The Need for a UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Service by Night: A Prospective, Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma commonly occurs at night. Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) can provide advanced prehospital care to victims of major trauma but do not routinely operate at night in the United Kingdom. We sought to prospectively examine the need for a night HEMS service in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A 4-month, prospective study was conducted (July 1, 2012-October 31, 2012). HEMS dispatch paramedics were present in the ambulance dispatch center and undertook simulated HEMS activations when a suitable case was identified. All trauma cases from the 4-month study period were collated. Five independent HEMS clinicians reviewed the simulated tasking and trauma cases and gave an opinion on whether the patient met HEMS activation criteria. RESULTS: A mission rate of 1 case per night was predefined as cost-effective. During the prospective study, 145 calls were identified by the HEMS dispatch paramedic as appropriate for an HEMS response. If HEMS had deployed to all 145 incidents, this would have resulted in an average mission rate of 1.2 activations per night. Two hundred eight incidents were identified as potentially appropriate for HEMS activation. Responding to all 208 incidents would have resulted in a mean activation rate of 1.7 per night. CONCLUSION: This study justifies the need for Kent, Surrey and Sussex Air Ambulance Trust to operate a service at night for a trial period, with an estimated average mission load of 1 per night spread over the entire night period. Further research is warranted to determine the potential impact of a night HEMS service on outcome from major trauma.

Prospective observational study to examine health-related quality of life and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes 6 months after hospital discharge with blunt thoracic injuries.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with blunt thoracic injuries over 6 months from hospital discharge and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective observational study using longitudinal survey design. SETTING: The study recruitment was undertaken at 12 UK hospitals which represented diverse geographical locations and covered urban, suburban and rural areas across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 337 patients admitted to hospital with blunt thoracic injuries were recruited between June 2018-October 2020. METHODS: Participants completed a bank of two quality of life surveys (Short Form-12 (SF-12) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels) and two pain questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory and painDETECT Questionnaire) at four time points over the first 6 months after discharge from hospital. A total of 211 (63%) participants completed the outcomes data at 6 months after hospital discharge. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Three outcomes were measured using pre-existing and validated patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes included: Poor physical function (SF-12 Physical Component Score); chronic pain (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Score); and neuropathic pain (painDETECT Questionnaire). RESULTS: Despite a trend towards improving physical functional and pain at 6 months, outcomes did not return to participants perceived baseline level of function. At 6 months after hospital discharge, 37% (n=77) of participants reported poor physical function; 36.5% (n=77) reported a chronic pain state; and 22% (n=47) reported pain with a neuropathic component. Predictive models were developed for each outcome highlighting important data collection requirements for predicting long-term outcomes in this population. Model diagnostics including calibration and discrimination statistics suggested good model fit in this development cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the recovery trajectories for patients with blunt thoracic injuries over the first 6 months after hospital discharge and present prognostic models for three important outcomes which after external validation could be used as clinical risk stratification scores.