OBJECTIVE: The identification of serious injury is critical to the tasking of air ambulances. London's Air Ambulance (LAA) is dispatched by a flight paramedic based on mechanism of injury (MOI), paramedical interrogation of caller (INT) or land ambulance crew request (REQ).This study aimed to demonstrate which of the dispatch methods was most effective (in accuracy and time) in identifying patients with serious injury. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3 years of data (to December 2010) was undertaken. Appropriate dispatch was defined as the requirement for LAA to escort the patient to hospital or for resuscitation on-scene. Inaccurate dispatch was where LAA was cancelled or left the patient in the care of the land ambulance crew. The χ(2) test was used to calculate p values; with significance adjusted to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: There were 2203 helicopter activations analysed: MOI 18.9% (n=417), INT 62.4% (n=1375) and REQ 18.7% (n=411). Appropriate dispatch rates were MOI 58.7% (245/417), INT 69.7% (959/1375) and REQ 72.2% (297/411). INT and REQ were both significantly more accurate than MOI (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in accuracy between INT and REQ (p=0.36). Combining MOI and INT remotely identified 80.2% of patients, with an overtriage rate of 32.8%. Mean time to dispatch (in minutes) was MOI 4, INT 8 and REQ 21. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone interrogation of the caller by a flight paramedic is as accurate as ground ambulance crew requests, and both are significantly better than MOI in identifying serious injury. Overtriage remains an issue with all methods. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: The identification of serious injury is critical to the tasking of air ambulances. London's Air Ambulance (LAA) is dispatched by a flight paramedic based on mechanism of injury (MOI), paramedical interrogation of caller (INT) or land ambulance crew request (REQ).This study aimed to demonstrate which of the dispatch methods was most effective (in accuracy and time) in identifying patients with serious injury. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3 years of data (to December 2010) was undertaken. Appropriate dispatch was defined as the requirement for LAA to escort the patient to hospital or for resuscitation on-scene. Inaccurate dispatch was where LAA was cancelled or left the patient in the care of the land ambulance crew. The χ(2) test was used to calculate p values; with significance adjusted to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: There were 2203 helicopter activations analysed: MOI 18.9% (n=417), INT 62.4% (n=1375) and REQ 18.7% (n=411). Appropriate dispatch rates were MOI 58.7% (245/417), INT 69.7% (959/1375) and REQ 72.2% (297/411). INT and REQ were both significantly more accurate than MOI (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in accuracy between INT and REQ (p=0.36). Combining MOI and INT remotely identified 80.2% of patients, with an overtriage rate of 32.8%. Mean time to dispatch (in minutes) was MOI 4, INT 8 and REQ 21. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone interrogation of the caller by a flight paramedic is as accurate as ground ambulance crew requests, and both are significantly better than MOI in identifying serious injury. Overtriage remains an issue with all methods. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Kuan-Chen Chin; Yu-Chia Cheng; Wen-Chu Chiang; Albert Y Chen; Jen-Tang Sun; Chih-Yen Ou; Chun-Hua Hu; Ming-Chi Tsai; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Alan A Garner; Anna Lee; Andrew Weatherall; Mary Langcake; Zsolt J Balogh Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: David Fitzpatrick; Michael McKenna; Edward A S Duncan; Colville Laird; Richard Lyon; Alasdair Corfield Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Anssi Saviluoto; Johannes Björkman; Anna Olkinuora; Ilkka Virkkunen; Hetti Kirves; Piritta Setälä; Ilkka Pulkkinen; Päivi Laukkanen-Nevala; Lasse Raatiniemi; Helena Jäntti; Timo Iirola; Jouni Nurmi Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: E Ter Avest; E Lambert; R de Coverly; H Tucker; J Griggs; M H Wilson; A Ghorbangholi; J Williams; R M Lyon Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Scott Munro; Mark Joy; Richard de Coverly; Mark Salmon; Julia Williams; Richard M Lyon Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.953