Information

Dear user, the application need JavaScript support. Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Title of the item:

Treatment, transport, and primary care involvement when helicopter emergency medical services are inaccessible: a retrospective study.

Title:
Treatment, transport, and primary care involvement when helicopter emergency medical services are inaccessible: a retrospective study.
Authors:
Nystøyl, Dag Ståle
Hunskaar, Steinar
Breidablik, Hans Johan
Østerås, Øyvind
Zakariassen, Erik
Subject Terms:
AIRPLANE ambulances
ARTIFICIAL respiration
EMERGENCY medical services
HEALTH services accessibility
NURSE anesthetists
SCIENTIFIC observation
GENERAL practitioners
PRIMARY health care
OCCUPATIONAL roles
RETROSPECTIVE studies
TRANSPORTATION of patients
DESCRIPTIVE statistics
Source:
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care; Dec2018, Vol. 36 Issue 4, p397-405, 9p
Geographic Terms:
NORWAY
Academic Journal
Objective: To examine handling of cancelled helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) missions with a persisting medical indication. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting and subjects: Cancelled HEMS missions with persisting medical indication within Sogn og Fjordane county in Norway during the period of 2010-2013. Both primary and secondary missions were included. Main outcome measures: Primary care involvement, treatment and cooperation within the prehospital system. Results: Our analysis included 172 missions with 180 patients. Two-thirds of the patients (118/180) were from primary missions. In 95% (112/118) of primary missions, GPs were alerted, and they examined 62% (70/112) of these patients. Among the patients examined by a GP, 30% (21/70) were accompanied by a GP during transport to hospital. GP involvement did not differ according to time of day (p = 0.601), diagnostic group (p = 0.309), or patient’s age (p = 0.409). In 41% of primary missions, the patients received no treatment or oxygen only during transport. Among the secondary missions, 10% (6/62) of patients were intubated or received non-invasive ventilation and were accompanied by a physician or nurse anaesthetist during transport. Conclusions: Ambulance workers and GPs have an important role when HEMS is unavailable. Our findings indicated good collaboration among the prehospital personnel. Many of the patients were provided minimal or no treatment, and treatment did not differ according to GP involvement. Key Points: Knowledge about handling and involvement of prehospital services in cancelled helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) missions are scarce. Ambulance workers and general practitioners have an important role when HEMS is unavailable Minimal or no treatment was given to a large amount of the patients, regardless of which health personnel who encountered the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Please log in to access the full text.

We use cookies to help identify your computer so we can tailor your user experience, track shopping basket contents and remember where you are in the order process.