Tag Archives: ambulance

Prehospital

Trauma Patient Transport By Police, Not EMS

Leave a comment

When I was at Penn 30+ years ago, I was fascinated to see that police officers were allowed to transport penetrating trauma patients to the hospital. They had no medical training and no specific equipment. They basically tossed the patient into the back seat, drove as fast as possible to a trauma center, and dropped them off. Then they (hopefully) hosed down the inside of the squad car.

Granted, it was fast. But did it benefit the patient? The trauma group at Penn decided to look at this to see if there was some benefit (survival) to this practice. They retrospectively looked at 5 years of data in the mid-2000’s, thus comparing the results of police transport with reasonably state of the art EMS transport.

They found over 2100 penetrating injury transports during this time frame (!), and roughly a quarter of those (27%) were transported by police. About 71% were gunshots vs 29% stabs.

Here are the factoids:

  • The police transported more badly injured patients (ISS=14) than EMS (ISS=10)
  • About 21% of police transports died, compared to 15% for EMS
  • But when mortality was corrected for the higher ISS transported by police, it was equivalent for the two modes of transport

Although they did not show a survival benefit to this practice, there was certainly no harm done. And in busy urban environments, such a policy could offload some of the workload from busy EMS services.

Bottom line: Certainly this is not a perfect paper. But it does add more fuel to the “stay and play” vs “scoop and run” debate. It seems to lend credence to the concept that, in the field, less is better in penetrating trauma. What really saves these patients is definitive control of bleeding, which neither police nor paramedics can provide. Therefore, whoever gets the patient to the trauma center in the least time wins. And so does the patient.

Related posts:

Reference: Injury-adjusted mortality of patients transported by police following penetrating trauma. Acad Emerg Med 18(1):32-37, 2011.

Prehospital

Uber / Lyft For Medical Transport???

Leave a comment

In this day and age of ride sharing apps like Uber and Lyft, it is possible to get a cheap ride virtually anywhere there is car service and a smart phone. And of course, some people have used these services for transportation to the hospital in lieu of an ambulance ride. What might the impact be of ride services on patient transport, for both patient and EMS?

A paper in preparation suggests that ambulance service calls decreased by 7% after the introduction of UberX rides. Now, there are a lot of questions here, because the full paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and the results write-up is pretty sketchy. But it does beg the question.

Ambulance rides are expensive. Depending on region, they may range from $500-$5000. And although insurance may reduce the out of pocket cost, it can still be expensive. So what are the pros vs the cons of using Uber or Lyft for medical transport?

Pros:

  • Ride shares are inexpensive compared to an ambulance ride
  • They may arrive more quickly because they tend to circulate around an area, as opposed to using a fixed base
  • Riders may select their preferred hospital without being overridden by EMS (although it may be an incorrect choice)
  • May reduce EMS usage for low acuity patients

Cons:

  • No professional medical care available during the ride
  • May end up being slower due to lack of lights and siren
  • Damage fees of $250+ for messing up the car

Bottom line: Uber and Lyft are just another version of the “arrival by private vehicle” paradigm. Use of these services relies on the customer/patient having very good judgment and insight into their medical conditions and care needs. And from personal experience, this is not always the case. I would not encourage the general public to use these services for medical transport, and neither do the companies themselves!

Reference: Did UberX Reduce Ambulance Volume? Unpublished paper, October 24, 2017.

General

LifeBot The Next Generation

Leave a comment

Over a year ago, I wrote about a product called LifeBot. This technology provides a way to join the ED and prehospital teams as they work on patients. This involves special monitoring equipment in the ambulance (cameras and other telemedicine equipment), a special tablet computing system for data input and imaging, and equipment at the ED base station.

Using the original LifeBot system, medics could relay vitals and EKG data to the base station in real time, receive orders from emergency physicians, and send video feeds and photos from the ambulance.

LifeBot Technology has now released LifeBot 5, the next generation of this system. The unit is now portable, and can be taken out of the ambulance at the scene. It is ruggedized and weighs only 15 pounds, which isn’t bad for field medical equipment. The system now includes a web interface that can mesh with some electronic medical record systems. 

