Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Assessment of clinical and logistical contribution in a Norwegian helicopter emergency medical service using integrated data: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician‑staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) provide advanced pre‑hospital care, rapid transfer to hospital, and access to remote areas. These services are costly with limited capacity; therefore, their value depends on meaningful patient benefit. Although clinical and logistical capabilities are essential for selected patient groups, no unified measure of service benefit exists. In 2017 an international expert panel proposed a set of quality indicators (QIs) for Physician‑Staffed Emergency Medical Services (P‑EMS). Since 2021 the Trondheim HEMS has used these QIs to assess clinical and logistical contribution in completed missions. This study aims to describe these contribution assessments and relate them with descriptive data and established severity measures from integrated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and hospital data.
methodsPhysician‑reported assessments of clinical and logistical contribution from Trondheim HEMS (2022-2024) were linked with data from the Emergency Medical Communication Centre, HEMS records and hospital records. Contribution assessments and mission characteristics were examined using descriptive statistics. Associations and convergence between contribution assessments, severity measures and patient characteristics were explored using multivariable regression models.
resultsHEMS contribution was assessed for 2,286 missions. Of these, 1,696 (74%) were judged as beneficial, including 1,173 (51%) with logistical contribution and 897 (39%) with clinical contribution, with an overlap of 374 missions (16%) showing both. Logistical contribution was associated with conditions requiring rapid transfer to definitive treatment, while clinical contribution was associated with potentially critical diagnoses, higher severity scores, higher mortality rates, and greater hospital utilisation. Retrospectively, 590 missions (26%) were classified as having no contribution, more often involving younger patients and potentially critical but uncertain conditions.
conclusionsAcross three years of retrospective physician‑reported assessments, three quarters of HEMS missions were retrospectively considered beneficial, reflecting approximately 50 percent logistical contribution and 40 percent clinical contribution, with a 16 percent overlap. The remaining 26 percent were viewed as not beneficial. Assessments of relative contributions varied between physicians suggests differing interpretations of the criteria, highlighting the need to strengthen a shared understanding of the underlying concepts.
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.