Paramedic vs private transportation of trauma patients. Effect on outcome

D. Demetriades, L. Chan, E. Cornwell, H. Belzberg, T. V. Berne, J. Asensio, D. Chan, M. Eckstein and K. Alo
Department of Surgery, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) play a major role in any trauma system. However, there is very little information regarding the role of prehospital emergency care in trauma. To investigate this issue, we compared the outcome of severely injured patients transported by paramedics (EMS group) with the outcome of those transported by friends, relatives, bystanders, or police (non-EMS group). DESIGN: We compared 4856 EMS patients with 926 non-EMS patients. General linear model analysis was performed to test the hypothesis that hospital mortality is the same in EMS and non-EMS cases, controlling for the following confounding factors, which are not affected by mode of transportation: age, gender, mechanism of injury, cause of injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and severe head injury. Crude, specific, and adjusted mortality rates and relative risks were also derived for the EMS and non-EMS groups. SETTING: Large, urban, academic level I trauma center. PATIENTS: All patients meeting the criteria for major trauma. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with regard to mechanism of injury and the need for surgery or intensive care unit admission. The crude mortality rate was 9.3% in the EMS group and 4.0% in the non-EMS group (relative risk, 2.32; P < .001). After adjustment for ISS, the relative risk was 1.60 (P = .002). Subgroup analysis showed that among patients with ISS greater than 15, those in the EMS group had a mortality rate twice that of those in the non-EMS group (28.8% vs 14.1%). After controlling for confounding factors, the adjusted mortality among patients with ISS greater than 15 was 28.2% for the EMS group and 17.9% for the non-EMS group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe trauma transported by private means in this setting have better survival than those transported via the EMS system. Large prospective studies are needed to identify the factors responsible for this difference.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The clinical effectiveness of pre-hospital intravenous fluid replacement in trauma patients without head injury: a systematic review
Dretzke et al.
Trauma 2006;8:131-141.
ABSTRACT  

Trauma and critical care III: chest trauma
Shirley
Trauma 2005;7:133-142.
ABSTRACT  

Acute Traumatic Injuries in Rural Populations
Peek-Asa et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2004;94:1689-1693.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The advances and evidence base for prehospital care
MacFarlane
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:114-115.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of emergency medical services systems: a classification to assist in determination of indicators
MacFarlane and Benn
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:188-191.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Fluid resuscitation in prehospital trauma care: a consensus view
Revell et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2002;19:494-498.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Fluid resuscitation in pre-hospital trauma care: a consensus view
Revell et al.
Trauma 2002;4:21-28.
ABSTRACT  

Thoracolumbar Immobilization for Trauma Patients With Torso Gunshot Wounds: Is It Necessary?
Cornwell III et al.
Arch Surg 2001;136:324-327.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pre-hospital fluids - when and how much?
Revell and Porter
Trauma 2000;2:179-186.
ABSTRACT  

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vs Non-EMS Transport of Critically Injured Patients: A Prospective Evaluation
Cornwell III et al.
Arch Surg 2000;135:315-319.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prehospital emergency care
Cooke et al.
BMJ 1996;313:1220-1221.
FULL TEXT