Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:37:53.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Air Medical Transport Utilization Review in North Carolina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Nicholas H. Benson ,
Roy L. Alson ,
Eve G. Norton ,
Ann P. Beauchamp ,
Rita Weber  and
Jorge L. Carreras
Nicholas H. Benson*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, N.C.
Roy L. Alson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Eve G. Norton
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Orthopedic Hospital, Charlotte, N.C.
Ann P. Beauchamp
Affiliation:
Samaritan AirEvac, Samaritan Health Services, Phoenix, Ariz.
Rita Weber
Affiliation:
Life Flight, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Jorge L. Carreras
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Memorial Mission Hospital, Asheville, N.C.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, ECU School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858-4354USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To perform a review of the collective experience of all hospital-based helicopter ambulances in the state of North Carolina for compliance with utilization review criteria.

Design:

Flight records of the six members of the North Carolina Aeromedical Affiliation for the months of November and December 1989 were compared with utilization review criteria by an independent reviewer. A secondary review was performed by a staff member for each service. Scene responses and patients flown to a hospital other than the sponsor were evaluated.

Setting:

All six hospital-based helicopter services in North Carolina.

Type of participants:

All available flight records for November and December 1989.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and main results:

Of 756 transports, 747 flight records were available for review. Initial review demonstrated compliance with the criteria for 713 (95.4%) patients; secondary review showed compliance for 18 of 34 flights not meeting initial review, for an overall compliance rate of 97.9%. Compliance rates for scene responses and transports taken to a hospital other than the sponsoring facility were 96.6% and 94.1%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Review of all flights over a period of two months by all six hospital-based helicopter services in North Carolina using utilization review criteria demonstrated a very high rate of compliance with the established criteria.

Keywords

air ambulanceair medical transportcost-benefitcriteriaemergency medical servicesflight recordsutilization review
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 133 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Presented at the 1990 Association of Air Medical Services Scientific Session, Nashville, Tenn., September 1990

References

1. Annual Transport Statistics. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:6.Google Scholar
2. Pozzi, E: Maintaining the highest standards: Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Services works toward bright future of air medical industry. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:15–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Collect, HM: 1989 accident review: Helicopter accidents set second lowest record in decade. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Rhee, KJ, Baxt, WG, MacKenzie, JR, et al. : Differences in air ambulance patient mix demonstrated by physiologic scoring. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:552–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. North Carolina ACEP: Guidelines for emergency air transport developed. EPIC: North Carolina ACEP Emergency Physician Interim Communique 1988;November 2–4.Google Scholar
6. Blumen, IJ, Gordon, RS: Taking to the skies. Emergency 1989;21 (11):32–38.Google Scholar
7. Benson, NH, Weber, R: A concerted effort to boost Medicare reimbursement in North Carolina. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:13–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gabram, SGA, Jacobs, LM: The impact of emergency medical helicopters on prehospital care. Emerg Med Clin Amer 1990;8:85–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Williams, KA, Aghababian, R, Shaughnessy, M: Statewide helicopter utilization review: The Massachusetts experience. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:14–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Travers, DA, Means, J, Riordan, J: Determining appropriate use of an air medical program. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1989;8:7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Knoll, E: The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1330–1332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Knopp, R, Yanagi, A, Kallsen, G, et al. : Mechanism of injury and anatomic injury as criteria for prehospital trauma triage. Ann Emerg Med 1988;17:895–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Services: Accreditation Standards of the Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Services. Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Services 1991:31.Google Scholar
14. Thomas, F, Clemmer, JP, Bock, HC: The medical audit. In Eastes, L, Jacobson, J (eds): Quality Assurance in Air Medical Transport. Orem, Utah: WordPerfect Publishing Company, 1990, pp 49–50.Google Scholar
15. Jablonowski, A: Position paper on the appropriate use of emergency air medical services. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:29–33.Google Scholar
16. National Association of EMS Physicians: Position paper: Air medical dispatch: Guidelines for scene response. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992:7:75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. AAMS Quality Assurance Committee: AAMS resource document for air medical quality assurance programs. Journal of Air Medical Transport 1990;9:23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar