Factors Associated with the Use of Helicopter Inter-facility Transport of Trauma Patients to Tertiary Trauma Centers within an Organized Rural Trauma System

Objective: A review of the literature yielded little information regarding factors associated with the decision to use ground (GEMS) or helicopter (HEMS) emergency medical services for trauma patients transferred inter-facility. Furthermore, studies evaluating the impact of inter-facility transport mode on mortality have reported mixed findings. Since HEMS transport is generally reserved for more severely injured patients, this introduces indication bias, which may explain the mixed findings. Our objective was to identify factors at referring non-tertiary trauma centers (NTC) influencing transport mode decision. Methods: This was a case-control study of trauma patients transferred from a Level III or IV NTC to a tertiary trauma center (TTC) within 24-hours reported to the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2005 and 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine clinical and non-clinical factors associated with the decision to use HEMS. Results: A total of 7380 patients met the study eligibility. Of these, 2803(38%) were transported inter-facility by HEMS. Penetrating injury, prehospital EMS transport, severe torso injury, hypovolemic shock, and TBI were significant predictors (p<0.05) of HEMS use regardless of distance to a TTC. Association between HEMS use and male gender, Level IV NTC, and local ground EMS resources varied by distance from the TTC. Many HEMS transported patients had minor injuries and normal vital signs. Conclusions: Our results suggest that while distance remains the most influential factor associated with HEMS use, significant differences exist in clinical and non-clinical factors between patients transported by HEMS versus GEMS. To ensure comparability of study groups, studies evaluating outcome differences between HEMS and GEMS should take factors determining transport mode into account. The findings will be used to develop propensity scores to balance baseline risk between GEMS and HEMS patients for use in subsequent studies of outcomes.     

An Evidence-based Guideline for Prehospital Analgesia in Trauma

Abstract

Background. The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols. Objective. To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council. Results. Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales. Conclusion. GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.     

The Development of Evidence-based Prehospital Guidelines Using a GRADE-based Methodology

Abstract

Background. The burgeoning literature in prehospital care creates an opportunity to improve care through evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Previously, an established process for the creation of such guidelines and adoption and implementation at the local level was lacking. This has led to great variability in the content of prehospital protocols in different jurisdictions across the globe. Recently the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS) and the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC) approved a National Prehospital Evidence-based Guideline Model Process for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EBGs. The Model Process recommends the use of established guideline development tools such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Objective. To describe the process of development of three prehospital EBGs using the National Prehospital EBG Model Process (EBG Model Process) and the GRADE EBG development tool. Methods. We conducted three unique iterations of the EBG Model Process utilizing the GRADE EBG development tool. The process involved 6 distinct and essential steps, including 1) assembling the expert panel and providing GRADE training; 2) defining the evidence-based guideline (EBG) content area and establishing the specific clinical questions to address in patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format; 3) prioritizing outcomes to facilitate systematic literature searches; 4) creating GRADE tables, or evidence profiles, for each PICO question; 5) vetting and endorsing GRADE evidence tables and drafting recommendations; and 6) synthesizing recommendations into an EMS protocol and visual algorithm. Feedback and suggestions for improvement were solicited from participants and relevant stakeholders in the process. Results. We successfully used the process to create three separate prehospital evidence-based guidelines, formatted into decision tree algorithms with levels of evidence and graded recommendations assigned to each decision point. However, the process revealed itself to be resource intensive, and most of the suggestions for improvement would require even more resource utilization. Conclusions. The National Prehospital EBG Model Process can be used to create credible, transparent, and usable prehospital evidence-based guidelines. We suggest that a centralized or regionalized approach be used to create and maintain a full set of prehospital EBGs as a means of optimizing resource use.     

