Towards Trustworthy AI-Enabled Emergency Medical Dispatch: Uncertainty-Aware Ambulance Travel Time Estimation
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Media Technology, Malmö University, 21119 Malmö, Sweden · Sustainable Digitalisation Research Centre, Malmö University, Sweden · Department of Health Care Management, Region Skåne, 21428 Malmö, Sweden · Department of Neurology, Lund University, 22242 Malmö, Sweden
Abstract
Emergency medical dispatch increasingly relies on AI-enabled decision support systems when making ambulance dispatch decisions. In this process, accurate ambulance travel time estimates are essential for timely resource allocation and prehospital care. However, existing ambulance travel time estimation approaches typically produce only single point predictions. Consequently, they do not indicate how reliable an individual estimate is or how much uncertainty it carries. This limitation is particularly problematic in safety-critical emergency medical service dispatch operations, where trips with similar expected travel times may exhibit substantially different levels of uncertainty. Furthermore, real-world ambulance trip logs may contain domain-specific artefacts, such as co-located healthcare facilities and physically implausible travel speeds. These artefacts can degrade point prediction accuracy and affect the prediction task on which subsequent uncertainty estimation depends. To address these challenges, we propose an uncertainty-aware methodology for ambulance travel time estimation and evaluate it through a retrospective real-world scenario study using two years of ambulance trip data from the Skåne region in Sweden. The proposed methodology moves beyond average-case point predictions by generating context-adaptive prediction intervals with stable empirical coverage across the evaluated operationally important contexts. The resulting prediction intervals provide explicit information about predictive uncertainty that can support more transparent and risk-sensitive ambulance dispatch decision-making.
Figures & tables
| Priority | Mean (min) | Std. Dev. (min) | CV | Trips |
| Priority 1 (Emergency) | 29.79 | 13.84 | 0.465 | 2,345 |
| Priority 2 (Urgent) | 35.24 | 15.47 | 0.439 | 3,972 |
| Priority 3 (Routine) | 39.51 | 18.07 | 0.457 | 14,421 |
| Context | Coverage |
| All trips (average case) | 96.5% |
| Morning peak (09:00) | 94.4% |
| Rare routes (6–20 trips) | 69.9% |
| Very rare routes (1–5 trips) | 44.2% |
| Task formulation | MAPE (%) | MAE (min) | RMSE (min) | |
| Operationally naive (baseline) | 12.47 | 4.83 | 10.86 | 0.62 |
| Spatially disambiguated | 12.90 | 4.65 | 10.65 | 0.65 |
| Operationally valid | 10.35 | 4.42 | 9.12 | 0.74 |
| Model | MAPE (%) | MAE (min) | RMSE (min) | |
| Polynomial Linear Regression | 21.11 | 8.01 | 12.97 | 0.48 |
| Random Forest | 13.54 | 5.36 | 10.38 | 0.67 |
| CatBoost one-hot | 10.37 | 4.45 | 9.57 | 0.72 |
| CatBoost native | 10.36 | 4.44 | 9.42 | 0.73 |
| ANN | 10.35 | 4.42 | 9.12 | 0.74 |
| Method | Coverage (%) | Mean width (min) | Median width (min) | |
| Baselines | Gaussian ( ) | 93.2 | 24.7 | 24.7 |
| Quantile regression (uncalibrated) | 89.7 | 20.4 | 19.3 | |
| Conformal | Global split conformal | 89.1 | 17.6 | 17.6 |
| CQR | 90.5 | 20.8 | 19.8 | |
| Mondrian (priority-stratified) | 89.0 | 17.6 | 18.0 |
Healthcare
Healthcare AI develops and evaluates models and systems for clinical care, medical research, public health, and healthcare operations.
See all 621 papers