When birds can't fly: an analysis of interfacility ground transport using advanced life support when helicopter emergency medical service is unavailable

Should We Keep or Transfer Our Severely Injured Geriatric Patients to Higher Levels of Care?

INTRODUCTION

Interfacility transfer to higher levels of care is becoming increasingly common. This study aims to evaluate the association between transfer to higher levels of care and prolonged transfer times with outcomes of severely injured geriatric trauma patients compared to those who are managed definitively at lower-level trauma centers.

METHODS

Severely injured (Injury Severity Score >15) geriatric (≥60 y) trauma patients in the 2017-2018 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database managing at an American College of Surgeons/State Level III trauma center or transferring to a level I or II trauma center were included. Outcome measures were 24-h and in-hospital mortality and major complications.

RESULTS

Forty thousand seven hundred nineteen patients were identified. Mean age was 75 ± 8 y, 54% were male, 98% had a blunt mechanism of injury, and the median Injury Severity Score was 17 [16-21]. Median transfer time was 112 [79-154] min, and the most common transport mode was ground ambulance (82.3%). Transfer to higher levels of care within 90 min was associated with lower 24-h mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.493, P < 0.001) and similar odds of in-hospital mortality as those managed at level III centers. However, every 30-min delay in transfer time beyond 90 min was progressively associated with increased odds of 24-h (aOR: 1.058, P < 0.001) and in-hospital (aOR: 1.114, P < 0.001) mortality and major complications (aOR: 1.127, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Every 30-min delay in interfacility transfer time beyond 90 min is associated with 6% and 11% higher risk-adjusted odds of 24-h and in-hospital mortality, respectively. Estimated interfacility transfer time should be considered while deciding about transferring severely injured geriatric trauma patients to a higher level of care.

Natural Experiment Outcomes Studies in Rotor Wing Air Medical Transport: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Before-and-After and Helicopter-Unavailable Publications From 1970 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is widely used for prehospital and interfacility transport, but there is a paucity of HEMS outcomes data from studies using randomized controlled trial designs. In the absence of robust randomized controlled trial evidence, judgments regarding HEMS potential benefit must be informed by observational data. Within the study design set of observational analyses, the natural experiment (NE) is notable for its high potential methodologic quality; NE designs are occasionally denoted "quasi-experimental." The aim of this study is to examine all NE outcomes studies in the HEMS literature and to discern what lessons can be learned from these potentially high-quality observational data.

METHODS

HEMS NE studies were identified during the development of a new HEMS Outcomes Assessment Research Database (HOARD). HOARD was constructed using a broad-ranging search of published and gray literature resources (eg, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar) that used variations of the terms "helicopter EMS," "air ambulance," and "air medical transport." Among the 221 studies ultimately included in HOARD, 16 NE publications describing 13 sets of observational data comprising myriad diagnostic groups were identified. Of these 16 HEMS NEs, 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes were used in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was also performed of 4 HEMS NE studies.

RESULTS

Although the disparity of studies (in terms of both case mix and end points) precluded the generation of a pooled effect estimate of an adjusted mortality benefit of HEMs versus ground emergency medical services, HEMS was found to be associated with outcomes improvement in 8 of the 13 cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The weight of the NE evidence supports a conclusion of some form of HEMS-mediated outcomes improvement in a variety of patient types. Meta-analysis of 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes generated a model with acceptable heterogeneity (I2 = 43%, Q test: P = .16), which significantly (P < .01) favored HEMS use with a pooled HEMS survival odd ratio estimate of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.22).

Interfacility transfer of pediatric trauma patients to higher levels of care: The effect of transfer time and level of receiving trauma center

BACKGROUND

Interfacility transfer of pediatric trauma patients to pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) after evaluation in nontertiary centers is associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to assess the outcomes of transferred pediatric patients based on their severity of the injury, transfer time, and level of receiving PTCs.