Association Between Mode of Transportation and Outcomes in Penetrating Trauma Across Different Prehospital Time Intervals: A Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundNational guidelines do not provide recommendations concerning optimal dispatch time for helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in the United States.ObjectivesThis study describes the association between mode of transport (ground vs. helicopter) and survival of patients with penetrating injury across different prehospital time intervals and proposes evidence-based time-related dispatch criteria for HEMS.MethodsA retrospective matched cohort study was conducted using the 2015 National Trauma Data Bank. Adult patients (age ≥ 16 years) with penetrating injuries were included. Patients transported via HEMS were selected and matched (1 to 1) for 17 variables to patients transported by ground ambulance (GEMS). Bivariate analyses were conducted to compare characteristics and outcomes (survival to hospital discharge) of patients across different prehospital time intervals.ResultsEach group consisted of 949 patients. Overall survival rate was similar in both groups (90.6% for HEMS vs. 87.9% for GEMS, p = 0.054). Patients transported by HEMS had significantly higher survival compared with those transported by GEMS (92.5% for HEMS vs. 87.0% for GEMS, p = 0.002) in the 0–60-min time interval from dispatch to arrival to hospital, and more specifically, in the 31–60-min interval (92.2% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.001). No difference in survival between the two groups was observed in the shortest (0–30 min) or in the extended prehospital time intervals (>60 min).ConclusionIn adult patients with penetrating trauma, HEMS transport was associated with improved survival in a specific total prehospital time interval (31 to 60 min). This finding can help emergency medicine service administrators develop evidence-based HEMS dispatch criteria.     

Comparison of physician-staffed helicopter with ground-based emergency medical services for trauma patients

IntroductionFew studies have discussed whether physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) provide temporal and geographical benefits for patients in remote locations compared to ground emergency medical services (GEMS). Our study seeks to clarify the significance of HEMS for patients with severe trauma by comparing the mortality of patients transported directly from crash scenes by HEMS or GEMS, taking geographical factors into account.MethodsUsing medical records from a single center, collected from January 2014 to December 2018, we retrospectively identified 1674 trauma patients. Using propensity score analysis, we selected adult patients with an injury severity score ≥16, divided them into groups depending on their transport to the hospital by HEMS or GEMS, and compared their mortality within 24 h of hospitalization. For propensity score-matched groups, we analyzed distance and time.ResultsOf the 317 eligible patients, 202 were transported by HEMS. In the propensity score matching analysis, there was no significant difference in mortality between the HEMS and GEMS groups: 8.7% vs. 5.8%, odds ratio (OR), 1.547 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.530–4.514). The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW): 11% vs. 7.8%, OR, 1.080 (95% CI, 0.640–1.823); stabilized IPTW: 11% vs. 7.8%, OR, 1.080 (95% CI, 0.502–2.324); and truncated IPTW: 10% vs. 6.4%, OR, 1.143 (95% CI, 0.654–1.997). The distance from the crash scene to the hospital was farther in the HEMS group, and it took a longer period of time to arrive at the hospital (P < 0.001).ConclusionsHEMS may provide equal treatment opportunities and minimize trauma deaths for patients transported from a greater distance to an emergency medical center compared to GEMS for patients transported from nearby regions.     

Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients

Introduction

Physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a well-established component of prehospital trauma care in Germany. Reduced rescue times and increased catchment area represent presumable specific advantages of HEMS. In contrast, the availability of HEMS is connected to a high financial burden and depends on the weather, day time and controlled visual flight rules. To date, clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of HEMS in terms of improved clinical outcome has remained elusive.

Methods

Traumatized patients (Injury Severity Score; ISS ≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2007 and 2009 were analyzed using the TraumaRegister DGU^® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. Only patients treated in German level I and II trauma centers with complete data referring to the transportation mode were included. Complications during hospital treatment included sepsis and organ failure according to the criteria of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) consensus conference committee and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.

Results

A total of 13,220 patients with traumatic injuries were included in the present study. Of these, 62.3% (n = 8,231) were transported by GEMS and 37.7% (n = 4,989) by HEMS. Patients treated by HEMS were more seriously injured compared to GEMS (ISS 26.0 vs. 23.7, P < 0.001) with more severe chest and abdominal injuries. The extent of medical treatment on-scene, which involved intubation, chest and treatment with vasopressors, was more extensive in HEMS (P < 0.001) resulting in prolonged on-scene time (39.5 vs. 28.9 minutes, P < 0.001). During their clinical course, HEMS patients more frequently developed multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (HEMS: 33.4% vs. GEMS: 25.0%; P < 0.001) and sepsis (HEMS: 8.9% vs. GEMS: 6.6%, P < 0.001) resulting in an increased length of ICU treatment and in-hospital time (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that after adjustment by 11 other variables the odds ratio for mortality in HEMS was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.636 to 862).Afterwards, a subgroup analysis was performed on patients transported to level I trauma centers during daytime with the intent of investigating a possible correlation between the level of the treating trauma center and posttraumatic outcome. According to this analysis, the Standardized Mortality Ratio, SMR, was significantly decreased following the Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method (HEMS: 0.647 vs. GEMS: 0.815; P = 0.002) as well as the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score (HEMS: 0.772 vs. GEMS: 0.864; P = 0.045) in the HEMS group.

