Abstract: ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To identify the benefits of a network in emergency and unscheduled care research, a six week scoping study was undertaken. Objectives were to: draw together stakeholders; identify and prioritise research topics; identify sites for recruitment to studies; and agree a research strategy for a network. METHODS: A workshop was held to discuss and agree a research strategy based on results from four activities: visits to established research centres in emergency and unscheduled care; a literature overview; interviews with stakeholders in a GP out-of-hours service; and an exploration of the potential for routine data to support research in emergency care. RESULTS: Participants attended the workshop from user groups, primary care, the ambulance service, social care, the national telephone based health helpline, the Welsh Assembly Government and the academic sector. Site visits identified opportunities for collaboration. Gaps in knowledge were identified concerning the effectiveness of alternative models of emergency care delivery. Interview data highlighted a lack of evidence related to the quality of out-of-hours provision of primary care. The All Wales Injury Surveillance System (AWISS) was found to offer the potential to use routine data to support quantitative studies in emergency care. Three key issues emerged across all activities: working across boundaries; patient involvement; and triage. CONCLUSION: The study included views from patient, provider, policy and academic perspectives and built the case for a research network in emergency care. Now funded, TRUST (Thematic Research network for emergency and UnScheduled Treatment) will allow the development of research proposals, building of research teams and recruitment of sites and patients both in Wales and across the UK. It aims to address the imbalance between investment and research in this area and help support provision of 'the right care to the right people at the right time'.
Abstract: AIM: This paper is a report of a study to understand the impact of telenursing from the perspective of nurses involved in its provision, and in more traditional roles. BACKGROUND: Nurse-led telephone helplines have recently been introduced across the United Kingdom, a major step in the development of nursing practice. METHOD: A structured questionnaire was sent to all nurses working in the NHS Direct (National Health Service Direct) Wales telephone service (n = 111). Ninety-two completed questionnaires were returned (response rate 83 per cent). Two focus groups were conducted: one with telephone service nurses (n = 8) and one with other nurses (n = 5). The data were collected in 2002. FINDINGS: Respondents represented a highly educated workforce from a range of healthcare specialties. They reported that they joined the telephone service for improved salary and flexible working. Two-thirds reported improved job satisfaction. All focus group participants reported that the development of nursing skills was affected by the use of decision support software and the remote nature of the consultation. Participants reported opportunities for skill development, although the role could be stressful. All agreed that the service was popular with callers, but the nurses from outside raised concerns about whether telenursing was 'real' nursing and about the evidence base for the service and access by disadvantaged groups. CONCLUSION: Differences between the groups reflect policy tensions between the need to develop new nursing skills, including the use of technology, to improve efficiency and recognition of the worth of hands-on nursing. These tensions must be addressed for the telephone service to function as part of an integrated healthcare system.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Book Prescription Wales (BPW) is a pilot bibiliotherapy scheme launched in July 2005 as a primary care treatment option for people with mild to moderate mental health problems. In an innovative model, patients are prescribed self-help books from a list, to borrow from local libraries. Our objective was to evaluate its implementation, focusing on the issue of equity of service delivery. METHODS: Data were gathered from Welsh Assembly Government concerning project set-up and borrowing rates. Mailed questionnaires were completed by 21/22 (95.4%) Local Health Boards and 44/64 (68.8%) Community Mental Health Teams. In addition, 327 out of 497 (66%) primary care practices were surveyed by telephone, 20 prescribers took part in in-depth telephone interviews and three focus groups were conducted with library staff. RESULTS: From July 2005-March 2006, books were borrowed 15,236 times. There was a 10-fold variation in borrowing rates across local authorities (1.07 to 10.18 loans/1000 people). The priority which Local Health Board staff reported giving to the scheme varied. Uptake among prescribers was mixed: in 35% of general practices (n = 116) no-one participated. Prescribers reported different ways of using the bibliotherapy scheme. Library staff reported issues of patchy uptake. CONCLUSION: Variation in usage of bibliotherapy raises questions about equity; it is unlikely to reflect the distribution of people who could potentially benefit. Factors influencing variation existed all along the implementation chain. It is not always possibly to separate demand-side and supply-side factors when considering equity and service innovation in health care.