METHODS

This is a 3-year (2017-2019) analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. All children (younger than 15 years) who were transferred from other facilities to Level I or II PTC were included and stratified by level of receiving PTCs and injury severity. Outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 67,726 transferred pediatric trauma patients were identified, of which 52,755 were transferred to Level I and 14,971 to Level II. The mean ± SD age and median Injury Severity Score were 7 ± 4 years and 4 (1-6), respectively. Eighty-five percent were transported by ground ambulance. The median transfer time for Levels I and II was 93 (70-129) and 90 (66-128) minutes, respectively ( p < 0.001). On multivariable regression, interfacility transfers to Level I PTCs were associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality among the mildly to moderately injured group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; p = 0.037) and severely injured group with a transfer time of less than 60 minutes (adjusted odds ratio, 0.27; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Every minute increase in the interfacility transfer time is associated with a 2% increase in risk-adjusted odds of mortality among severely injured pediatric trauma patients. Factors other than the level of receiving PTCs, such as estimated transfer time and severity of injury, should be considered while deciding about transferring pediatric trauma patients to higher levels of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

High-risk diagnosis combinations in patients undergoing interhospital transfer: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on individual patient characteristics, alone or in combination, that contribute to the higher levels of mortality in post-transfer patients. The purpose of this work is to identify significant combinations of diagnoses that identify subgroups of post-interhospital transfer patients experiencing the highest levels of mortality.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using structured electronic health record data from a regional health system between 2010-2017. We employed a machine learning approach, association rules mining using the Apriori algorithm to identify diagnosis combinations. The study population includes all patients aged 21 and older that were transferred within our health system from a community hospital to one of three main receiving hospitals.

RESULTS

Overall, 8893 patients were included in the analysis. Patients experiencing mortality post-transfer were on average older (70.5 vs 62.6 years) and on average had more diagnoses in 5 of the 6 diagnostic subcategories. Within the diagnostic subcategories, most diagnoses were comorbidities and active medical problems, with hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and acute respiratory failure being the most common. Several combinations of diagnoses identified patients that exceeded 50% post-interhospital transfer mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid burden, in combination with active medical problems, were most predictive for those experiencing the highest rates of mortality. Further improving patient level prognostication can facilitate informed decision making between providers and patients to shift the paradigm from transferring all patients to higher level care to only transferring those who will benefit or desire continued care, and reduce futile transfers.

Emergency Interhospital Transfer of Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Call 9-1-1-The American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Program

The American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program objectives are to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Every minute of delay in treatment adversely affects 1-year mortality. Transfer of patients safely and timely to hospitals with primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability is needed to improve outcomes. But treatment times continue to show delays, especially during interhospital transfers. A simple 3-step process of an interhospital "Call 9-1-1" protocol may expedite this process. This STAT TRANSFER process uses a systems approach that considers diverse ways in which patients access care, how EMS responds and determines destinations, how referring hospital transfers are performed, urban and rural differences, and how receiving hospitals prepare for an incoming patient with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. This initiative suggests a strategy to reduce variability in interhospital transfer times using a STAT TRANSFER and a Call 9-1-1 process in a system of care that involves all stakeholders.

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.

Geospatial assessment of helicopter emergency medical service overtriage

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of benefit after injury, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) overtriage remains high. Scene and transfer overtriage are distinct processes. Our objectives were to identify geographic variation in overtriage and patient-level predictors, and determine if overtriage impacts population-level outcomes.

METHODS

Patients 16 years or older undergoing scene or interfacility HEMS in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study were included. Overtriage was defined as discharge within 24 hours of arrival. Patients were mapped to zip code, and rates of overtriage were calculated. Hot spot analysis identified regions of high and low overtriage. Mixed-effects logistic regression determined patient predictors of overtriage. High and low overtriage regions were compared for population-level injury fatality rates. Analyses were performed for scene and transfer patients separately.

RESULTS

A total of 85,572 patients were included (37.4% transfers). Overtriage was 5.5% among scene and 11.8% among transfer HEMS (p < 0.01). Hot spot analysis demonstrated geographic variation in high and low overtriage for scene and transfer patients. For scene patients, overtriage was associated with distance (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.06 per 10 miles; p = 0.04), neck injury (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60; p = 0.04), and single-system injury (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.64; p < 0.01). For transfer patients, overtriage was associated with rurality (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22-2.21; p < 0.01), facial injury (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44; p = 0.02), and single-system injury (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-2.19; p < 0.01). For scene patients, high overtriage was associated with higher injury fatality rate (coefficient, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.68-1.76; p < 0.01); low overtriage was associated with lower injury fatality rate (coefficient, -0.73; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.68; p < 0.01). For transfer patients, high overtriage was not associated with injury fatality rate (p = 0.53); low overtriage was associated with lower injury fatality rate (coefficient, -2.87; 95% CI, -4.59 to -1.16; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Geographic overtriage rates vary significantly for scene and transfer HEMS, and are associated with population-level outcomes. These findings can help guide targeted performance improvement initiatives to reduce HEMS overtriage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