Conclusions

Although HEMS patients were more seriously injured and had a significantly higher incidence of MODS and sepsis, these patients demonstrated a survival benefit compared to GEMS.     

Effects of mode and time of EMS transport on the rate and distribution of dead on arrival among trauma population transported to ACSCOT-verified trauma centers in the United States

BackgroundUnintentional injury remains the leading cause of death for adults worldwide. We aimed to investigate the rates and distribution of dead on arrival (DOA) patients according to emergency medical services (EMS) mode of transport (MoT), EMS transport time (TT), injury severity score (ISS), and type of injury.MethodsThis retrospective study utilized de-identified incident-based data from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File (ACS-TQIP PUF) dataset (2013–2018) to study Adult DOA patients. DOA was defined according to the data point, “arrived with no signs of life and did not recover”. Patients with unknown vitals and patients with no EMS vitals at the scene (HR = 0, RR = 0, and SBP = 0) were excluded to identify DOAs who died during transport. The DOAs included for analysis were sorted into three groups based on injury severity score [low (ISS < 15), intermediate (ISS = 15–24), and severe (ISS ≥ 25)] and subdivided according to injury type (blunt vs. penetrating), EMS Mode of transport and transport times. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.ResultsThe majority of the evaluated 6030 adult DOA patients were male (73.3%) and 18–64 years of age (79.6%). Most patients sustained blunt injuries (58.2%), and the most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Patients who traveled by helicopter EMS (HEMS) experienced less deaths than those traveling by ground EMS (GEMS) despite transporting more severely injured patients over longer time intervals. Median HEMS TTs were greater than their GEMS counterparts for blunt and penetrating injuries across all ISS groups but were associated with fewer deaths.ConclusionHelicopter emergency medical service use with intermediate and severely injured patients with penetrating injuries is associated with a reduced number of DOAs. Future studies should prospectively investigate EMS performance to confirm the findings identified in this retrospective analysis. Additionally, other factors affecting pre-hospital EMS performance (e.g., geographic variations, weather-related characteristics, in-flight interventions/procedures) should be investigated. Finally, the results of this study highlight the need for standardized HEMS utilization triage criteria.     

National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guidelines Strategy: A Summary for EMS Stakeholders

Multiple national organizations have recommended and supported a national investment to increase the scientific evidence available to guide patient care delivered by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and incorporate that evidence directly into EMS systems. Ongoing efforts seek to develop, implement, and evaluate prehospital evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) using the National Model Process created by a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened by the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) and the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC). Yet, these and other EBG efforts have occurred in relative isolation, with limited direct collaboration between national projects, and have experienced challenges in implementation of individual guidelines. There is a need to develop sustainable relationships among stakeholders that facilitate a common vision that facilitates EBG efforts. Herein, we summarize a National Strategy on EBGs developed by the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) with involvement of 57 stakeholder organizations, and with the financial support of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the EMS for Children program. The Strategy proposes seven action items that support collaborative efforts in advancing prehospital EBGs. The first proposed action is creation of a Prehospital Guidelines Consortium (PGC) representing national medical and EMS organizations that have an interest in prehospital EBGs and their benefits to patient outcomes. Other action items include promoting research that supports creation and evaluates the impact of EBGs, promoting the development of new EBGs through improved stakeholder collaboration, and improving education on evidence-based medicine for all prehospital providers. The Strategy intends to facilitate implementation of EBGs by improving guideline dissemination and incorporation into protocols, and seeks to establish standardized evaluation methods for prehospital EBGs. Finally, the Strategy proposes that key stakeholder organizations financially support the Prehospital Guidelines Consortium as a means of implementing the Strategy, while together promoting additional funding for continued EBG efforts.     

