Loss of life years due to unavailable helicopter emergency medical service: a single base study from a rural area of Norway.

Background: Despite the potential benefits of physician-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS), many dispatches to primary HEMS missions in Norway are cancelled before patient encounter. Information is sparse regarding the health consequences when medically indicated HEMS missions are cancelled and the patients are treated by a GP and ambulance staff only. We aimed to estimate the potential loss of life years for patients in these situations. Method: We included all HEMS requests in the period 2010-2013 from Sogn and Fjordane County that were medically indicated but subsequently cancelled. This provided a selection of patients, with the purpose of studying cancellations independently of the patient's medical status A multidisciplinary expert panel retrospectively assessed each patient's potential loss of life years due to the lack of helicopter transport and intervention by a HEMS physician. Results: The study included 184 patients from 176 missions. Because of unavailable HEMS, seven patients (4%) were anticipated to have lost a total of 18 life years. Three patients suffered from myocardial infarction, three from stroke and one from abdominal haemorrhage. The main contribution from HEMS care in these seven cases might have been rapid transport to definitive care. The probability of a patient losing life years when in need of HEMS evacuation was found to be 0.2%. Conclusion: During the four years period seven patients lost 18 life years. Lack of rapid transport seems to be the primary cause of lost life years in this specific geographical area. Key Points Knowledge about to what extent HEMS contributes to an increased survival and a better outcome for patients is limited. Compared to similar studies on life years gained the estimated loss of life years was minor when HEMS evacuation was unavailable in this rural area. The findings indicates that lack of rapid HEMS transport was the primary cause of the estimated loss of life years.

Doctors are to blame for perceived medical adverse events. A cross sectional population study. The Tromsø Study.

BACKGROUND: Most current knowledge of the incidence of medical adverse events (AEs) comes from studies carried out in hospital settings. Little is known about AEs occurring outside hospitals, in spite the fact that most of contacts between patients and health care take place in primary care. Small sample population studies report that 4-49% of the general public have experienced AEs related to their own or family members´ care.The purpose with the present study was to investigate the occurrence of experienced medical adverse events in a large general population. METHODS: We invited 19763 inhabitants of a municipality in northern Norway, age 30 years and older, to fill in a questionnaire. Main outcome measures were life time prevalence of AEs experienced by respondents or their first degree relatives, perceived responsibility for and predictors of such events, as well as formal complaints as a reaction to the events. RESULTS: The response rate was 66%. Nine and 10% of the respondents reported self-experienced adverse events, and 15 and 19% (men and women, respectively) that their relatives had experienced AEs. Logistic regression models showed that the strongest predictors of reporting self-experienced adverse events were: Having been persuaded to accept an unwanted examination or treatment, difficulties in getting a referral from primary to specialist health care, and inadequate communication with the doctor. Of the respondents who had experienced adverse events personally, 62% placed the responsibility for the event on the general practitioner, 39% on the hospital doctor, and 19% on failing routines or cooperation. Only 7% of men and 14% of women who reported self-experienced events handed in a formal complaint. CONCLUSIONS: The public predominantly place the responsibility for medical adverse events on doctors, in particular general practitioners, and to a lesser degree on the system. This should be emphasised by doctors and managers who communicate with patients who have experienced AEs, and in patient safety work. Only a small fraction of adverse events results in a formal written complaint. Therefore, such complaints are of limited value as a basis for patient safety work.

Are expert panel judgments of medical benefits reliable? An evaluation of emergency medical service programs.

OBJECTIVE: We have used multidisciplinary expert panels to assess the health benefits from two different emergency medical service programs in Norway. This gave the opportunity to study the reliability of the expert panel method. METHODS: Two panels assessed case reports for 18 children, and two other panels assessed case reports for 64 adult patients. The assessments of each case report were compared. These assessments were also compared with assessments of the same case reports, done by the same panels 1 and 9 years earlier. RESULTS: Two different panels agreed on the benefit/no benefit conclusion in at least 75% of the patients, both for children and adult patients (kappa 0.88-0.50). For groups of patients assessed to have some health benefit, the magnitude of the benefit estimates differed by 25% between the panels. When the same panels assessed the same patient groups twice, 1 and 9 years apart, their estimates of total benefit differed up to 30%. However, estimates for single patients, as well as estimates from single panel members, varied considerably more. CONCLUSIONS: Use of multidisciplinary expert panels is a useful method for estimating health benefits on program level or for groups of patients. But assessments from single panelists, and for single patients may be seriously biased.