A scoping review of worldwide studies evaluating the effects of prehospital time on trauma outcomes

BACKGROUND

Annually, over 1 billion people sustain traumatic injuries, resulting in over 900,000 deaths in Africa and 6 million deaths globally. Timely response, intervention, and transportation in the prehospital setting reduce morbidity and mortality of trauma victims. Our objective was to describe the existing literature evaluating trauma morbidity and mortality outcomes as a function of prehospital care time to identify gaps in literature and inform future investigation.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review of published literature in MEDLINE. Results were limited to English language publications from 2009 to 2020. Included articles reported trauma outcomes and prehospital time. We excluded case reports, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comments, editorials, letters, and conference proceedings. In total, 808 articles were identified for title and abstract review. Of those, 96 articles met all inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Higher quality studies used data derived from trauma registries. There was a paucity of literature from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with only 3 (3%) of articles explicitly including African populations. Mortality was an outcome measure in 93% of articles, predominantly defined as "in-hospital mortality" as opposed to mortality within a specified time frame. Prehospital time was most commonly assessed as crude time from EMS dispatch to arrival at a tertiary trauma center. Few studies evaluated physiologic morbidity outcomes such as multi-organ failure.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature disproportionately represents high-income settings and most commonly assessed in-hospital mortality as a function of crude prehospital time. Future studies should focus on how specific prehospital intervals impact morbidity outcomes (e.g., organ failure) and mortality at earlier time points (e.g., 3 or 7 days) to better reflect the effect of early prehospital resuscitation and transport. Trauma registries may be a tool to facilitate such research and may promote higher quality investigations in Africa and LMICs.

Risk Factors for Non-optimal Resource Utilization for Emergent Interfacility Transfers by Air Ambulance in Ontario

Background: The use of air ambulance to facilitate interfacility transfer has been associated with improved mortality; however, air ambulance is a limited resource and sometimes the optimal resource to transport a patient is unavailable. When a non-optimal resource is used there is an inherent delay and critically unwell patients may deteriorate as a result. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with non-optimal resource utilization for adult patients undergoing emergent interfacility transport by air ambulance in Ontario, Canada. A secondary objective was to determine if non-optimal resource utilization was associated with deterioration in clinical status by measuring a delta rapid emergency medicine score (REMS). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all emergent, adult interfacility transfers transported by air ambulance over a 5-year period in Ontario, Canada. Determination of optimal resource use was based on distances and historic time data for all sending-receiving facility pairs. A logistic regression model was used to explore patient, provider and institutional risk factors for non-optimal resource use. To explore the secondary objective a linear regression model was used to explore impact of non-optimal resource use on deltaREMS. Results: There were a total of 9,687 patients included in the study cohort, with 4,984 having an optimal resource use and 4,703 having non-optimal resource. The median delay in interfacility transfer caused by a non-optimal transfer strategy was 35.7 minutes. Patients who required mechanical ventilation (OR 1.13, p = 0.031) and or were transferred out of nursing stations had higher odds of non-optimal resource use (OR 2.84, p = 0.019). Paramedic level of care of advanced (OR 0.37, p = < 0.001) and critical care (OR 0.28, p = < 0.001) as well as spring season (OR 0.75, p = < 0.001) had lower odds of non-optimal resource utilization. Optimal resource utilization did not significantly affect delta REMS (beta coefficient 0.002, p = 0.64). Conclusions: Patients who required mechanical ventilation and were transferred out from a nursing station had higher odds of non-optimal resource utilization while patients that required advanced or critical care level of care and spring season had lower odds of non-optimal resource use. Additionally, non-optimal resource use for air ambulance interfacility transfers did not result in patient deterioration as measured by a delta REMS score.

