ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2022
Advising and limiting medical treatment during phone consultation: a prospective multicentre study in HEMS settings.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated paramedic-initiated consultation calls and advice given via telephone by Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) physicians focusing on limitations of medical treatment (LOMT).
methodsA prospective multicentre study was conducted on four physician-staffed HEMS bases in Finland during a 6-month period.
resultsOf all 6115 (mean 8.4/base/day) paramedic-initiated consultation calls, 478 (7.8%) consultation calls involving LOMTs were included: 268 (4.4%) cases with a pre-existing LOMT, 165 (2.7%) cases where the HEMS physician issued a new LOMT and 45 (0.7%) cases where the patient already had an LOMT and the physician further issued another LOMT. The most common new limitation was a do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order (n = 122/210, 58%) and/or 'not eligible for intensive care' (n = 96/210, 46%). In 49 (23%) calls involving a new LOMT, termination of an initiated resuscitation attempt was the only newly issued LOMT. The most frequent reasons for issuing an LOMT during consultations were futility of the overall situation (71%), poor baseline functional status (56%), multiple/severe comorbidities (56%) and old age (49%). In the majority of cases (65%) in which the HEMS physician issued a new LOMT for a patient without any pre-existing LOMT, the physician felt that the patient should have already had an LOMT. The patient was in a health care facility or a nursing home in half (49%) of the calls that involved issuing a new LOMT. Access to medical records was reported in 29% of the calls in which a new LOMT was issued by an HEMS physician.
conclusionConsultation calls with HEMS physicians involving patients with LOMT decisions were common. HEMS physicians considered end-of-life questions on the phone and issued a new LOMT in 3.4% of consultations calls. These decisions mainly concerned termination of resuscitation, DNACPR, intubation and initiation of intensive care.
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.