Expect to see more improvements (a defibrillator is slated as the next addition) as well as competing products soon.

What does it cost, you ask? A lot! As always, it’s tough to get exact numbers. The LifeBot 5 should be about $20,000. However, this does not include equipment cost for the base station, which is at least that much, if not more!

Bottom line: Expect further progress in blending the prehospital and emergency department environments. More products like this will become available, extending the senses of emergency physicians and providing additional assistance to prehospital providers.

Related post: The “super ambulance” of the future

Website: http://www.lifebot.us/dreams/

Disclosure: I have no financial interest in Lifebot Technology

General

Trauma Patient Transport By Police, Not EMS

Leave a comment

When I was at Penn 25 years ago, I was fascinated to see that police officers were allowed to transport penetrating trauma patients to the hospital. They had no medical training and no specific equipment. They basically tossed the patient into the back seat, drove as fast as possible to a trauma center, and dropped them off. Then they (hopefully) hosed down the inside of the squad car.

Granted, it was fast. But did it benefit the patient? The group now at Penn decided to look at this to see if there was some benefit (survival) to this practice. They retrospectively looked at 5 years of data in the mid-2000’s, thus comparing the results of police transport with reasonably state of the art EMS transport.

They found over 2100 penetrating injury transports during this time frame (!), and roughly a quarter of those (27%) were transported by police. About 71% were gunshots vs 29% stabs. They found the following interesting information:

  • The police transported more badly injured patients (ISS=14) than EMS (ISS=10)
  • About 21% of police transports died, compared to 15% for EMS
  • But when mortality was corrected for the higher ISS transported by police, it was equivalent for the two modes of transport

Although they did not show a survival benefit to this practice, there was certainly no harm done. And in busy urban environments, such a policy could offload some of the workload from busy EMS services.

Bottom line: Certainly this is not a perfect paper. But it does add more fuel to the “stay and play” vs “scoop and run” debate. It seems to lend credence to the concept that, in the field, less is better in penetrating trauma. What really saves these patients is definitive control of bleeding, which neither police nor paramedics can provide. Therefore, whoever gets the patient to the trauma center in the least time wins. And so does the patient.

Related posts:

Reference: Injury-adjusted mortality of patients transported by police following penetrating trauma. Acad Emerg Med 18(1):32-37, 2011.

General

Trauma Survival and Air vs Ground Transport

Leave a comment

Wartime experience has shown that rapid transport from the battlefield scene of injury to definitive care dramatically improves survival. This has been translated into civilian trauma care by making helicopter transport to a trauma center more widely available. But this resource is still somewhat limited, and very expensive compared to ground EMS transport. Is this expense warranted, or in other words, does it improve survival?

Many have tried to answer this question. Several of these studies did show improved survival with air transport, but most had significant flaws that made their conclusions hard to interpret. The current issue of JAMA has published an article from MIEMSS and Johns Hopkins that tries to do it right.

The authors used the National Trauma Data Bank (1.8M records) and whittled it down to 223K by using pertinent exclusion criteria. About 25% were transported by air and 72% were taken to Level I centers (vs Level II). A sophisticated regression model was used to adjust for missing data and clustering by trauma centers.

They found that there is roughly a 1.5% survival advantage in taking patients to trauma centers by air. About 65 patients need to be transported to a Level I center, or 69 patients to a Level II center, to save a life. There are some issues with the statistics, primarily due to the nature of the NTDB data, but overall the paper is nicely done.

Bottom line: It looks like helicopter transport of seriously injured trauma patients conveys a very small survival advantage. However, this does not mean that everybody now needs to be flown in. This is not an ideal world, and not everybody is in an area that can provide such transport. Furthermore, in many areas ground EMS is still faster than air. And finally, air transport is much more expensive than the incremental survival increase may be worth. We will have to come to grips as a society to figure out what we can really afford.

Reference: Association between helicopter vs ground emergency medical services and survival for adults with major trauma. JAMA 307(15):1602-1610, April 18, 2012.