Differences in call profiles, interventions and physician staffing between ground and helicopter emergency medical services in Austria

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To compare the call profiles, physician-delivered interventions and physician staffing of ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in Austria. METHODS: This was a sub-analysis of the Austrian Emergency Day 2024 audit, which was a prospective, observational, nationwide study conducted across 98 out of 149 public physician-staffed emergency medical services (EMS) in Austria. During 24 hours all emergency calls, to which EMS physicians were dispatched, were documented. Data collection included characteristics of participating EMS bases and non-patient-related details of each emergency call. RESULTS: Included in the study were 79 GEMS bases conducting 338 calls and 19 HEMS bases conducting 60 calls were included. The proportion of primary calls was lower (71.7% vs. 83.7%) and the proportion of interfacility transfers higher (18.3% vs. 4.7%) in HEMS than GEMS (p < 0.001). The median (interquartile range, IQR) duration of emergency calls was longer for HEMS than GEMS missions with 62min (IQR 53-71min) vs. 47min (IQR 44-50min) (p < 0.001). The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score was lower for GEMS than HEMS calls (3 (2-4) vs. 4 (3-5); p < 0.001). The over-triage rate was higher in the GEMS than HEMS group (58.4% vs. 29.6%; p < 0.001). Except for sonography use, no difference in the rate of diagnostic or therapeutic physician-delivered interventions was observed between GEMS and HEMS. Characteristics of physician staffing did not differ between GEMS and HEMS. CONCLUSION: Relevant differences in the call profiles but not physician-delivered interventions or physician staffing exist between GEMS and HEMS in Austria. The HEMS are more frequently tasked to emergencies with a higher severity and conduct interfacility transfers more frequently than GEMS.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.