Analysis of Helicopter-Transported Trauma Patients at a Regional Trauma Center

Our medical center's regional helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) serves southeastern North Carolina. Judicious HEMS use is vital to ensure that the resource is available for critically injured patients and to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing timely access to definitive care. We reviewed HEMS use, clinical outcomes, and overtriage rates. The data included airlifted trauma patients from January 2004 to December 2012. Of 1210 total patients, 733 were flown directly from the scene (FS) and 477 from referring hospitals (FH). The HEMS catchment area was a 100-mile radius of our trauma center. FS patients were younger and sustained more motor vehicle collisions. FH patients were older and sustained more falls. FS patients required more hospital resources including longer ventilator requirements, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay. For all HEMS patients, there was 92.2 per cent blunt injury, 47.5 per cent required Trauma I or II activation, 31 per cent required mechanical ventilation, and 50 per cent required ICU care. 59.5 per cent of HEMS trauma patients were critically injured (defined as requiring either immediate surgical intervention, immediate ICU admission, or immediate death). The overtriage rate was 1.8 per cent. The emergency department mortality rate was 2.3 per cent and the ultimate mortality rate was 7.5 per cent. Most of the airlifted trauma patients were critically injured, and therefore, HEMS transport was appropriate. However, overtriage was low, suggesting high incidence of undertriage. There should be a lower threshold for HEMS use for trauma patients in our region. More research is needed to determine ideal overtriage and undertriage rates.

Canceled to Be Called Back: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Canceled Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Scene Calls That Are Later Transferred to a Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION

In our trauma system, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) can be requested to attend a scene call for an injured patient before arrival by land paramedics. Land paramedics can cancel this response if they deem it unnecessary. The purpose of this study is to describe the frequency of canceled HEMS scene calls that were subsequently transferred to 2 trauma centers and to assess for any impact on morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Probabilistic matching was used to identify canceled HEMS scene call patients who were later transported to 2 trauma centers over a 48-month period. Registry data were used to compare canceled scene call patients with direct from scene patients.

RESULTS

There were 290 requests for HEMS scene calls, of which 35.2% were canceled. Of those canceled, 24.5% were later transported to our trauma centers. Canceled scene call patients were more likely to be older and to be discharged home from the trauma center without being admitted.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant amount of undertriage of patients for whom an HEMS response was canceled and later transported to a trauma center. These patients face similar morbidity and mortality as patients who are brought directly from scene to a trauma center.

Prehospital Assessment of Trauma

The organization of prehospital care for trauma patients began in the military arena. At the urging of multiple stakeholders and providers, these lessons were applied to the civilian setting and emergency medical services were created across the nation. Advances have taken place in the triage, transport, and management of severely injured patients. Many issues remain in the care of trauma patients in the prehospital environment. Collaboration between stakeholders and providers, regionalization of trauma care, and protocol-driven care may be solutions to some of these issues. Further research is necessary to dictate standard of care in this early phase after injury.

The Importance of Ground Critical Care Transport

Critical care transport (CCT) teams are specialized transport services, comprised of highly trained paramedics, nurses, and occasionally respiratory therapists, offering an expanded scope of practice beyond advanced life support (ALS) emergency medical service teams. We report 4 cases of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome from influenza in need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation evaluation at a tertiary care center, transported by ground. Our medical center did not previously have a ground CCT service, and therefore, in these cases, a physician and/or a respiratory therapist was sent with the paramedic team. In all 4 cases, the ground transport team enhanced the intensive care provided to these patients prior to arrival at the tertiary care center. In 2 of the cases, although limited by the profound hypoxemia, the team decreased the pressures and tidal volumes in an effort to approach evidence-based ventilator goals. In 3 cases, they stopped bicarbonate drips being used to treat mixed metabolic and respiratory acidosis, and in 1 case, they administered furosemide. In 1 case, they started cisatracurium, and in 3 others, they initiated inhaled epoprostenol. Existing literature supports the use of CCT teams over ALS teams for transport of the most critically ill patients, and helicopter CCT is not always available or practical. Therefore, offering comparable air and ground options, with similar staffing and resources, is a hallmark of a mature medical system with an integrated approach to CCT.

Factors Associated with the Use of Helicopter Inter-facility Transport of Trauma Patients to Tertiary Trauma Centers within an Organized Rural Trauma System

OBJECTIVE

A review of the literature yielded little information regarding factors associated with the decision to use ground (GEMS) or helicopter (HEMS) emergency medical services for trauma patients transferred inter-facility. Furthermore, studies evaluating the impact of inter-facility transport mode on mortality have reported mixed findings. Since HEMS transport is generally reserved for more severely injured patients, this introduces indication bias, which may explain the mixed findings. Our objective was to identify factors at referring non-tertiary trauma centers (NTC) influencing transport mode decision.

METHODS

This was a case-control study of trauma patients transferred from a Level III or IV NTC to a tertiary trauma center (TTC) within 24-hours reported to the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2005 and 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine clinical and non-clinical factors associated with the decision to use HEMS.

