Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for trauma scene transport in the United States.

ABSTRACT: We determine the minimum mortality reduction that helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) should provide relative to ground EMS for the scene transport of trauma victims to offset higher costs, inherent transport risks, and inevitable overtriage of patients with minor injury.We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of helicopter versus ground EMS transport to a trauma center from a societal perspective during a patient's lifetime. We determined the mortality reduction needed to make helicopter transport cost less than $100,000 and $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with ground EMS. Model inputs were derived from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank, Medicare reimbursements, and literature. We assessed robustness with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Helicopter EMS must provide a minimum of a 15% relative risk reduction in mortality (1.3 lives saved/100 patients with the mean characteristics of the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma cohort) to cost less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a reduction of at least 30% (3.3 lives saved/100 patients) to cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Helicopter EMS becomes more cost-effective with significant reductions in patients with minor injury who are triaged to air transport or if long-term disability outcomes are improved.Helicopter EMS needs to provide at least a 15% mortality reduction or a measurable improvement in long-term disability to compare favorably with other interventions considered cost-effective. Given current evidence, it is not clear that helicopter EMS achieves this mortality or disability reduction. Reducing overtriage of patients with minor injury to helicopter EMS would improve its cost-effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Delgado MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3999834 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for trauma scene transport in the United States.

Delgado M Kit MK Staudenmayer Kristan L KL Wang N Ewen NE Spain David A DA Weir Sharada S Owens Douglas K DK Goldhaber-Fiebert Jeremy D JD

Annals of emergency medicine 20130409 4

<h4>Study objective</h4>We determine the minimum mortality reduction that helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) should provide relative to ground EMS for the scene transport of trauma victims to offset higher costs, inherent transport risks, and inevitable overtriage of patients with minor injury.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of helicopter versus ground EMS transport to a trauma center from a societal perspective during a patient's ...[more]

PMID: 23582619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify injured patients who may benefit from scene helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport. External validation using a different data set is essential to ensure reliable performance. The study objective was to validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from HEMS using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry.MethodsPatients 16 years or older undergoing scene HEMS or ground EMS (GEMS) transport in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry 2000-2013 were included. Patients with 2 or higher AMPT score points were triaged to HEMS, while those with less than 2 points were triaged to GEMS. Multilevel Poisson regression determined the association of survival with actual transport mode across AMPT score triage assignments, adjusting for demographics, mechanism, vital signs, interventions, and injury severity. Successful validation was defined as no survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, with a survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients treated by advanced life support providers and patients with transport times longer than 10 minutes.ResultsThere were 222,827 patients included. For patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.009; p = 0.08). For patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score, actual HEMS transport was associated with a 6.7% increase in the relative probability of survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.067; 95% confidence interval, 1.040-1.083, p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.ConclusionsThis study is the first to externally validate the AMPT score, demonstrating the ability of this tool to reliably identify trauma patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport. The AMPT score should be considered when protocols for HEMS scene transport are developed and reviewed.Level of evidenceEpidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:ImportanceTime to definitive care following injury is important to the outcomes of trauma patients. Prehospital trauma care is provided based on policies developed by individual trauma systems and is an important component of the care of injured patients. Given a paucity of systems-level trauma research, considerable variability exists in prehospital care policies across trauma systems, potentially affecting patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether private vehicle prehospital transport confers a survival advantage vs ground emergency medical services (EMS) transport following penetrating injuries in urban trauma systems.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of data included in the National Trauma Data Bank from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, comprising 298 level 1 and level 2 trauma centers that contribute data to the National Trauma Data Bank that are located within the 100 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States. Of 2 329 446 patients assessed for eligibility, 103 029 were included in this study. All patients were 16 years or older, had a gunshot wound or stab wound, and were transported by ground EMS or private vehicle.Main outcome and measureIn-hospital mortality.ResultsOf the 2 329 446 records assessed for eligibility, 103 029 individuals at 298 urban level 1 and level 2 trauma centers were included in the analysis. The study population was predominantly male (87.6%), with a mean age of 32.3 years. Among those included, 47.9% were black, 26.3% were white, and 18.4% were Hispanic. Following risk adjustment, individuals with penetrating injuries transported by private vehicle were less likely to die than patients transported by ground EMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.31-0.47). This association remained statistically significant on stratified analysis of the gunshot wound (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56) and stab wound (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.52) subgroups.Conclusions and relevancePrivate vehicle transport is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of death when compared with ground EMS transport for individuals with gunshot wounds and stab wounds in urban US trauma systems. System-level evidence such as this can be a valuable tool for those responsible for developing and implementing policies at the trauma system level.