Scene Transport of Pediatric Patients Injured at Winter Resorts

Objective. To examine the characteristics of pediatric patients (age ≤16 years) injured at winter resort scenes andtransported by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) or ground EMS (GEMS) ambulance services to regional trauma centers. Methods. Between 1997 and2001, a total of 119 patients (GEMS = 69; HEMS = 50) were identified from trauma registries andHEMS transport records. Demographic data, initial vital signs, hospital interventions, anddischarge status of the two groups were examined. Results. The distributions of gender, initial vital signs, Injury Severity Score (ISS; either ≤ or > 15), intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), total hospital LOS, andhome discharge status were similar between the two groups (p ≥ 0.05). Patients transported by HEMS were older (14 ± 2 vs. 10 ± 4, p < 0.001), less likely to be admitted to the hospital (73% vs. 98.5%; p < 0.001), andmore likely to have multiple injuries [13 (27%) vs. 8 (11.6%), p ≤ 0.032]. The GEMS patients had a higher rate of isolated extremity [33 (80.5%) vs. 8 (19.5%)] andthoracoabdominal [11 (73.3%) vs. 4 (26.7%)] injuries. The high orthopedic injury rate in the GEMS patients contributed to a higher rate of surgery in this group (45% vs. 24%, p ≤ 0.028). Regardless of transport mode, patients requiring immediate interventions (intubation, chest tube placement, or blood product administration) had either a depressed level of consciousness (GCS = 12) on emergency department arrival or thoracoabdominal injuries. No deaths were recorded. Conclusions. Patients transported by HEMS andGEMS had similar hospital characteristics but different injury patterns. A prospective study examining the initial triage of pediatric patients injured at winter resorts would help to determine which subset of patients are best served by HEMS transport.     

Comparison of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Transport Types and Delays on Patient Outcomes at Two Level I Trauma Centers

Background: Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have become an engrained component of trauma systems. In Ontario, transportation for trauma patients is through one of three ways: scene call, modified scene call, or interfacility transfer. We hypothesize that differences exist between these types of transports in both patient demographics and patient outcomes. This study compares the characteristics of patients transported by each of these methods to two level 1 trauma centers and assesses for any impact on morbidity or mortality. As a secondary outcome reasons for delay were identified. Methods: A local trauma registry was used to identify and abstract data for all patients transported to two trauma centers by HEMS over a 36-month period. Further chart abstraction using the HEMS patient care reports was done to identify causes of delay during HEMS transport. Results: During the study period HEMS transferred a total of 911 patients of which 139 were scene calls, 333 were modified scene calls and 439 were interfacility transfers. Scene calls had more patients with an ISS of less than 15 and had more patients discharged home from the ED. Modified scene calls had more patients with an ISS greater than 25. The most common delays that were considered modifiable included the sending physician doing a procedure, waiting to meet a land EMS crew, delays for diagnostic imaging and confirming disposition or destination. Conclusions: Differences exist between the types of transports done by HEMS for trauma patients. Many identified reasons for delay to HEMS transport are modifiable and have practical solutions. Future research should focus on solutions to identified delays to HEMS transport.     

Challenges in Statewide Implementation of a Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline: An Assessment of Barriers and Enablers in Five States

Background: Individual states, regions, and local emergency medical service (EMS) agencies are responsible for the development and implementation of prehospital patient care protocols. Many states lack model prehospital guidelines for managing common conditions. Recently developed national evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) may address this gap. Barriers to statewide dissemination and implementation of model guidelines have not been studied. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and enablers to dissemination and implementation of an evidence-based guideline for traumatic pain management across 5 states. Methods: This study used mixed methods to evaluate the statewide dissemination and implementation of a prehospital EBG. The guideline provided pain assessment tools, recommended opiate medication dosing, and indications and contraindications for analgesia. Participating states were provided an implementation toolkit, standardized training materials, and a state-specific implementation plan. Outcomes were assessed via an electronic self-assessment tool in which states reported barriers and enablers to dissemination and implementation and information about changes in pain management practices in their states after implementation of the EBG. Results: Of the 5 participating states, 3 reported dissemination of the guideline, one through a state model guideline process and 2 through regional EMS systems. Two states did not disseminate or implement the guideline. Of these, one state chose to utilize a locally developed guideline, and the other state did not perform guideline dissemination at the state level. Barriers to state implementation were the lack of authority at the state level to mandate protocols, technical challenges with learning management systems, and inability to track and monitor training and implementation at the agency level. Enablers included having a state/regional EMS office champion and the availability of an implementation toolkit. No participating states demonstrated an increase in opioid delivery to patients during the study period. Conclusion: Statewide dissemination and implementation of an EBG is complex with many challenges. Future efforts should consider the advantages of having statewide model or mandatory guidelines and the value of local champions and be aware of the challenges of a statewide learning management system and of tracking the success of implementation efforts.     

