Emergency medical kits on board commercial aircraft: a comparative study

First Aid and Basic Life Support Training in the Wilderness

INTRODUCTION

French Guiana is a French territory in South America covered by 90% of tropical forest. Despite regular first aid standards training, some of the workers in isolated areas remain untrained in common problems they may encounter. We present here the knowledge assessment of these workers concerning first aid and a new training program.

METHODS

Thirty-two workers operating in remote areas attended a 1-d training course. The program covered infectious diseases, wildlife envenomation, and first aid and basic life support with a wilderness medicine focus. Questionnaires were issued to assess their knowledge and satisfaction with the course.

RESULTS

The learners were 78% male and of intermediate age (26-55 y). The most common profession was forester (53%). Professionals had been working in remote areas for 12 (4-19) y, and 91% had already received first aid training. The common life-threatening emergencies were not well known; only 6 learners (19%) knew how to recognize a cardiac arrest, 7 (22%) recognized symptoms of severe anaphylaxis, and 23 (72%) performed maneuvers not recommended in cases of upper airway partial obstruction. A total of 26 learners (81%) completed the satisfaction questionnaire. The training met the learners' expectations. However, 92% would like further training, and 96% requested regular renewal.

CONCLUSIONS

This training was the first step toward the creation of a specialized wilderness first aid course. This work supports the need to reinforce training for nonmedical personnel by integrating regionally specific topics. This experience permitted the rise of a working group that proposed a medical kit as well as first aid protocols for workers in isolated areas.

Medical Events on Board Aircraft: Reducing Confusion and Misinterpretation in the Scientific Literature

INTRODUCTION: A topic in aviation medicine that attracts much attention from the scientific community as well as from the media concerns medical incidents on board commercial airline flights. It was noticed that many papers on the subject were written by authors whose specialization was outside that of aviation medicine and that they sometimes made basic errors concerning the application of scientific principles of the subject. A review was undertaken to determine if there were any patterns to the observed errors and, if so, to consider whether recommendations might be provided that could reduce their frequency.METHOD: A literature search was undertaken of MEDLINE using PubMed for English-only articles published between January 1, 1974, and February 1, 2019, employing the following search terms: air emergency, air emergencies, air passenger, air travel, aircraft, airline, aviation, commercial air, flight, and fitness to fly. In addition, other relevant papers held in the personal collection of the authors were reviewed.RESULTS: Many cases of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of aviation medicine were found, which could be classified into eight main categories: references; cabin altitude; pressure/volume relationship; other technical aspects of aircraft operations; regulations; medical events; in-flight deaths; and automated external defibrillator.CONCLUSION: Papers were identified as having questionable statements of fact or of emphasis. Such instances often appeared to result from authors being unfamiliar with the subject of aviation medicine and/or the commercial aviation environment. Simple steps could be taken by authors to reduce the future rate of such instances and recommendations are provided.Thibeault C, Evans AD. Medical events on board aircraft: reducing confusion and misinterpretation in the scientific literature. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(4):265273.

On-board emergency medical equipment of European airlines

BACKGROUND

Medical emergencies frequently occur in commercial airline flights, but valid data on causes and consequences are rare. Therefore, optimal extent of onboard emergency medical equipment remains largely unknown. Whereas a minimum standard is defined in regulations, additional material is not standardized and may vary significantly between airlines.

METHODS

European airlines operating aircrafts with at least 30 seats were selected and interviewed with a 5-page written questionnaire including 81 items. Besides pre-packed and required emergency medical material, drugs, medical devices, and equipment lists were queried. If no reply was received, airlines were contacted up to three times by email and/or phone. Descriptive analysis was used for data interpretation.

RESULTS

From a total of 305 European airlines, 253 were excluded from analysis (e.g., no passenger transport). 52 airlines were contacted and data of 22 airlines were available for analysis (one airline was excluded due to insufficient data). A first aid kit is available on all airlines. 82% of airlines (18/22) reported to have a "doctor's kit" (DK) or an "Emergency Medical Kit" (EMK) onboard. 86% of airlines (19/22) provide identical equipment in all aircraft of the fleet, and 65% (14/22) airlines provide an automated external defibrillator.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas minimal required material according to European aviation regulations is provided by all airlines for medical emergencies, there are significant differences in availability of the additional material. The equipment of most airlines is not sufficient for treatment of specific emergencies according to published in-flight medical guidelines (e.g., for CPR or acute myocardial infarction).

