Mission, staffing, and budget data of flight programs in the United States

An investigation into the cost, coverage and activities of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in the state of New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) have been incorporated into modern health systems for their speed and coverage. In the state of New South Wales (NSW), nine HEMS operate from various locations around the state and currently there is no clear picture of their resource implications. The aim of this study was to assess the cost of HEMS in NSW and investigate the factors linked with the variation in the costs, coverage and activities of HEMS.

METHODS

We undertook a survey of HEMS costs, structures and operations in NSW for the 2008/2009 financial year. Costs were estimated from annual reports and contractual agreements. Data related to the structure and operation of services was obtained by face-to-face interviews, from operational data extracted from individual HEMS, from the NSW Ambulance Computer Aided Despatch system and from the Aeromedical Operations Centre database. In order to estimate population coverage for each HEMS, we used GIS mapping techniques with Australian Bureau of Statistics census information.

RESULTS

Across HEMS, cost per mission estimates ranged between $9300 and $19,000 and cost per engine hour estimates ranged between $5343 and $15,743. Regarding structural aspects, six HEMS were run by charities or not-for-profit companies (with partial government funding) and three HEMS were run (and fully funded) by the state government through NSW Ambulance. Two HEMS operated as 'hub' services in conjunction with three associated 'satellite' services and in contrast, four services operated independently. Variation also existed between the HEMS in the type of helicopter used, the clinical staffing and the hours of operation. The majority of services undertook both primary scene responses and secondary inter-facility transfers, although the proportion of each type of transport contributing to total operations varied across the services.

INTERPRETATION

This investigation highlighted the cost of HEMS operations in NSW which in total equated to over $50 million per annum. Across services, we found large variation in the cost estimates which was underscored by variation in the structure and operations of HEMS.

A Meta-Analysis of Prehospital Care Times for Trauma

BACKGROUND

Time to definitive care is a major determinant of trauma patient outcomes yet little is empirically known about prehospital times at the national level. We sought to determine national averages for prehospital times based on a systematic review of published literature.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for all articles reporting prehospital times for trauma patients transported by helicopter and ground ambulance over a 30-year period. Forty-nine articles were included in a final meta-analysis. Activation time, response time, on-scene time, and transport time were abstracted from these articles. Prehospital times were also divided into urban, suburban, rural, and air transports. Statistical tests were computed using weighted arithmetic means and standard deviations.

RESULTS

The data were drawn from 20 states in all four U.S. Census Regions and represent the prehospital experience of 155,179 patients. Average duration in minutes for urban, suburban, and rural ground ambulances for the total prehospital interval were 30.96, 30.97, and 43.17; for the response interval were 5.25, 5.21, and 7.72; for the on-scene interval were 13.40, 13.39, and 14.59; and for the transport interval were 10.77, 10.86, and 17.28. Average helicopter ambulance times were response 23.25, on-scene 20.43, and transport 29.80 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the emphasis on time in the prehospital and trauma literature there has been no national effort to empirically define average prehospital time intervals for trauma patients. We provide points of reference for prehospital intervals so that policymakers can compare individual emergency medical systems to national norms.

The support of severe respiratory failure beyond the hospital and during transportation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the number and variety of calamities in the past few years, providing support for critically ill and injured casualties has become a global priority. This article reviews and describes the challenges faced in providing critical care and respiratory support in an austere environment and during medical transport. The primary focus to be discussed is mechanical ventilation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The United States Air Force has developed a programme called the Critical Care Aeromedical Transport Teams. These teams provide dynamic and sophisticated critical care in austere environments, including during medical transport. The Critical Care Aeromedical Transport Teams programme provides a framework for the discussion of supporting respiratory failure in these settings. We will discuss the team concept of operations, the equipment assemblage, methods and techniques of intensive care unit patient care in this setting, and caveats and pitfalls as they pertain to respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, and respiratory monitoring.

SUMMARY

The support of respiratory failure with mechanical ventilation during a disaster is complex and challenging. The key to success is pre-planning, flexibility, and portability. Programmes such as the Critical Care Aeromedical Transport Teams can be a useful model for the development of appropriate civil response capabilities in critical care for use during a disaster.

The provision of sophisticated critical care beyond the hospital: Lessons from physiology and military experiences that apply to civil disaster medical response

OBJECTIVE

The provision of sophisticated medical care in an austere environment is challenging. During and after a mass casualty event, it is likely that critical care services will be needed beyond an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The objective of this article is to explore existing ICU care systems such as military aeromedical transport that may be applicable to disaster medicine and to providing critical care outside of an ICU setting.

RESULTS

The U.S. Air Force Critical Care Aeromedical Transport (CCAT) Teams were developed in 1994 in response to an unmet military need for long-range air transport of critically ill and injured patients. This system has transported several thousand ICU patients and is an applicable model for the future development of extrahospital critical care capabilities needed during a disaster. We also discuss civilian aeromedical critical care systems, the types of medical devices used, and their applicability to disaster medical response.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. Air Force CCAT Team program, as well as many civilian critical care air ambulance services, provides a workable starting point for the development of disaster medical critical care response capabilities for disaster medical systems.

Helicopter dispatch: a time study

PURPOSE

To quantitate request to liftoff (R/L) and dispatch to liftoff (D/L) times and reasons for delay in an active air medical transport program.

METHOD

This was a prospective observational study blinded to crew and pilots. Data were collected by the communications department during a 4-week period on 197 consecutive missions.

RESULTS

The air medical helicopter program services 25,000 square miles with four BK 117 helicopter each staffed by nurse/paramedic crew. During the study period, R/L and D/L averaged 10.9 and 6.8 minutes, respectively. One hundred and twenty-two flights had an R/L of 10 minutes or less for an average R/L of 7.2 minutes and D/L of 5.9 minutes. Seventy-five flights had an R/L greater than 10 minutes, for which reasons included weather check--21; standby by requestor--27; all ships in flight--5; receiving facility delay--4; mechanical problems--4; original ship diverted--2; additional fuel needed--1; airport clearance--1; and no specific reason given--10.

CONCLUSION

Most variance occurred in R/L rather than D/L. Evaluating R/L time not only provides a better indication of program activity but also identifies most delays. It appears reasons for delay are limited, which should allow development of a concise plan to overcome them.