Article

Impact of discontinuing a hospital-based air ambulance service on trauma patient outcomes.

Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-1172, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 04/2002; 52(3):486-91. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-200203000-00012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The clinical benefit of aeromedical transportation of injured patients in the civilian population has been debated. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of discontinuing a hospital-based helicopter transport program on trauma patient outcomes, with the hypothesis that the loss of an air ambulance would result in increased transport time and increased mortality among severely injured patients.
Data on injury severity and patient outcomes were collected prospectively for the 12 months immediately preceding and 24 months following discontinuation of the helicopter ambulance service. Transport time, mortality rate, and hospital length of stay was compared.
The number of trauma patient admissions decreased 12%, with a 17% decrease in admissions of severely injured patients. Transport time decreased, with no change in mortality.
Discontinuation of a hospital-based air ambulance service did not increase transport time or increase mortality for trauma patients.

0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Air ambulance transport for injured patients is vitally important given increasing patient volumes, the limited number of trauma centres and inadequate subspecialty coverage in nontrauma hospitals. Air ambulance services have been shown to improve patient outcomes compared with ground transport in select circumstances. Our primary goal was to compare injuries, interventions and outcomes in patients transported by helicopter versus nonhelicopter transport. We performed a retrospective 10-year review of 14 440 patients transported to an urban Level 1 trauma centre by helicopter or by other means. We compared injury severity, interventions and mortality between the groups. Patients transported by helicopter had higher median injury severity scores (ISS), regardless of penetrating or blunt injury, and were more likely to have Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 8, require airway control, receive blood transfusions and require admission to the intensive care unit or operating room than patients transported by other means. Helicopter transport was associated with reduced overall mortality (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.39). Patients transported by other methods were more likely to die in the emergency department. The mean ISS, regardless of transport method, rose from 12.3 to 15.1 (p = 0.011) during our study period. Patients transported by helicopter to an urban trauma centre were more severely injured, required more interventions and had improved survival than those arriving by other means of transport.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 02/2014; 57(1):49-54. DOI:10.1503/cjs.000113 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) transport is expensive, and previous work has shown that cost-effective use of this resource is dependent on the proportion of minor injuries flown. To understand how overtriage to helicopter EMS versus ground EMS can be reduced, it is important to understand factors associated with helicopter transport of patients with minor injuries.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 11/2014; 21(11):1232-1239. DOI:10.1111/acem.12512 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study represents a comparison of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) operations, between US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), and European Joint Aviation Regulations Operations Specifications. Presently, US regulations allow HEMS operators to conduct work under FAR Part 135, Commercial Aviation Operations, or under FAR Part 91, General Aviation Operations. This allows HEMS operators to accept a greater level of risk by substituting lower minimum procedural standards under FAR Part 91 than under FAR Part 135, and may be partly culpable for a higher rate of fatal crashes in HEMS operations conducted under FAR Part 91. In stark contrast, explicit criteria and minimum operating considerations are stated in the European regulations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been slow to take a similar clear and firm regulatory stance as that of its European counterpart regarding the human factors involved in the risk assessment of HEMS operations. Providing clearly defined steps to analyze and mitigate unnecessary threats, developing optimum performance guidelines, as well as minimum acceptable operational standards would benefit not only the US HEMS industry but also the patients and public it serves by reducing exposure to preventable dangers.