The helicopter as a caring context: Experiences of people suffering trauma

IntroductionWhen emergency medical services (EMS) are needed, the choice of transport depends on several factors. These may include the patient’s medical condition, transport accessibility to the accident site and the receiving hospital’s resources. Emergency care research is advancing, but little is known about the patient’s perspective of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS).AimThe aim of this study was to describe trauma patients’ experiences of HEMS.MethodThirteen persons (ages 21–76) were interviewed using an interview guide. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.FindingsThe analysis resulted in three themes: Being distraught and dazed by the event – patients experienced shock and tension, as well as feelings of curiosity and excitement. Being comforted by the caregivers – as the caregivers were present and attentive, they had no need for relatives in the helicopter. Being safe in a restricted environment – the participants’ injuries were taken seriously and the caregivers displayed effective teamwork.ConclusionFor trauma patients to be taken seriously and treated as ‘worst cases’ enables them to trust their caregivers and ‘hand themselves over’ to their care. HEMS provide additional advantageous circumstances, such as being the sole patient and having proximity to a small, professional team.     

Appropriate and Safe Utilization of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Joint Position Statement with Resource Document

Abstract

This position statement with accompanying resource document is the result of a collaborative effort of a writing group comprised of members of the Air Medical Physician Association (AMPA), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM). This document has been jointly approved by the boards of all four organizations.

Patients benefit from the appropriate utilization of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). EMS and regional health care systems must have and follow guidelines for HEMS utilization to facilitate proper patient selection and ensure clinical benefit. Clinical benefit can be provided by

• Meaningfully shortening the time to delivery of definitive care to patients with time-sensitive medical conditions

• Providing necessary specialized medical expertise or equipment to patients before and/or during transport

• Providing transport to patients inaccessible by other means of transport

The decision to use HEMS is a medical decision, separate from the aviation determination whether a transport can be completed safely.

• Physicians with specialized training and experience in EMS and air medical transport must be integral to HEMS utilization decisions, including guideline development and quality improvement activities.

• Safety management systems must be developed, adopted, and adhered to by air medical operators when making decisions to accept and continue every HEMS transport.

HEMS must be fully integrated within the local, regional, and state emergency health care systems.

• HEMS programs cannot operate independently of the surrounding health care environment.

• The EMS and health care systems must be involved in the determination of the number of HEMS assets necessary to provide appropriate coverage for their region. Excessive resources may lead to competitive practices that can affect utilization and negatively impact safety. Inadequate resources will delay receipt of definitive care.

National guidelines for appropriate utilization of HEMS must be developed. These guidelines should be national in scope yet allow local, regional, and state implementation.

A National HEMS Agenda for the Future should be developed to address HEMS utilization and availability and to identify and support a research strategy for ongoing, evidence-based refinement of utilization guidelines.     

An Evidence-based Guideline for Pediatric Prehospital Seizure Management Using GRADE Methodology

Abstract

Objective. The objective of this guideline is to recommend evidence-based practices for timely prehospital pediatric seizure cessation while avoiding respiratory depression and seizure recurrence. Methods. A multidisciplinary panel was chosen based on expertise in pediatric emergency medicine, prehospital medicine, and/or evidence-based guideline development. The panel followed the National Prehospital EBG Model using the GRADE methodology to formulate questions, retrieve evidence, appraise the evidence, and formulate recommendations. The panel members initially searched the literature in 2009 and updated their searches in 2012. The panel finalized a draft of a patient care algorithm in 2012 that was presented to stakeholder organizations to gather feedback for necessary revisions. Results. Five strong and ten weak recommendations emerged from the process; all but one was supported by low or very low quality evidence. The panel sought to ensure that the recommendations promoted timely seizure cessation while avoiding respiratory depression and seizure recurrence. The panel recommended that all patients in an active seizure have capillary blood glucose checked and be treated with intravenous (IV) dextrose or intramuscular (IM) glucagon if <60 mg/dL (3 mmol/L). The panel also recommended that non-IV routes (buccal, IM, or intranasal) of benzodiazepines (0.2 mg/kg) be used as first-line therapy for status epilepticus, rather than the rectal route. Conclusions. Using GRADE methodology, we have developed a pediatric seizure guideline that emphasizes the role of capillary blood glucometry and the use of buccal, IM, or intranasal benzodiazepines over IV or rectal routes. Future research is needed to compare the effectiveness and safety of these medication routes.     

