Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:01:37.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Risk Pediatric Emergency Air Transport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Brahm Goldstein ,
John H. Fugate ,
Alasdair K. Conn  and
I. David Todres
Brahm Goldstein*
Affiliation:
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Services MassachusettsGeneral Hospital Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass., USA
John H. Fugate
Affiliation:
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Services MassachusettsGeneral Hospital Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass., USA
Alasdair K. Conn
Affiliation:
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Services MassachusettsGeneral Hospital Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass., USA
I. David Todres
Affiliation:
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Services MassachusettsGeneral Hospital Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass., USA
*
Strong Children's Critical Care Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave., Rochester, N.Y. 14642, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Pediatric Emergency Air Transports (PEATs) at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, were reviewed between November 1986 and December 1987. Severity of illness, complications, and outcome of PEATs were compared with ground transports. Factors associated with PEAT survival were identified.

Methods:

Severity of illness was measured using a modified Denver Patient Status Category (DPSC) method and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS). There were 35 PEATs (30 helicopter, five fixed-wing) and 96 ground transports.

Results:

Mean severity of illness for patients was greater in PEAT than for the ground transport (PEAT DPSC score=4.23±1.06 versus ground DPSC=3.57±0.89 [SD], p=.0005). The PEAT mortality was associated with a greater mean severity of illness (TISS survivors=19.1±11.4 versus non-survivors=44.3±9.5, p=.0001), but not with: the presence of an in-flight physician; transport delay; transport duration; age; sex; history of chronic illness; or intra-transport medical complication.

Conclusions:

Compared to ground transports, PEATs were used for higher risk patients.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 408 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1991

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.)

References

1. Dobrin, RS, Block, B, Gilman, JI et al. : The development of a pediatric emergency transport system. Ped Clin North Am 1980;27:633–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Rhee, KJ, Burney, RE, MacKenzie, JR et al. : Therapeutic intervention scoring as a measure of appropriateness of helicopter emergency medical services. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:40–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Yeh, TS, Pollock, MM, Holbrook, PR et al. : Assessment of pediatric intensive care-application of the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System. Crit Care Med 1982;10:497–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Eisenberg, M, Bergner, L, Hallstrom, A: Epidemiology of cardiac arrest in children. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:672–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Friesen, RM, Duncan, P, Tweed, WA, Bristow, G: Appraisal of pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Can Med Assoc J 1982;126:1055–1058.Google ScholarPubMed
6. O'Rourke, PP: Outcome of children who are apneic and pulseless in the emergency room. Crit Care Med 1986;14:466–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Black, NE, Mayer, T, Walker, ML et al. : Air transport of pediatric emergency cases. N Engl J Med 1982;307:1465–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Garrison, HG, Benson, NH, Whitley, TW: Helicopter use by rural emergency departments to transfer trauma victims: A study of time-to-request intervals. Am J Emerg Med 1989;7:384–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Harris, BH, Orr, RE, Boles, ET: Aeromedical transportation for infants and children. J Ped Surg 1975;10:719–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Mayer, TA, Walker, ML: Severity of illness and injury in pediatric air transport. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:108–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Kissoon, N, Frewen, TC, Kronick, JB, Mohammed, A: The child requiring transport: Lessons and implications for the pediatric emergency physician. Pediatric Emerg Care 1988;4:1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Kanter, RK, Tompkins, JM: Adverse events during interhospital transport: physiologic deterioration associated with pretransport severity of illness. Pediatrics 1989;84:43–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Baxt, WG, Moody, P: The impact of a physician as part of the aeromedical prehospital team in patients with blunt trauma. JAMA 1987;257:3246–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Carraway, RP, Brewer, ME, Lewis, BR: Why a physician? Aeromedical transport of the trauma victim. J Trauma 1984;24:650.Google Scholar
15. McCloskey, KA, King, WD, Byron, L: Pediatric critical care transport: Is a physician always needed on the team? Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:247–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Rhee, KJ, Strozeski, M, Burney, RE et al. : Is the flight physician needed for helicopter emergency medical services. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:174–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Snow, N, Hull, C, Severna, J: Physician presence on a helicopter emergency medical service: Necessary or desirable? Aviat Space Environ Med 1986;57:1176–1178.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Reddick, E: Evaluation of the helicopter in aeromedical transfers. Aviat Space Environ Med 1979;50:168–170.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Pollack, MM, Alexander, SR, Clarke, N et al. : Comparison of tertiary and nontertiary intensive care: A statewide comparison Ped Res 1988;23:234A. Abstract.Google Scholar