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of people who call for an emergency ambulance are, for various reasons, not conveyed to hospital. Across the UK, the majority of ambulance services have policies and procedures requiring ambulance crews to complete clinical documentation for these patients, as they do for patients who travel to hospital. However, studies have suggested that documentation does not get completed for a large proportion of non-conveyed patients. METHODS: A qualitative study in one large ambulance service trust used focus groups to explore crew members' attitudes towards clinical documentation and non-conveyed patients. RESULTS: Considerable ambiguity was found: crews were aware of the need to "cover their backs" by completing clinical records, but at the same time expressed doubts about the value of this documentation. There appeared to be two main circumstances in which records were not completed. Firstly, there were the cases where crews may have been unable to obtain necessary information from patients who were intoxicated or otherwise uncooperative. Secondly, there were cases where the crews may not have recognised their encounter with a patient as having a clinical dimension, such as older people who had fallen but were apparently uninjured. These circumstances were combined with a lack of monitoring by managers of whether forms were being completed, and a disinclination on the part of some crew members to do what they regarded as unnecessary work. CONCLUSION: The low rates of completion of clinical records for non-conveyed patients appeared to result from crew members not believing they were important in every circumstance, combined with a lack of management focus. Low rates of completion may lead in turn to clinical risk and a risk of litigation if things go wrong.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits of paramedic practitioners assessing and, when possible, treating older people in the community after minor injury or illness. Paramedic practitioners have been trained with extended skills to assess, treat, and discharge older patients with minor acute conditions in the community. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving 56 clusters. Weeks were randomised to the paramedic practitioner service being active (intervention) or inactive (control) when the standard 999 service was available. SETTING: A large urban area in England. PARTICIPANTS: 3018 patients aged over 60 who called the emergency services (n=1549 intervention, n=1469 control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emergency department attendance or hospital admission between 0 and 28 days; interval from time of call to time of discharge; patients' satisfaction with the service received. RESULTS: Overall, patients in the intervention group were less likely to attend an emergency department (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.75) or require hospital admission within 28 days (0.87, 0.81 to 0.94) and experienced a shorter total episode time (235 v 278 minutes, 95% confidence interval for difference -60 minutes to -25 minutes). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report being highly satisfied with their healthcare episode (relative risk 1.16, 1.09 to 1.23). There was no significant difference in 28 day mortality (0.87, 0.63 to 1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Paramedics with extended skills can provide a clinically effective alternative to standard ambulance transfer and treatment in an emergency department for elderly patients with acute minor conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27796329 [controlled-trials.com].
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: In most UK ambulance services, crews attending someone who has phoned the emergency services on '999' will take the patient to hospital, unless the patient makes the decision to stay at home (or wherever they happen to be when the ambulance arrives). Safety concerns have been raised about non-conveyance decisions. We undertook a study of one UK Ambulance Service to examine ambulance crew members' views on how decision-making about non-conveyance works in practice in relation to non-urgent calls. METHODS: A total of 25 paramedics took part in three focus groups. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The ambulance service's apparently straightforward guidance on decision-making about non-conveyance proved tricky in the messiness of the real world, for two reasons. The first was to do with the notion of the patient's capacity to make decisions and how this was interpreted. The second was to do with the complexity of the decision-making process, in which the patient, the crew and, in many cases, family or carers often take part in negotiation and de facto joint decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between policy and practice in relation to non-conveyance decisions. Findings should be built into research and service development in this rapidly changing field of practice in emergency and/or unscheduled care. The commonly accepted perspective on shared decision-making should be extended to include the context of '999' ambulance calls.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: A high number of emergency (999) calls are made for older people who fall, with many patients not subsequently conveyed to hospital. Ambulance crews do not generally have protocols or training to leave people at home, and systems for referral are rare. The quality and safety of current practice is explored in this study, in which for the first time, the short-term outcomes of older people left at home by emergency ambulance crews after a fall are described. Results will inform the development of care for this population. METHODS: Emergency ambulance data in London were analysed for patterns of attendance and call outcomes in 2003-4. All older people who were attended by emergency ambulance staff after a fall in September and October 2003, within three London areas, were identified. Those who were not conveyed to hospital were followed up; healthcare contacts and deaths within the following 2 weeks were identified. RESULTS: During 2003-4, 8% of all 999 calls in London were for older people who had fallen (n = 60 064), with 40% not then conveyed to hospital. Of 2151 emergency calls attended in the study areas during September and October 2003, 534 were for people aged >or=65 who had fallen. Of these, 194 (36.3%) were left at home. 86 (49%) people made healthcare contacts within the 2-week follow-up period, with 83 (47%) people calling 999 again at least once. There was an increased risk of death (standard mortality ratio 5.4) and of hospital admission (4.7) compared with the general population of the same age in London. COMMENT: The rate of subsequent emergency healthcare contacts and increased risk of death and hospitalisation for older people who fall and who are left at home after a 999 call are alarming. Further research is needed to explore appropriate models for delivery of care for this vulnerable group.