The impact of helicopter emergency medical service on acute ischemic stroke patients: A systematic review

BackgroundHelicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is commonly elected transport for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) known as a time-critical illness.AimTo conduct a systematic review in order to explore the HEMS impact on healthcare status, process and outcome measures for AIS patients.MethodsA systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The gray literature and reference lists of included articles were also searched. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria.ResultsUsing Donabedian's framework, two studies focused on the impact on healthcare structure, twenty-three explored the impact on process measures, and five focused on clinical outcomes. HEMS structure implications could not be assessed due to insufficient studies. HEMS showed no significant outcome benefit compared to ground emergency medical services (EMS) and the impact on process measures was ambiguous.ConclusionsHEMS necessity varied considerably between studies. More robust studies are needed for detection of the most suitable use of HEMS in AIS.     

P REDICTED U TILIZATION OF E MERGENCY M EDICAL S ERVICES T ELEMEDICINE IN D ECREASING A MBULANCE T RANSPORTS

Objective. To determine predicted utilization, decrease in ambulance transports, and target population for emergency medical services (EMS) if telemedicine capabilities were available to the medic units in the field. Methods. A retrospective chart review of 345 consecutive ambulance transports to four hospitals (Level I urban trauma center, urban tertiary care center, children's hospital, and suburban community hospital) was performed by a panel of three board-certified emergency medicine physicians experienced and credentialed in emergency telemedicine. They independently reviewed the emergency department (ED) and EMS records and were asked to determine whether patients required ambulance transport for evaluation or whether disposition could be made following paramedic and emergency physician assessment via telemedicine. A five-point Likert scale was used to grade feasibility of telemedicine disposition (definitely yes, probably yes, maybe, probably no, definitely no). Other variables analyzed included age, sex, race, chief complaint, phone, private medical doctor, and call location by patient zip code, call site, and receiving hospital. Results. In 14.7% of cases (6% definitely yes and 8.7% probably yes), disposition could be made without transport using telemedicine. The age range for eliminating transport was 2 weeks through 92 years, with mean age of 26.6 years. Under the age of 50 years, 46 out of 238 patients (19.3%) could have possibly been managed by telemedicine. Conclusion. Use of EMS telemedicine could result in an approximately 15% decrease in ambulance transports when it alone is added to the prehospital care provider's armamentarium. Emphasis for implementation should be placed on younger patients and an identified subset of chief complaints conducive to management using telemedicine.     

The Implementation and Evaluation of an Evidence-based Statewide Prehospital Pain Management Protocol Developed using the National Prehospital Evidence-based Guideline Model Process for Emergency Medical Services

Abstract

Background. In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funded the development of a model process for the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for emergency medical services (EMS). We report on the implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based prehospital pain management protocol developed using this model process. Methods. An evidence-based protocol for prehospital management of pain resulting from injuries and burns was reviewed by the Protocol Review Committee (PRC) of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems (MIEMSS). The PRC recommended revisions to the Maryland protocol that reflected recommendations in the EBG: weight-based dosing and repeat dosing of morphine. A training curriculum was developed and implemented using Maryland's online Learning Management System and successfully accessed by 3,941 paramedics and 15,969 BLS providers. Field providers submitted electronic patient care reports to the MIEMSS statewide prehospital database. Inclusion criteria were injured or burned patients transported by Maryland ambulances to Maryland hospitals whose electronic patient care records included data for level of EMS provider training during a 12-month preimplementation period and a 12-month postimplementation period from September 2010 through March 2012. We compared the percentage of patients receiving pain scale assessments and morphine, as well as the dose of morphine administered and the use of naloxone as a rescue medication for opiate use, before and after the protocol change. Results. No differences were seen in the percentage of patients who had a pain score documented or the percent of patients receiving morphine before and after the protocol change, but there was a significant increase in the total dose and dose in mg/kg administered per patient. During the postintervention phase, patients received an 18% higher total morphine dose and a 14.9% greater mg/kg dose. Conclusions. We demonstrated that the implementation of a revised statewide prehospital pain management protocol based on an EBG developed using the National Prehospital Evidence-based Guideline Model Process was associated with an increase in dosing of narcotic pain medication consistent with that recommended by the EBG. No differences were seen in the percentage of patients receiving opiate analgesia or in the documentation of pain scores.     

Medical Direction for Operational Emergency Medical Services Programs

Abstract

This is the official position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Officials on medical direction for operational emergency medical services (EMS) programs.