Are patients with cognitive impairment fit to fly? Current evidence and practical recommendations

BACKGROUND

The worldwide prevalence of dementia is increasing and represents a major public health concern. In the last decades, air travel services have undergone an impressive expansion and one of ten passengers is aged 65 years and older. While air travel can be stressful at all ages and health conditions, older individuals with cognitive impairment carry a greater risk for air-travel-related complications. Consequently, demands to general practitioners for assessing their older patient's fitness to fly are increasing.

METHODS

We conducted a search of the literature in PubMed on the impact of in-flight environmental changes on passengers with cognitive impairment and possible resulting complications. This set the base for a discussion on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions aimed at preventing in-flight complications in this vulnerable population.

RESULTS

While our research strategy identified a total of 11 articles related to older age and air travel, only three focused on passengers with cognitive impairment. Our literature review showed that the airplane environment may lead to a large spectrum of symptoms in passengers of all age groups. However, passengers with cognitive impairment due to neurodegenerative diseases are at increased risk for experiencing the most extreme symptoms such as acute confusional state. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions at different stages of the travel process (before, during and after) can help prevent complications in this vulnerable population.

CONCLUSION

The decision to let a patient with cognitive impairment fly requires a solid understanding of the in-flight environmental changes and their impact on older patients with cognitive impairment. Moreover, a sound weighing of the risks and benefits while considering different aspects of the patient's history is demanded. In this regard, the role of the treating physicians and caregivers is essential along with the support of the medical department of the airline.

Characterization of In-Flight Medical Events Involving Children on Commercial Airline Flights

STUDY OBJECTIVE

More than 4 billion passengers travel on commercial airline flights yearly. Although in-flight medical events involving adult passengers have been well characterized, data describing those affecting children are lacking. This study seeks to characterize pediatric in-flight medical events and their immediate outcomes, using a worldwide sample.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of all in-flight medical events from January 1, 2015, to October 31, 2016, involving children younger than 19 years treated in consultation with a ground-based medical support center providing medical support to 77 commercial airlines worldwide. We characterized these in-flight medical events and determined factors associated with the need for additional care at destination or aircraft diversion.

RESULTS

From a total of 75,587 in-flight medical events, we identified 11,719 (15.5%) involving children. Most in-flight medical events occurred on long-haul flights (76.1%), and 14% involved lap infants. In-flight care was generally provided by crew members only (88.6%), and physician (8.7%) or nurse (2.1%) passenger volunteers. Most in-flight medical events were resolved in flight (82.9%), whereas 16.5% required additional care on landing, and 0.5% led to aircraft diversion. The most common diagnostic categories were nausea or vomiting (33.9%), fever or chills (22.2%), and acute allergic reaction (5.5%). Events involving lap infants, syncope, seizures, burns, dyspnea, blunt trauma, lacerations, or congenital heart disease; those requiring the assistance of a volunteer medical provider; or those requiring the use of oxygen were positively correlated with the need for additional care after disembarkment.

CONCLUSION

Most pediatric in-flight medical events are resolved in flight, and very few lead to aircraft diversion, yet 1 in 6 cases requires additional care.

In-Flight Medical Emergencies: A Review

IMPORTANCE

In-flight medical emergencies (IMEs) are common and occur in a complex environment with limited medical resources. Health care personnel are often asked to assist affected passengers and the flight team, and many have limited experience in this environment.