Abstract: PROBLEM: An initial audit of the care provided to emergency asthma patients by the ambulance service was carried out in 1996. Some under-recognition and under-treatment of severe asthma was found as well as a lack of documentation of patient condition on scene. A re-audit was undertaken in 1999. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary advisory group was reconvened. The same method was adopted as for the first audit. Patients included were those administered nebulised salbutamol by crews in the catchment areas of four hospitals and those diagnosed with asthma at the Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments of those hospitals between January and March 1999. SETTING: London Ambulance Service. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: (1) Accuracy of diagnosis and appropriateness of treatment, and (2) adherence to protocol. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: Following the first audit, treatment protocols were widened and brought into line with the British Thoracic Society guidelines for care of acute asthma patients. The results were widely disseminated within the service and training was initiated for all operational staff. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: The number of patients included in the re-audit more than doubled (audit 1: n = 252, audit 2: n = 532). The increase occurred exclusively in those administered nebulised salbutamol by ambulance crews but diagnosed with conditions other than asthma in A&E (audit 1: n = 15, audit 2: n = 161). The proportion of patients diagnosed with asthma in A&E who were administered nebulised salbutamol by their attending crew rose from 58% to 75%. However, 43 asthma patients were not treated; several of these were not recognised as suffering from asthma and others fell within the changed protocols for treatment. Adherence to protocol for administration of salbutamol remained high. Pre-hospital documentation of key observations did not improve. LESSONS LEARNT: Messages from the first audit seem to have been acted upon selectively. Implementing change is complex, and re-audit is necessary to understand the effects of the changes made.
Abstract: AIM: To describe emergency ambulance crews' views about (1) how they make decisions on whether to convey patients to hospital; (2) an intervention enabling them to triage patients to non-conveyance; and (3) their experience of using new protocols for undertaking such triage. METHODS: Two focus groups were held at the outset of an evaluation of Treat and Refer (T&R) protocols: one with staff based at an ambulance station who were to implement the new service (intervention station), and the other with staff from a neighbouring station who would be continuing their normal practice during the study (control station). A third session was held with staff from the intervention station following training and 3 months' experience of protocol usage. RESULTS: Before the introduction of the T&R protocols, crews reported experience, intuition, training, time of call during shift, patient preference, and home situation as influencing their decisions concerning conveyance. Crews were positive about changing practice but foresaw difficulties with advising patients who wanted to go to hospital, and with referral to other agencies. Following experience of T&R protocol use, crews felt they had needed more training than had been provided. Some felt their practice and job satisfaction had improved. Problems with referral and with persuading some patients that they did not need to go to hospital were discussed. There was consensus that the initiative should be introduced across the service. CONCLUSIONS: With crews generally positive about this intervention, an opportunity to tackle this difficult area of emergency care now exists. This study has, however, highlighted the complexity of the change in practice and service delivery, and professional and organisational constraints that need to be considered.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate triage and transportation to a minor injury unit (MIU) by emergency ambulance crews. METHODS: Ambulance crews in two services were asked to transport appropriate patients to MIU during randomly selected weeks of one year. During all other weeks they were to treat such patients according to normal practice. Patients were followed up through ambulance service, hospital and/or MIU records, and by postal questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with crews (n = 15). Cases transferred from MIU to accident and emergency (A&E) were reviewed. RESULTS: 41 intervention cluster patients attended MIU, 303 attended A&E, 65 were not conveyed. Thirty seven control cluster patients attended MIU, 327 attended A&E, 61 stayed at scene. Because of low study design compliance, outcomes of patients taken to MIU were compared with those taken to A&E, adjusted for case mix. MIU patients were 7.2 times as likely to rate their care as excellent (95% CI 1.99 to 25.8). Ambulance service job-cycle time and time in unit were shorter for MIU patients (-7.8, 95% CI -11.5 to -4.1); (-222.7, 95%CI -331.9 to -123.5). Crews cited patient and operational factors as inhibiting MIU use; and location, service, patient choice, job-cycle time, and handover as encouraging their use. Of seven patients transferred by ambulance from MIU to A&E, medical reviewers judged that three had not met the protocol for conveyance to MIU. No patients were judged to have suffered adverse consequences. CONCLUSIONS: MIUs were only used for a small proportion of eligible patients. When they were used, patients and the ambulance service benefited.
