ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Effect of case identification changes on pre-hospital intubation performance indicators in an Australian helicopter emergency medical service.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chasing time targets in pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia: the case identification system is crucial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA 45-min interval from injury to intubation has been proposed as a performance indicator for severe trauma patient management. In the Sydney pre-hospital system a previous change in case identification systems was associated with activation delay. We aimed to determine if this also decreased the proportion of patients intubated within this benchmark.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients intubated by a helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) over two time periods. Period 1 dispatch was via HEMS crew directly screening the computerised dispatch system, and period 2 was via paramedics in a central control room. Times from emergency call to intubation were compared.
resultsIn the HEMS crew screening period 46/58 (79.31%) intubations met the target, compared with 137/314 (43.6%) in the central control period (P < 0.001). The median (interquartile range) time to intubation in the direct crew screening period was 33 (25-41) min, versus the central control period at 47 (38-60) min (P < 0.001). On multivariate modelling, distance to the scene was related to time to intubation (P < 0.001; Incident Rate Ratio = 1.018, 95% confidence interval 1.015-1.020) as was dispatch system, entrapment/access difficulty and indication for intubation (all P < 0.001).
conclusionsTime from emergency call to intubation was significantly shorter in the HEMS screening period where all non-trapped cases less than 50 km distant were intubated within the 45-min benchmark. There was no distance where intubation within 45 min could be assured for non-trapped patients in the central control period due to dispatch delays.
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.