OBSERVATIONS

In-flight medical emergencies are estimated to occur in approximately 1 per 604 flights, or 24 to 130 IMEs per 1 million passengers. These events happen in a unique environment, with airplane cabin pressurization equivalent to an altitude of 5000 to 8000 ft during flight, exposing patients to a low partial pressure of oxygen and low humidity. Minimum requirements for emergency medical kit equipment in the United States include an automated external defibrillator; equipment to obtain a basic assessment, hemorrhage control, and initiation of an intravenous line; and medications to treat basic conditions. Other countries have different minimum medical kit standards, and individual airlines have expanded the contents of their medical kit. The most common IMEs involve syncope or near-syncope (32.7%) and gastrointestinal (14.8%), respiratory (10.1%), and cardiovascular (7.0%) symptoms. Diversion of the aircraft from landing at the scheduled destination to a different airport because of a medical emergency occurs in an estimated 4.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%) of IMEs. Protections for medical volunteers who respond to IMEs in the United States include a Good Samaritan provision of the Aviation Medical Assistance Act and components of the Montreal Convention, although the duty to respond and legal protections vary across countries. Medical volunteers should identify their background and skills, perform an assessment, and report findings to ground-based medical support personnel through the flight crew. Ground-based recommendations ultimately guide interventions on board.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In-flight medical emergencies most commonly involve near-syncope and gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular symptoms. Health care professionals can assist during these emergencies as part of a collaborative team involving the flight crew and ground-based physicians.

In-flight cardiac arrest and in-flight cardiopulmonary resuscitation during commercial air travel: consensus statement and supplementary treatment guideline from the German Society of Aerospace Medicine (DGLRM)

By the end of the year 2016, approximately 3 billion people worldwide travelled by commercial air transport. Between 1 out of 14,000 and 1 out of 50,000 passengers will experience acute medical problems/emergencies during a flight (i.e., in-flight medical emergency). Cardiac arrest accounts for 0.3% of all in-flight medical emergencies. So far, no specific guideline exists for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrest (IFCA). A task force with clinical and investigational expertise in aviation, aviation medicine, and emergency medicine was created to develop a consensus based on scientific evidence and compiled a guideline for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrests. Using the GRADE, RAND, and DELPHI methods, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed. Specific recommendations have been developed for the treatment of IFCA. A total of 29 specific recommendations for the treatment and management of in-flight cardiac arrests were generated. The main recommendations included emergency equipments as well as communication of the emergency. Training of the crew is of utmost importance, and should ideally have a focus on CPR in aircraft. The decision for a diversion should be considered very carefully.

Travel medicine: Part 2-Special situations

Travel should be educational, fun, and safe if the appropriate care is rendered by counseling physicians and travelers take an active role in their health. In the second paper of the 2‐part special articles, we provide a practical summary of up‐to‐date travel medicine about special situations for primary care physicians. We focus on in‐flight emergencies, pregnancy, and specific precautions for injury and infectious disease as special situations. Physicians are frequently called upon to examine patients with in‐flight emergencies, and thus, they should have knowledge and skills for effectively caring patients. Common health problems over the flights include syncope, chest pain, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Cautious and prudent behaviors should be recommended for travelers to prevent injury and infectious disease. Follow‐up after the return home optimizes a positive outcome.

In-flight medical emergencies during airline operations: a survey of physicians on the incidence, nature, and available medical equipment

Background

Data on the incidence of in-flight medical emergencies on-board civil aircraft are uncommon and rarely published. Such data could provide information regarding required medical equipment on-board aircraft and requisite training for cabin crew. The aim of the present study was to gather data on the incidences, nature, and medical equipment for in-flight medical emergencies by way of a survey of physician members of a German aerospace medical society.

Materials and methods

Using unipark.de (QuestBack GmbH, Cologne, Germany), an online survey was developed and used to gather specific information. Members of the German Society for Aviation and Space Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrtmedizin e.V.; DGLRM) were invited to participate in the survey during a 4-week period (21 March 2015 to 20 April 2015). Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05 was considered significant).

Results

Altogether, 121 members of the society responded to the survey (n=335 sent out). Of the 121 respondents, n=54 (44.6%) of the participants (89.9% male and 10.1% female; mean age, 54.1 years; n=121) were involved in at least one in-flight medical emergency. Demographic parameters in this survey were in concordance with the society members’ demographics. The mean duration of flights was 5.7 hours and the respondents performed 7.1 airline flights per year (median). Cardiovascular (40.0%) and neurological disorders (17.8%) were the most frequent diagnoses. The medical equipment (78.7%) provided was sufficient. An emergency diversion was undertaken in 10.6% of the cases. Although using a different method of data acquisition, this survey confirms previous data on the nature of emergencies and gives plausible numbers.

Conclusion

Our data strongly argue for the establishment of a standardized database for recording the incidence and nature of in-flight medical emergencies. Such a database could inform on required medical equipment and cabin crew training.

Emergency medical equipment on board German airliners

BACKGROUND

Medical emergencies often occur on commercial airline flights, but valid data on their causes and consequences are rare. Therefore, it is unclear what emergency medical equipment is necessary. Although a minimum standard for medical equipment is defined in regulations, additional material is not standardized and may vary significantly between different airlines.

METHODS

German airlines operating aircrafts with more than 30 seats were selected and interviewed with a 5-page written questionnaire between August 2011 and January 2012. Besides pre-packed and required emergency medical material, drugs, medical devices, and equipment lists were queried. If no reply was received, airlines were contacted another three times by e-mail and/or phone. Descriptive analysis was used for data presentation and interpretation.

RESULT

From a total of 73 German airlines, 58 were excluded from analysis (eg, those not providing passenger transport). Fifteen airlines were contacted and data of 13 airlines were available for analysis (two airlines did not participate). A first aid kit was available on all airlines. Seven airlines reported having a doctor's kit, and another four provided an "emergency medical kit." Four airlines provided an automated external defibrillator (AED)/electrocardiogram (ECG). While six airlines reported providing anesthesia drugs, a laryngoscope, and endotracheal tubes, another four airlines did not provide even a resuscitator bag. One airline did not provide any material for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimal material required according to European aviation regulations is provided by all airlines for medical emergencies, there are significant differences in the provision of additional material. The equipment on most airlines is not sufficient for the treatment of specific emergencies according to published medical guidelines (eg, for CPR or acute myocardial infarction).

In-flight Medical Emergencies

Introduction:

Research and data regarding in-flight medical emergencies during commercial air travel are lacking. Although volunteer medical professionals are often called upon to assist, there are no guidelines or best practices to guide their actions. This paper reviews the literature quantifying and categorizing in-flight medical incidents, discusses the unique challenges posed by the in-flight environment, evaluates the legal aspects of volunteering to provide care, and suggests an approach to managing specific conditions at 30,000 feet.

Methods:

We conducted a MEDLINE search using search terms relevant to aviation medical emergencies and flight physiology. The reference lists of selected articles were reviewed to identify additional studies.

Results:

While incidence studies were limited by data availability, syncope, gastrointestinal upset, and respiratory complaints were among the most common medical events reported. Chest pain and cardiovascular events were commonly associated with flight diversion.

Conclusion:

When in-flight medical emergencies occur, volunteer physicians should have knowledge about the most common in-flight medical incidents, know what is available in on-board emergency medical kits, coordinate their therapy with the flight crew and remote resources, and provide care within their scope of practice.

Medical emergencies on board commercial airlines: is documentation as expected?

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to perform a descriptive, content-based analysis on the different forms of documentation for in-flight medical emergencies that are currently provided in the emergency medical kits on board commercial airlines.

Methods

Passenger airlines in the World Airline Directory were contacted between March and May 2011. For each participating airline, sample in-flight medical emergency documentation forms were obtained. All items in the sample documentation forms were subjected to a descriptive analysis and compared to a sample "medical incident report" form published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Results

A total of 1,318 airlines were contacted. Ten airlines agreed to participate in the study and provided a copy of their documentation forms. A descriptive analysis revealed a total of 199 different items, which were summarized into five sub-categories: non-medical data (63), signs and symptoms (68), diagnosis (26), treatment (22) and outcome (20).

Conclusions

The data in this study illustrate a large variation in the documentation of in-flight medical emergencies by different airlines. A higher degree of standardization is preferable to increase the data quality in epidemiologic aeromedical research in the future.