Abstract: With rising demand and recognition of the variety of cases attended by emergency ambulance crews, services have been considering alternative ways of providing non-urgent care. This paper describes and appraises the research literature concerning on-scene alternatives to conveyance to an emergency department, focusing on the: (1) profile and outcomes of patients attended but not conveyed by emergency crews; (2) triage ability of crews; (3) effectiveness and safety of protocols that allow crews to convey patients to alternative receiving units or to self care. The literature search was conducted through standard medical databases, supplemented with manual searches. Very few "live" studies were identified, and fewer still that included a control group. Findings indicated a complex area, with the introduction of protocols allowing crews to leave patients at scene carrying clinical risk. Robust research evidence concerning alternatives to current emergency care models is needed urgently to inform service and practice development.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate "Treat and Refer" protocols for ambulance crews, allowing them to leave patients at the scene with onward referral or self-care advice as appropriate. METHODS: Crew members from one ambulance station were trained to use the treatment protocols. Processes and outcomes of care for patients attended by trained crews were compared with similar patients attended by crews from a neighbouring station. Pre-hospital records were collected for all patients. Records of any emergency department and primary care contacts during the 14 days following the call were collected for non-conveyed patients who were also followed up by postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty three protocols were developed which were expected to cover over 75% of patients left at the scene by the attending crew. There were 251 patients in the intervention arm and 537 in the control arm. The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex and condition category but intervention cases were more likely to have been attended during daytime hours than at night. There was no difference in the proportion of patients left at the scene in the intervention and control arms; the median job cycle time was longer for intervention group patients. Protocols were reported as having been used in 101 patients (40.2%) in the intervention group; 17 of the protocols were recorded as having been used at least once during the study. Clinical documentation was generally higher in the intervention group, although a similar proportion of patients in both groups had no clinical assessments recorded. 288 patients were left at the scene (93 in the intervention group, 195 in the control group). After excluding those who refused to travel, there were three non-conveyed patients in each group who were admitted to hospital within 14 days of the call who were judged to have been left at home inappropriately. A higher proportion of patients in the intervention arm reported satisfaction with the service and advice provided. CONCLUSIONS: "Treat and Refer" protocols did not increase the number of patients left at home but were used by crews and were acceptable to patients. The protocols increased job cycle time and some safety issues were identified. Their introduction is complex, and the extent to which the content of the protocols, decision support and training can be refined needs further study.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of nurses and paramedics offering telephone assessment, triage, and advice as an alternative to immediate ambulance dispatch for emergency ambulance service callers classified by lay call takers as presenting with "non-serious" problems (category C calls). DESIGN: Data for this study were collected as part of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial reported elsewhere. The intervention arm of the trial comprised nurse or paramedic telephone consultation using a computerised decision support system to assess, triage, and advise patients whose calls to the emergency ambulance service had been classified as "non-serious" by call takers applying standard priority dispatch criteria. A multidisciplinary expert clinical panel reviewed data from ambulance service, accident and emergency department, hospital inpatient and general practice records, and call transcripts for patients triaged by nurses and paramedics into categories that indicated that dispatch of an emergency ambulance was unnecessary. All cases for which one or more members of the panel rated that an emergency ambulance should have been dispatched were re-reviewed by the entire panel for an assessment of the "life risk" that might have resulted. SETTING: Ambulance services in London and the West Midlands, UK. STUDY POPULATION: Of 635 category C patients assessed by nurses and paramedics, 330 (52%) cases that had been triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of safety of triage decisions. RESULTS: Sufficient data were available from the routine clinical records of 239 (72%) subjects to allow review by the specialist panel. For 231 (96.7%) sets of case notes reviewed, the majority of the panel concurred with the nurses' or paramedics' triage decision. Following secondary review of the records of the remaining eight patients, only two were rated by the majority as having required an emergency ambulance within 14 minutes. For neither of these did a majority of the panel consider that the patient would have been at "life risk" without an emergency ambulance being immediately dispatched. However, the transcripts of these two calls indicated that the correct triage decision had been communicated to the patient, which suggests that the triage decision had been incorrectly entered into the decision support system. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone advice may be a safe method of managing many category C callers to 999 ambulance services. A clinical trial of the full implementation of this intervention is needed, large enough to exclude the possibility of rare adverse events.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential impact for ambulance services of telephone assessment and triage for callers who present with non-serious problems (Category C calls) as classified by ambulance service call takers. DESIGN: Pragmatic controlled trial. Calls identified using priority dispatch protocols as non-serious were allocated to intervention and control groups according to time of call. Ambulance dispatch occurred according to existing procedures. During intervention sessions, nurses or paramedics within the control room used a computerised decision support system to provide telephone assessment, triage and, if appropriate, offer advice to permit estimation of the potential impact on ambulance dispatch. SETTING: Ambulance services in London and the West Midlands. SUBJECTS: Patients for whom emergency calls were made to the ambulance services between April 1998 and May 1999 during four hour sessions sampled across all days of the week between 0700 and 2300. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Triage decision, ambulance cancellation, attendance at an emergency department. RESULTS: In total, there were 635 intervention calls and 611 controls. Of those in the intervention group, 330 (52.0%) were triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance, and 119 (36.6%) of these did not attend an emergency department. This compares with 55 (18.1%) of those triaged by a nurse or paramedic as requiring an ambulance (odds ratio 2.62; 95% CI 1.78 to 3.85). Patients triaged as not requiring an emergency ambulance were less likely to be admitted to an inpatient bed (odds ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93), but even so 30 (9.2%) were admitted. Nurses were more likely than paramedics to triage calls into the groups classified as not requiring an ambulance. After controlling for age, case mix, time of day, day of week, season, and ambulance service, the results of a logistic regression analysis revealed that this difference was significant with an odds ratio for nurses:paramedics of 1.28 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that telephone assessment of Category C calls identifies patients who are less likely to require emergency department care and that this could have a significant impact on emergency ambulance dispatch rates. Nurses were more likely than paramedics to assess calls as requiring an alternative response to emergency ambulance despatch, but the extent to which this relates to aspects of training and professional perspective is unclear. However, consideration should be given to the acceptability, reliability, and cost consequences of this intervention before it can be recommended for full evaluation.
Abstract: A randomized controlled trial was set up to investigate whether patients who were taking warfarin and had an International Normalised Ratio (INR) within the normal therapeutic range require cessation of their anticoagulation drugs before dental extractions. Of 109 patients who completed the trial, 52 were allocated to the control group (warfarin stopped 2 days before extraction) and 57 patients were allocated to the intervention group (warfarin continued). The incidence of bleeding complications in the intervention group was higher (15/57, 26%) than in the control group (7/52, 14%) but this difference was not significant. Two patients in the study required hospital review for bleeding and all other episodes of bleeding were controlled by patients at home. Continuing warfarin when the INR is < 4.1 may lead to an increase in minor post-extraction bleeding after dental extractions but we found no evidence of an increase in clinically important bleeding. As there are risks associated with stopping warfarin, the practice of routinely discontinuing it before dental extractions should be reconsidered.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The number of patients undergoing intravenous (IV) cannulation by paramedics has increased dramatically over recent years in the UK. Treatment protocols for cannulation in the field are loosely defined. Variation in practice may lead to patients' receiving differential treatment according to customary practice, rather than according to their clinical conditions. OBJECTIVES: To explore variations in practice and assess level of appropriatenesss of IV cannulation by London Ambulance Service (LAS) paramedics; to revise treatment protocols and work toward clinical guidelines, if indicated by study findings. METHODS: Skill usage data were analyzed for all LAS paramedics for 1995-96. All patients who were IV-cannulated and transported to three hospitals by LAS during March 1996 were identified. A panel of accident and emergency (A&E) and prehospital specialists judged each case for appropriateness. RESULTS: Variation during the year was wide, with a range of 1 to 221 (mean 47) patients cannulated per paramedic, although the majority showed some consistency in frequency of skill usage. A sample of 183 cases was reviewed. The majority judged 149 (81.4%) to be appropriate, although there was considerable disagreement between reviewers (kappa = 0.43, p < 0.001). Data suggested that those paramedics who cannulate more frequently cannulated less appropriately during the study period (lowest 30%: 73.9% appropriate; highest 30%: 45.8% appropriate, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite wide variation between paramedics, the panel judged overall appropriateness of cannulation to be high. The audit advisory group judged that new clinical guidelines might not achieve an improvement in practice and were not supported by study findings. It was recommended that variations be addressed through individual practice review.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Previous research has highlighted concern about infection rates in field-placed intravenous (IV) cannulae. In a study of IV placement by London Ambulance Service (LAS) paramedics, 17% of placements were judged to be inappropriate. Large variations in rates of IV placement between LAS paramedics were found. The authors' hypothesis was that placement of an IV carries disadvantages-pain, discomfort, distress, and infection-which may be unacceptable to patients. METHODS: This was a survey of all patients having an IV placed by LAS paramedics and transported to one of three London emergency departments (EDs) over a three-week period in December 1996. Patients were excluded if they had a self-inflicted injury/illness, were less than 14 years old, had no known address, or were visitors to the UK, or if their family doctor suggested it was not appropriate to contact the patient. Pain, discomfort, and distress; infection; satisfaction; understanding of the reason for cannulation; and out-of-hospital cannula use were all ascertained and analyzed with chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent of the respondents experienced some discomfort, 39% some pain, and 17% some distress. No patient reported an infection. Distress was more likely to be reported if there was no understanding of why the IV cannula was placed (chi2 [1] 6.1; p < 0.05). Further unstructured information revealed satisfaction with the IV cannulation and with general care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disadvantages of IV placement being reported by some respondents, overall levels of satisfaction were high, suggesting that these disadvantages were not unacceptable to patients. However, in the context of the 24,000 patients cannulated each year by LAS paramedics, "costs" to the patient are considerable.
