in emergency missions indicated that 82.8% of the calls in the city and 84.8% in the county were within eight minutes；92.0% calls in the city and 91.4% calls in the county were within ten minutes, respectively. In scene stay time was longer in the urban region than in the rural region (3.93.7vs3.13.6minutes,p<0.05). Total transport time was shorter in urban region than in rural region (15.57.3vs.26.116.2minutes,p<0.05). Ambulance utilization was higher in the urban region than in the rural region (0.34vs. 0.19transport per 10,000population per day). Non-transport rate was higher in the urban region than in the rural region (37.8%vs.23.3%).In the city,94.7% of the transports were sent to the receiving hospital, however, only 72.4%transports in the county were sent to the receiving hostital. The study indicates that there were differences between urban and rural areas due to resource and geographic factors. Such difference must be considered while planning for regional emergency medical service (EMS). In addition, developing largescaled and standard EMS data collection system is mandatory for improving the quality EMs in Taiwan.(Chin J Public Health.(Taipei)：1997；16(2)：177-184)