The Effectiveness Evaluation of Helicopter Ambulance Transport among Neurotrauma Patients in Korea

Time-saving effects using helicopter transportation: comparison to a ground transportation time predicted using a social navigation software

Previous comparison studies regarding 2 types of transportation, helicopter (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS), have shown underlying heterogeneity as these options have completely different routes and consequent times with reference to one patient. To compare the 2 types of transportation on a case-by-case basis, we analyzed the retrospectively reviewed HEMS and predicted GEMS data using an open-source navigation software.Patients transferred by military HEMS from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The HEMS records on the time of notification, injury point and destination address, and time required were reviewed. The GEMS data on distance and the predicted time required were acquired using open-source social navigation systems. Comparison analyses between the two types of transportation were conducted. Furthermore, linear logistic regression analyses were performed on the distance and time of the two options.A total of 183 patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference (P = .3021) in the distance between the 2 types of transportation, and the HEMS time was significantly shorter than that of GEMS (61.31 vs 116.92 minutes, P < .001). The simple linear curves for HEMS and GEMS were separately secured, and two graphs presented the statistical significance (P) as well as reasonable goodness-of-fit (R2). In general, the HEMS graph demonstrates a more gradual slope and narrow distribution compared to that of GEMS.Ideally, HEMS is identified as a better transportation modality because it has a shorter transportation time (56 minutes saved) and a low possibility of potential time delays (larger R2). With a strict patient selection, HEMS can rescue injured or emergent patients who are "out of the golden hour."

The Dubrava Model-A Novel Approach in Treating Acutely Neurotraumatized Patients in Rural Areas: A Proposal for Management

Introduction Neurotrauma is one of the leading causes of death and disabilities nowadays and represents one of the largest socioeconomic problems in rich countries, as well as developing ones. A satisfying, medically viable, and cost-effective model of managing acutely neurotraumatized patients, especially ones who come from distant and/or rural areas, has yet to be found. Patient outcome after acute neurotrauma depends on many factors of which the possibility of urgent treatment by an experienced specialist team has a crucial role. Here, we present our own way of managing acutely neurotraumatized patients from distant places which is unique in Croatia, the Dubrava model. Methods We present our 5-year experience cooperating with general hospitals in four neighboring cities (Ĉakovec, Bjelovar, Sisak, and Koprivnica) in managing, operating, and taking care of acutely neurotraumatized patients. Results More than 300 surgeries have been performed in these hospitals through the Dubrava model. Our experience so far provides encouraging results that this system could also be successfully implemented in other institutions. Furthermore, we recorded an increased number of surgeries each year, as well as a good mutual cooperation with the local general hospitals. Discussion This trauma managing model is one of a kind in Croatia. We argue that it is not only better for the patients, providing them with better chances of survival, and disability-free recovery, but is also far superior in many ways to the dominant and currently prevalent way of treating these patients in other parts of Croatia. Conclusion The Dubrava model of treating patients in rural and distant areas is a reliable and proven model with many benefits and as such its implementation should be considered in other institutions as well.

Comparison of trauma care systems in Asian countries: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to compare the trauma care systems in Asian countries.

METHODS

Asian countries were categorised into three groups; 'lower middle-income country', 'upper middle-income country' and 'high-income country'. The Medline/PubMed database was searched for articles published from January 2005 to December 2014 using relevant key words. Articles were excluded if they examined a specific injury mechanism, referred to a specific age group, and/or did not have full text available. We extracted information and variables on pre-hospital and hospital care factors, and regionalised system factors and compared them across countries.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were identified from 13 countries, including Pakistan, India, Vietnam and Indonesia from lower middle-income countries; the Islamic Republic of Iran, Thailand, China, Malaysia from upper middle-income countries; and Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore from high-income countries. Trauma patients were transported via various methods. In six of the 13 countries, less than 20% of trauma patients were transported by ambulance. Pre-hospital trauma teams primarily comprised emergency medical technicians and paramedics, except in Thailand and China, where they included mainly physicians. In Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam, the proportion of patients who died before reaching hospital exceeded 50%. In only three of the 13 countries was it reported that trauma surgeons were available. In only five of the 13 countries was there a nationwide trauma registry.

CONCLUSION

Trauma care systems were poorly developed and unorganised in most of the selected 13 Asian countries, with the exception of a few highly developed countries.

Hospital Mortality Based on the Mode of Emergency Medical Services Transportation

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the presentations and outcomes of trauma patients transported by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of trauma registry data at a level I trauma center was conducted for patients transported by GEMS and HEMS between 2011 and 2013. Data were analyzed and categorized based on the mode of transportation.

RESULTS

A total of 4,596 trauma patients were admitted to the hospital with a mean age of 31 ± 15 years. Injured patients were transported to the trauma center by GEMS (93.3%) and HEMS (6.7%). The common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle crash (37%) and falls (25%). Compared with GEMS, patients transported by HEMS were characterized by having a greater injury severity, more proportion of traumatic brain injury, on-scene intubation, and a 2.5-fold higher mortality. However, the impact of mode of transportation on the hospital mortality among severely injured patients has disappeared after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Patients transported by HEMS may have different characteristic features and outcomes when compared with GEMS. However, further work is needed to identify the subgroups of trauma patients who clearly benefit from the use of HEMS.