You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 135 No. 3, March 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (12)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Surgery, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vs Non-EMS Transport of Critically Injured Patients

A Prospective Evaluation

Edward E. Cornwell III, MD; Howard Belzberg, MD; Karen Hennigan, PhD; Cheryl Maxson, PhD; George Montoya, MA; Anna Rosenbluth, MA; George C. Velmahos, MD, PhD; Thomas C. Berne, MD; Demetrios Demetriades, MD, PhD

Arch Surg. 2000;135:315-319.

Background  A previous report of 5782 trauma patients demonstrated higher mortality among those transported by emergency medical services (EMS) than among their non–EMS-transported counterparts.

Hypothesis  Trauma patients who are transported by EMS and those who are not differ in the injury-to-hospital arrival time interval.

Design  Prospective cohort-matched observation study.

Setting  Level I trauma center, multidisciplinary study group.

Patients  All non-EMS patients were matched with the next appropriate EMS patient by an investigator who was unaware of the outcome and mode of transport. Every 10th EMS patient with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 13 or greater was also randomly enrolled. Matching characteristics included age, ISS, mechanism of injury, head Abbreviated Injury Score, and presence of hypotension. An interview protocol was developed to determine the time of injury. Interview responses from patients, witnesses, and friends were combined with data obtained from police, sheriff, and medical examiner reports.

Main Outcome Measures  Time to the hospital, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay.

Results  A total of 103 patients were enrolled (38 non-EMS, 38 EMS matched, 27 random EMS). Injury time was estimated using all available data made on 100 patients (97%). Independent raters agreed in 81% of cases. Deaths, complications, and length of hospital stay were similar between the EMS- and non–EMS-transported groups. Although time intervals were similar among the groups overall, more critically injured non-EMS patients (ISS >=13) got themselves to the trauma center in less time than their EMS counterparts (15 minutes vs 28 minutes; P<.05).

Conclusions  A multidisciplinary approach can be utilized, and an interview protocol created to determine actual time of injury. Critically injured non–EMS-transported patients (ISS >=13) arrived at the hospital earlier after their injuries.


From the Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma/Critical Care (Drs Cornwell, Belzberg, Velmahos, Berne, and Demetriades), and the Social Science Research Institute (Drs Hennigan and Maxson, Mr Montoya, and Ms Rosenbluth), University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr Cornwell is now with The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Invited Critique: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vs Non-EMS Transport of Critically Injured Patients
Jeffrey P. Salomone
Arch Surg. 2000;135(3):319.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

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  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.