Helicopter emergency medical service dispatch in older trauma: time to reconsider the trigger?

BACKGROUND

Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) respond to serious trauma and medical emergencies. Geographical disparity and the regionalisation of trauma systems can complicate accurate HEMS dispatch. We sought to evaluate HEMS dispatch sensitivity in older trauma patients by analysing critical care interventions and conveyance in a well-established trauma system.

METHODS

All trauma patients aged ≥65 years that were attended by the Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex over a 6-year period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2019 were included. Patient characteristics, critical care interventions and hospital disposition were stratified by dispatch type (immediate, interrogate and crew request).

RESULTS

1321 trauma patients aged ≥65 were included. Median age was 75 years [IQR 69-89]. HEMS dispatch was by immediate (32.0%), interrogation (43.5%) and at the request of ambulance clinicians (24.5%). Older age was associated with a longer dispatch interval and was significantly longer in the crew request category (37 min [34-39]) compared to immediate dispatch (6 min [5-6] (p = .001). Dispatch by crew request was common in patients with falls < 2 m, whereas pedestrian road traffic collisions and falls > 2 m more often resulted in immediate dispatch (p = .001). Immediate dispatch to isolated head injured patients often resulted in pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA) (39%). However, over a third of head injured patients attended after dispatch by crew request received PHEA (36%) and a large proportion were triaged to major trauma centres (69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients who do not fulfil the criteria for immediate HEMS dispatch need advanced clinical interventions and subsequent tertiary level care at a major trauma centre. Further studies should evaluate if HEMS activation criteria, nuanced by age-dependant triggers for mechanism and physiological parameters, optimise dispatch sensitivity and HEMS utilisation.

Dispatch of a helicopter emergency medicine service to patients with a sudden, unexplained loss of consciousness of medical origin

Background

Sudden loss of consciousness (LOC) in the prehospital setting in the absence of cardiac arrest and seizure activity may be a challenge from a dispatcher’s perspective: The aetiology is varied, with many causes being transient and mostly self-limiting, whereas other causes are potentially life threatening. In this study we aim to evaluate the dispatch of HEMS to patients with LOC of medical origin, by exploring to which patients with a LOC HEMS is dispatched, which interventions HEMS teams perform in these patients, and whether HEMS interventions can be predicted by patient characteristics.

Methods

We performed retrospective cohort study of all patients with a reported unexplained LOC (e.g. not attributable to a circulatory arrest or seizures) attended by the Air Ambulance Kent, Surrey & Sussex (AAKSS), over a 4-year period (July 2013–December 2017). Primary outcome was defined as the number of HEMS-specific interventions performed in patients with unexplained LOC. Secondary outcome was the relation of clinical- and dispatch criteria with HEMS interventions being performed.

Results

During the study period, 127 patients with unexplained LOC were attended by HEMS. HEMS was dispatched directly to 25.2% of the patients, but mostly (74.8%) on request of the ground ambulance crews. HEMS interventions were performed in 65% of the patients (Prehospital Emergency Anaesthesia 56%, hyperosmolar therapy 21%, antibiotic/antiviral therapy 8%, vasopressor therapy 6%) and HEMS conveyed most patients (77%) to hospital. Acute neurological pathology was a prevalent underlying cause of unexplained LOC: 38% had gross pathology on their CT-scan upon arrival in hospital. Both GCS (r = − 0.60, p < .001) and SBP (r = 0.31, p < .001) were related to HEMS interventions being performed on scene. A GCS < 13 predicted the need for HEMS interventions in our population with a sensitivity of 94.9% and a specificity 75% (AUC 0.85).

Conclusion

HEMS dispatchers and ambulance personnel are able to identify a cohort of patients with unexplained LOC of medical origin who suffer from potentially life threatening (mainly neurological) pathology, in whom HEMS specific intervention are frequently required. Presenting GCS can be used to inform the triage process of patients with LOC at an early stage.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-020-00388-x.

Live video footage from scene to aid helicopter emergency medical service dispatch: a feasibility study

Background

Obtaining accurate information from a 112 caller is key to correct tasking of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). Being able to view the incident scene via video from a mobile phone may assist HEMS dispatch by providing more accurate information such as mechanism of injury and/or injuries sustained. The objective of this study is to describe the acceptability and feasibility of using live video footage from the mobile phone of a 112 caller as an HEMS dispatch aid.

Methods

Live footage is obtained via the 112 caller’s mobile phone camera through the secure GoodSAM app’s Instant-on-scene™ platform. Video footage is streamed directly to the dispatcher, and not stored. During the feasibility trial period, dispatchers noted the purpose for which they used the footage and rated ease of use and any technical- and operational issues they encountered. A subjective assessment of caller acceptance to use video was conducted.

Results

Video footage from scene was attempted for 21 emergency calls. The leading reasons listed by the dispatchers to use live footage were to directly assess the patient (18/21) and to obtain information about the mechanism of injury and the scene (11/21). HEMS dispatchers rated the ease of use with a 4.95 on a 5-point scale (range 4–5). All callers gave permission to stream from their telephone camera. Video footage from scene was successfully obtained in 19 calls, and was used by the dispatcher as an aid to send (5) or stand down (14) a Helicopter Emergency Medical Services team.

Conclusion

Live video footage from a 112 caller can be used to provide dispatchers with more information from the scene of an incident and the clinical condition of the patient(s). The use of mobile phone video was readily accepted by the 112 caller and the technology robust. Further research is warranted to assess the impact video from scene could have on HEMS dispatching.