RESULTS

A total of 7380 patients met the study eligibility. Of these, 2803(38%) were transported inter-facility by HEMS. Penetrating injury, prehospital EMS transport, severe torso injury, hypovolemic shock, and TBI were significant predictors (p<0.05) of HEMS use regardless of distance to a TTC. Association between HEMS use and male gender, Level IV NTC, and local ground EMS resources varied by distance from the TTC. Many HEMS transported patients had minor injuries and normal vital signs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that while distance remains the most influential factor associated with HEMS use, significant differences exist in clinical and non-clinical factors between patients transported by HEMS versus GEMS. To ensure comparability of study groups, studies evaluating outcome differences between HEMS and GEMS should take factors determining transport mode into account. The findings will be used to develop propensity scores to balance baseline risk between GEMS and HEMS patients for use in subsequent studies of outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of trauma patients before and after implementation of a physician-staffed helicopter: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

The first Danish Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was introduced May 1st 2010. The implementation was associated with lower 30-day mortality in severely injured patients. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effects of HEMS on labour market affiliation and mortality of trauma patients.

METHODS

Prospective, observational study with a maximum follow-up time of 4.5 years. Trauma patients from a 5-month period prior to the implementation of HEMS (pre-HEMS) were compared with patients from the first 12 months after implementation (post-HEMS). All analyses were adjusted for sex, age and Injury Severity Score.

RESULTS

Of the total 1994 patients, 1790 were eligible for mortality analyses and 1172 (n=297 pre-HEMS and n=875 post-HEMS) for labour market analyses. Incidence rates of involuntary early retirement or death were 2.40 per 100 person-years pre-HEMS and 2.00 post-HEMS; corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.17; p=0.18). The HR of involuntary early retirement was 0.79 (95% CI 0.44-1.43; p=0.43). The prevalence of reduced work ability after three years were 21.4% vs. 17.7%, odds ratio (OR)=0.78 (CI 0.53-1.14; p=0.20). The proportions of patients on social transfer payments at least half the time during the three-year period were 30.5% vs. 23.4%, OR=0.68 (CI 0.49-0.96; p=0.03). HR for mortality was 0.92 (CI 0.62-1.35; p=0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of HEMS was associated with a significant reduction in time on social transfer payments. No significant differences were found in involuntary early retirement rate, long-term mortality, or work ability.

The elderly patient with spinal injury: treat or transfer?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this investigation was to delineate whether elderly patients with spinal injuries benefit from transfers to higher level trauma centers.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank 2007 to 2011, including patients > 65 (y) with any spinal fracture and/or spinal cord injury from a blunt mechanism. Patients who were transferred to level I and II centers from other facilities were compared to those admitted and received their definitive treatment at level III or other centers.

RESULTS

Of 3,313,117 eligible patients, 43,637 (1.3%) met inclusion criteria: 19,588 (44.9%) were transferred to level I-II centers, and 24,049 (55.1%) received definitive treatment at level III or other centers. Most of the patients (95.8%) had a spinal fracture without a spinal cord injury. Transferred patients were more likely to require an intensive care unit admission (48.5% versus 36.0%, P < 0.001) and ventilatory support (16.1% versus 13.3%, P < 0.001). Mortality for the entire cohort was 7.7% (8.6% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and significantly higher, at 21.7% for patients with a spinal cord injury (22.3% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for all available covariates, there was no difference in the adjusted mortality between patients transferred to higher level centers and those treated at lower level centers (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.95-1.17], P = 0.325).

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer of elderly patients with spinal injuries to higher level trauma centers is not associated with improved survival. Future studies should explore the justifications used for these transfers and focus on other outcome measures such as functional status to determine the potential benefit from such practices.

Transferring the critically ill patient: are we there yet?

During the past few decades the numbers of ICUs and beds has increased significantly, but so too has the demand for intensive care. Currently large, and increasing, numbers of critically ill patients require transfer between critical care units. Inter-unit transfer poses significant risks to critically ill patients, particularly those requiring multiple organ support. While the safety and quality of inter-unit and hospital transfers appear to have improved over the years, the effectiveness of specific measures to improve safety have not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials. It is generally accepted that critically ill patients should be transferred by specialized retrieval teams, but the composition, training and assessment of these teams is still a matter of debate. Since it is likely that the numbers and complexity of these transfers will increase in the near future, further studies are warranted.