ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Does a physician's base specialty influence on‑scene efficiency? A four‑year analysis of 11,315 missions from five Austrian physician‑staffed HEMS bases.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in Austria operate under a uniform, high-accreditation framework: all physicians complete the same advanced prehospital curriculum, and dispatch decisions do not consider individual board certification. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether a physician’s original specialty (anaesthesiology, surgery, orthopaedics, internal medicine or paediatrics) affects on-scene efficiency or procedural choices. We therefore investigated whether board specialty independently predicts prehospital treatment times and intervention patterns in Austrian HEMS missions.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 11 315 missions from five alpine HEMS bases (January 2021 to April 2025). On-scene time (OST) was the primary endpoint. Predictors included physician specialty (10 boards, merged where appropriate) and NACA severity. Two-way ANOVA tested main and interaction effects, with sensitivity analyses for intubated trauma and logistic regression for intubation odds.
resultsSeverity dominated OST (F = 204, p < 0.001; η² ≈ 0.20), whereas specialty explained < 1% of the variance (F = 3.6, p = 0.003; η² = 0.006). A minor surgical advantage (≈ 5 min) was restricted to NACA 3 (p < 0.01) and clinically negligible. Specialty effects disappeared in sensitivity analyses. Specialty-specific practice patterns (e.g. surgeons’ higher ketamine/TXA use, anesthesiologist’ opioid preference) did not affect OST.
conclusionIn this standardized Austrian HEMS system, patient severity and mission complexity (not physician specialty) were the main determinants of on-scene time. Physician specialty showed no clinically relevant influence on pre-hospital time metrics. As this study assessed time-related parameters only, no conclusions can be drawn regarding system efficiency or overall quality of care. On-scene time should therefore be interpreted as one performance dimension among multiple quality indicators in HEMS systems.
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.