Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38383402›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024

The SEE-IT Trial: emergency medical services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Cath Taylor, Lucie Ollis, Richard M Lyon, Julia Williams, Simon S Skene, Kate Bennett, Matthew Glover, Scott Munro, Craig Mortimer, SEE-IT Trial Group

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Triage of road injury casualties - the role of bystanders: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. College of Paramedics Research Conference 2024.British paramedic journal · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cath TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK. cath.taylor@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4744
Lucie OllisSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Richard M LyonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Julia WilliamsSouth East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Crawley, West Sussex, UK.
Simon S SkeneSurrey Clinical Trials Unit, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Kate BennettSurrey Clinical Trials Unit, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Matthew GloverSurrey Health Economics Centre, School of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Scott MunroSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Craig MortimerSouth East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Crawley, West Sussex, UK.
SEE-IT Trial Group

Funding

Health and Social Care Delivery Research NIHR130811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of bystander video livestreaming from scene to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is becoming increasingly common to aid decision making about the resources required. Possible benefits include earlier, more appropriate dispatch and clinical and financial gains, but evidence is sparse.

methodsA feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation and exploratory economic evaluation where working shifts during six trial weeks were randomised 1:1 to use video livestreaming during eligible trauma incidents (using GoodSAM Instant-On-Scene) or standard care only. Pre-defined progression criteria were: (1) ≥ 70% callers (bystanders) with smartphones agreeing and able to activate live stream; (2) ≥ 50% requests to activate resulting in footage being viewed; (3) Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) stand-down rate reducing by ≥ 10% as a result of live footage; (4) no evidence of psychological harm in callers or staff/dispatchers. Observational sub-studies included (i) an inner-city EMS who routinely use video livestreaming to explore acceptability in a diverse population; and (ii) staff wellbeing in an EMS not using video livestreaming for comparison to the trial site.

resultsSixty-two shifts were randomised, including 240 incidents (132 control; 108 intervention). Livestreaming was successful in 53 incidents in the intervention arm. Patient recruitment (to determine appropriateness of dispatch), and caller recruitment (to measure potential harm) were low (58/269, 22% of patients; 4/244, 2% of callers). Two progression criteria were met: (1) 86% of callers with smartphones agreed and were able to activate livestreaming; (2) 85% of requests to activate livestreaming resulted in footage being obtained; and two were indeterminate due to insufficient data: (3) 2/6 (33%) HEMS stand down due to livestreaming; (4) no evidence of psychological harm from survey, observations or interviews, but insufficient survey data from callers or comparison EMS site to be confident. Language barriers and older age were reported in interviews as potential challenges to video livestreaming by dispatchers in the inner-city EMS.

conclusionsProgression to a definitive RCT is supported by these findings. Bystander video livestreaming from scene is feasible to implement, acceptable to both 999 callers and dispatchers, and may aid dispatch decision-making. Further assessment of unintended consequences, benefits and harm is required.

trial registrationISRCTN 11449333 (22 March 2022). https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11449333.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesAircraftFeasibility StudiesHumansPatient SelectionSmartphoneAir ambulanceCritical careEmergency medical dispatchEmergency medical resourceEmergency medical servicesHelicopter emergency medical servicesPre-hospitalSmartphoneTraumaVideo

Identifiers

PMID38383402
PMCPMC10883301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.