Observational studyScandinavian journal of primary health care2018
Treatment, transport, and primary care involvement when helicopter emergency medical services are inaccessible: a retrospective study.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- GP roles in emergency medical services: a systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) activity after increased distance to out-of-hours services: an observational study from Norway.BMC emergency medicine · 2020Observational
- Loss of life years due to unavailable helicopter emergency medical service: a single base study from a rural area of Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine handling of cancelled helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) missions with a persisting medical indication.
designRetrospective observational study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Cancelled HEMS missions with persisting medical indication within Sogn og Fjordane county in Norway during the period of 2010-2013. Both primary and secondary missions were included.
main outcome measuresPrimary care involvement, treatment and cooperation within the prehospital system.
resultsOur analysis included 172 missions with 180 patients. Two-thirds of the patients (118/180) were from primary missions. In 95% (112/118) of primary missions, GPs were alerted, and they examined 62% (70/112) of these patients. Among the patients examined by a GP, 30% (21/70) were accompanied by a GP during transport to hospital. GP involvement did not differ according to time of day (p = 0.601), diagnostic group (p = 0.309), or patient's age (p = 0.409). In 41% of primary missions, the patients received no treatment or oxygen only during transport. Among the secondary missions, 10% (6/62) of patients were intubated or received non-invasive ventilation and were accompanied by a physician or nurse anaesthetist during transport.
conclusionsAmbulance workers and GPs have an important role when HEMS is unavailable. Our findings indicated good collaboration among the prehospital personnel. Many of the patients were provided minimal or no treatment, and treatment did not differ according to GP involvement. Key Points Knowledge about handling and involvement of prehospital services in cancelled helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) missions are scarce. Ambulance workers and general practitioners have an important role when HEMS is unavailable Minimal or no treatment was given to a large amount of the patients, regardless of which health personnel who encountered the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.