Trauma system resource preservation: A simple scene triage tool can reduce helicopter emergency medical services overutilization in a state trauma system

Comparison of Changes in Vital Signs During Ground and Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and Hospital Interventions

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have evaluated the effects of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) alone. This single-center study compared the changes in vital signs during ground emergency medical services (GEMS), HEMS, and hospital interventions to assess the impact of HEMS interventions.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included 168 trauma patients older than 18 years of age who received HEMS. Patients with cardiac arrest or those who received medical attention before HEMS were excluded. We assessed 3 intervention phases (GEMS, HEMS, and hospital). The changes in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and shock index in response to interventions were calculated and divided by the intervention time, and the changes observed during the interventions were compared.

RESULTS

No changes in vital signs were observed when receiving GEMS. Systolic blood pressure increased and shock index decreased after HEMS, whereas systolic blood pressure decreased and shock index increased during hospital interventions. Heart rate showed no significant change (P = .12), and respiratory rate showed very little change. Systolic blood pressure increased significantly during HEMS compared with the pre- and postintervention periods.

CONCLUSION

Changes in vital signs differed according to the intervention. Systolic blood pressure increased during HEMS but not with GEMS or hospital interventions.

Evaluation of statewide utilization of helicopter emergency medical services for interfacility transfer

BACKGROUND

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMSs) are used with increasing frequency for the transportation of injured patients from the scene and from treatment facilities to higher levels of care. Improved outcomes have been difficult to establish, and reports of overutilization and financial harm have been published. Our study was performed to evaluate statewide utilization for interfacility transfers (IFTs).

METHODS

Data from the North Carolina state trauma registry from 2013 to 2017 were evaluated and ground, and helicopter IFTs were compared.

RESULTS

Overall interfacility use of HEMSs peaked at 7,861 patient transports in 2016, and the percent of all IFTs fell from 17% to 13.3% over the study period. Helicopter emergency medical services patients were more likely to be male (69.8%) and younger (48.0 vs. 56.2 years), and have higher Injury Severity Scores (14.6 vs. 9.0) and higher mortality (10.5% vs. 2.8%) than ground emergency medical services (GEMSs) patients. When adjusted for age, sex, Injury Severity Score, and transport distance, HEMSs survival was significantly higher (odds ratio, 0.353; 95% CI, 0.308-0.404; p < 0.0001). Normal prehospital vital signs (VSs) and Glasgow Coma Scale score motor component (GCS-M) were associated with low mortality rates in both groups. Abnormal prehospital VSs and GCS-M were associated with an 11.8% mortality rate in HEMSs patients and 3.1% in GEMSs patients. Normal referring facility VSs and GCS-M did not confer similar protection with a mortality rate of 10.0% in HEMSs patients and 2.8% in GEMSs. Changes in prehospital to referring facility VSs did not demonstrate a low mortality group. Abbreviated Injury Scale and changes in VSs did not identify HEMSs transport benefit groups.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of HEMSs transfers fell over the study period and, while associated with a 10.5% mortality rate, had an outcome benefit compared with GEMSs. These patients could not be sorted into risk categories for transportation choice based on VSs or GCS-M derangement or by changes thereof, and opportunities for system improvement were not identified.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/epidemiological study, level III; Care Management, level IV.

Appropriate Air Medical Services Utilization and Recommendations for Integration of Air Medical Services Resources into the EMS System of Care: A Joint Position Statement and Resource Document of NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA

Air medical services involves providing medical care in transit while using either fixed wing (airplane) or rotor wing (helicopter) aircraft to move patients between locations. The modern use and availability of air medical services has expanded access to various health system resources, including specialty care. While this is generally beneficial, such expansion has also contributed to the complexity of health care delivery systems.(1, 2) Since the publication of the 2013 joint position statement Appropriate and Safe Utilization of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services,(3) research has shown that patient benefit is gained from the clinical care capabilities of air medical services independent of potential time saved when transporting patients.(4-6) Because the evidence basis for utilization of air medical services continues to evolve, NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA believe that an update regarding the appropriate utilization of air medical services is warranted, and that such guidance for utilization can be divided into three major categories: clinical considerations, safety considerations, and system integration and quality assurance considerations.

Predictors of Inappropriate Helicopter Transport

Background

Helicopter transport (HT) is an efficient, but costly, means for injured patients to receive life-saving, definitive trauma care. Identifying the characteristics of inappropriate HT presents an opportunity to improve the utilization of this finite medical resource.

Methods

Trauma registry records of all HT for a 3-year period (2016-2018) to an urban Level I trauma center were reviewed. HT was defined as inappropriate for patients who were discharged home from the emergency department or had a hospital length of stay <1 day, and who were discharged alive. Chi-square analysis and Student’s t-test were used for univariate analysis. Predictors with a P value of less than .15 were subject to binary logistic regression analysis. A P value ≤.05 was considered significant.

Results

There were 713 patients who received HT during the study period. One-hundred and forty-eight (20.8%) patients met the criteria as an inappropriate HT. In univariate analysis, Glasgow Coma Scale >8, Shock Index <0.9, and fall mechanism were found to be significantly associated with inappropriate HT. Age >55 was found to be associated with an appropriate HT. The average Injury Severity Score of the inappropriate HT group was 3.86 (±3.85) compared with 16.80 (±11.23) ( P = .0001, Student’s t-test).

Discussion

Our findings suggest that there are evidence-based predictors of patients receiving inappropriate HT. Triage of HT using these predictors has the potential to decrease unnecessary deployments and reduce health care costs.