Project description:BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma sets national targets for the accuracy of field trauma triage at ≥95% sensitivity and ≥65% specificity, yet the cost-effectiveness of realizing these goals is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of current field trauma triage practices compared with triage strategies consistent with the national targets.Study designThis was a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 79,937 injured adults transported by 48 emergency medical services agencies to 105 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Incremental differences in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (costs per QALY gained) were estimated for each triage strategy during a 1-year and lifetime horizon using a decision analytic Markov model. We considered an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of <$100,000 to be cost-effective.ResultsFor these 6 regions, a high-sensitivity triage strategy consistent with national trauma policy (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 17.1%) would cost $1,317,333 per QALY gained, and current triage practices (sensitivity 87.2%, specificity 64.0%) cost $88,000 per QALY gained, compared with a moderate sensitivity strategy (sensitivity 71.2%, specificity 66.5%). Refining emergency medical services transport patterns by triage status improved cost-effectiveness. At the trauma-system level, a high-sensitivity triage strategy would save 3.7 additional lives per year at a 1-year cost of $8.78 million, and a moderate sensitivity approach would cost 5.2 additional lives and save $781,616 each year.ConclusionsA high-sensitivity approach to field triage consistent with national trauma policy is not cost-effective. The most cost-effective approach to field triage appears closely tied to triage specificity and adherence to triage-based emergency medical services transport practices.

Project description:ImportanceAppropriate use of helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) is important in ensuring that patients with critical illness or injury receive adequate treatment.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between use of HEMS compared with use of ground EMS (GEMS) and mortality overall and in a subgroup of patients with critical illness or injury.Design, setting, and participantsThis register-based, nationwide cohort study used data retrieved from Danish registries from October 1, 2014, to April 30, 2018. Patients receiving GEMS originated from dispatched HEMS missions for which a helicopter was unavailable. For the primary analysis, patients from accepted HEMS missions and patients from missions in which HEMS was dispatched but unavailable were included. The secondary analysis included patients assigned a hospital International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis considered a critical illness or injury. These patients were selected via a consensus-based agreement among all authors by reviewing the Danish version of the World Health Organization's ICD-10 classification. Data were analyzed from March to June 2020.ExposuresDispatch of HEMS vs GEMS unit (primary analysis) and treatment and transport by HEMS vs GEMS unit among patients with critical illness or injury (secondary analysis).Main outcomes and measuresOne-year mortality was retrieved from the Danish Civil Registration System.ResultsAmong 10 618 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60 [42-72] years; 6834 [64.4%] men) included in the primary analysis, 9480 patients (89.3%) received HEMS and 1138 patients (10.7%) received GEMS. Median (interquartile range) age was 60 (42-72) years, and 6834 patients (64.4%) were men. Adjusted cumulative 1-year mortality was 23.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-24.1%) among patients receiving HEMS vs 24.5% (95% CI, 21.9%-27.1%) among patients receiving GEMS. The difference in mortality risk for HEMS compared with GEMS was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.06]). Among 2260 patients with critical illness or injury receiving HEMS, compared with 315 patients with critical illness or injury receiving GEMS, adjusted cumulative 1-year mortality was 25.1% (95% CI, 23.5%-26.7%) vs 27.1% (95% CI, 22.0%-32.1%). The difference in mortality risk for HEMs compared with GEMs was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73-1.14]).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that 1 year after dispatch, the use of HEMS, compared with the use of GEMS, was not associated with a statistically significant difference in mortality overall or mortality among patients with critical illness or injury. Further research is needed to determine whether optimized dispatch systems may be associated with further improvements in survival among selected patients.

Project description:BackgroundCritically ill patients need to be immediately identified, properly managed, and rapidly transported to definitive care. Extensive prehospital times may increase mortality in selected patient groups. The on-scene time is a part of the prehospital interval that can be decreased, as transport times are determined mostly by the distance to the hospital. Identifying factors that affect on-scene time can improve training, protocols, and decision making. Our objectives were to assess on-scene time in the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) in our region and selected factors that may affect it in specific and severe conditions.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated on-scene time and factors that may affect it for 9757 emergency primary missions by the three HEMSs in western Norway between 2009 and 2013, using graphics and descriptive statistics.ResultsThe overall median on-scene time was 10 minutes (IQR 5-16). The median on-scene time in patients with penetrating torso injuries was 5 minutes (IQR 3-10), whereas in cardiac arrest patients it was 20 minutes (IQR 13-28). Based on multivariate linear regression analysis, the severity of the patient's condition, advanced interventions performed, mode of transport, and trauma missions increased the on-scene time. Endotracheal intubation increased the OST by almost 10 minutes. Treatment prior to HEMS arrival reduced the on-scene time in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction.DiscussionWe found a short OST in preselected conditions compared to other studies. For the various patient subgroups, the strength of association between factors and OST varied. The time spent on-scene and its influencing factors were dependent on the patient's condition. Our results provide a basis for efforts to improve decision making and reduce OST for selected patient groups.ConclusionsThe most important factors associated with increased on-scene time were the severity of the patient's condition, the need for intubation or intravenous analgesic, helicopter transport, and trauma missions.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for trauma scene transport in the United States.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for trauma scene transport in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets