Literature DB >> 16818167

Is air transport faster? A comparison of air versus ground transport times for interfacility transfers in a regional referral system.

James E Svenson1, Jill E O'Connor, M Bruce Lindsay.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Helicopter transport is often considered in an effort to minimize time to critical interventions, such as cardiac catheterization or arterial thrombolysis in stroke patients. However, for interfacility transports, the extra time considerations for helicopter preparation, takeoff, and time to get to the transferring hospital may not offset the slower transport times for local ground ambulances. The purpose of this study was to compare transport times for helicopter with traditional ground ambulance for interfacility transfers within a regional referral system.
METHODS: All patients transported from an outside hospital to the intensive care unit of the University of Wisconsin were eligible for this study. Equal numbers of patients transferred by ground and by helicopter from each facility were sequentially selected. The following intervals were compared: time from call to dispatch, time from dispatch to arrival at the referring hospital, time at the referring hospital, transport time to the receiving hospital, and total transport time.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients were included in this study, transferred from 20 hospitals within the UW referral system. Dispatch times and time at the referring hospital were location independent, and each was shorter for ground transport. Ground dispatch times were 5+/-6 minutes, whereas for helicopter transport dispatch times were 17+/-8 (P<.001). Times at the referral hospital were on average longer for helicopter transport (31+/-11 minutes for air ambulance, 25+/-13 for ground; P=.008). Other intervals were location dependent. Arrivals were much more variable for ground transport, reflecting the fact that private ambulance services may have to travel some distance to reach the referring hospital (helicopter 18+/-8 minutes, ground 19+/-18 minutes). As expected, transport time from the referring hospital was shorter for helicopter transport. From each of the hospitals, average helicopter transport was as fast as the best ground transport.
CONCLUSION: Helicopter transport was faster than ground transport for interfacility transfer of patients from all hospitals studied in our referral system. Under optimal dispatch and transport conditions, the time difference from several hospitals was minimal. For stable patients for whom the only issue is time to critical procedure, it may be reasonable for those hospitals to try ground transport first if timely service is available to transport in that way. Even for those hospitals, helicopter transport should be considered for these patients if ground transport is not optimally available, as well as for patients in whom minimizing time outside of the hospital is a significant consideration, or when transport of such patients impacts emergency medical services availability to the community for a significant time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16818167     DOI: 10.1016/j.amj.2006.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Air Med J        ISSN: 1067-991X


  17 in total

1.  [European Stroke Organisation 2008 guidelines for managing acute cerebral infarction or transient ischemic attack. Part 1].

Authors:  P Ringleb; P D Schellinger; W Hacke
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 2.  Improving Regional Stroke Systems of Care.

Authors:  Melissa S Eng; Anand V Patel; Richard B Libman; Paul Wright; Jeffrey M Katz
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 5.113

3.  Ground emergency medical services requests for helicopter transfer of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients decrease medical contact to balloon times in rural and suburban settings.

Authors:  Jason T McMullan; William Hinckley; Jared Bentley; Todd Davis; Gregory J Fermann; Matthew Gunderman; Kimberly Ward Hart; William A Knight; Christopher J Lindsell; Chris Miller; April Shackleford; W Brian Gibler
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Helicopter evacuation of trauma victims in Los Angeles: does it improve survival?

Authors:  Peep Talving; Pedro G R Teixeira; Galinos Barmparas; Joseph DuBose; Kenji Inaba; Lydia Lam; Demetrios Demetriades
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Delays in the Air or Ground Transfer of Patients for Endovascular Thrombectomy.

Authors:  Robert W Regenhardt; Adam P Mecca; Stephanie A Flavin; Gregoire Boulouis; Arne Lauer; Kori Sauser Zachrison; James Boomhower; Aman B Patel; Joshua A Hirsch; Lee H Schwamm; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Interfacility helicopter ambulance transport of neurosurgical patients: observations, utilization, and outcomes from a quaternary level care hospital.

Authors:  Brian P Walcott; Jean-Valery Coumans; Matthew K Mian; Brian V Nahed; Kristopher T Kahle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Helicopter EMS: Research Endpoints and Potential Benefits.

Authors:  Stephen H Thomas; Annette O Arthur
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 1.112

Review 8.  Transferring the critically ill patient: are we there yet?

Authors:  Joep M Droogh; Marije Smit; Anthony R Absalom; Jack J M Ligtenberg; Jan G Zijlstra
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Association of Interfacility Helicopter versus Ground Ambulance Transport and in-Hospital Mortality among Trauma Patients.

Authors:  Kenneth Stewart; Tabitha Garwe; Babawale Oluborode; Zoona Sarwar; Roxie M Albrecht
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 2.686

10.  Adverse events during rotary-wing transport of mechanically ventilated patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; Jeremy M Kahn; C William Schwab; Barry D Fuchs
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.