Abstract: BACKGROUND. Following the introduction of Helicopter Emergency Ambulance Services (HEAS) in the United Kingdom in the last ten years this paper examines the costs and benefits of three contrasting services in Cornwall, London and Sussex. METHODS. Pre-hospital processes of care were compared between helicopter attended patients and land ambulance patients in all three studies, and health outcomes were compared between helicopter and land ambulance patients in the Cornwall and London studies. A review of the literature on the benefits of HEAS has also been undertaken. RESULTS. There were no improvements in response times and the time on scene was longer for helicopter attended patients. Survival of trauma or cardiac patients attended by helicopter was not improved. In London there was some evidence of worse residual disability in helicopter attended survivors, but in Cornwall residual disability was better in helicopter attended patients. There was no improvement in general health status or aspects of daily living in the helicopter attended patients. The overall total operational costs for these services were [symbol: see text] 55 000 p.a. in Sussex, [symbol: see text] 600 000 in Cornwall and [symbol: see text] 1.2 million in London. CONCLUSION. The analysis suggests that Helicopter Emergency Ambulance Services are costly, the health benefits are small, and there are limited circumstances in which the pre-hospital performance of an ambulance service in England and Wales can be improved.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the incremental consequences of the London Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) for the outcomes of survivors in terms of disability and health status, and cost. METHODS: Prospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of seriously injured patients attended either by the HEMS or by paramedically crewed land ambulances. In survivors, disability was assessed using an 11-point disability scale, and general health status was measured by the six dimensions of the 100-point Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) assessed 6 months after the injury. Costs were estimated for the HEMS and associated facilities at the Royal London Hospital, and the extra admissions attributable to the HEMS. RESULTS: There was no evidence of reduced disability in HEMS survivors (estimate: +0.8 disability grades worse; 95% CI: 0, 1.6), and no evidence of improvement in the six NHP dimensions scores or in the mean number of problems with seven aspects of daily living (estimated difference: +0.5; 95% CI: -0.2, 1.2). The incremental costs of HEMS were estimated to be 2.0 Pounds million a year. CONCLUSION: As there is no evidence of any improvement in outcomes overall for the extra cost, the HEMS has not been found to be a cost-effective service.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE--To assess the effect of the London helicopter emergency medical service on survival after trauma. DESIGN--Prospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of seriously injured patients attended by the helicopter and attended by London ambulance service land ambulances crewed by paramedics. SETTING--Greater London. SUBJECTS--337 patients attended by helicopter and 466 patients attended by ambulance who sustained traumatic injuries and died, stayed in hospital three or more nights, or had other evidence of severe injury and who were taken to any one of 20 primary receiving hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Survival at six months after the incident. RESULTS--After differences in the nature and severity of the injuries in the two cohorts were accounted for the estimated survival rates were the same (relative risk of death with helicopter = 1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.4). An analysis with trauma and injury severity scores (TRISS) found 16% more deaths than predicted in the helicopter cohort but only 2% more in the ambulance cohort. There was no evidence of a difference in survival for patients with head injury but a little evidence that patients with major trauma (injury severity score > or = 16) were more likely to survive if attended by the helicopter. An estimated 13 (-5 to 39) extra patients with major trauma could survive each year if attended by the helicopter. CONCLUSION--Any benefit in survival is restricted to patients with very severe injuries and amounts to an estimated one additional survivor of major trauma each month. Over all the helicopter caseload, however, there is no evidence that it improves the chance of survival in trauma.
