Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T20:28:12.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Primary aeromedical retrieval crew composition: Do different teams impact clinical outcomes? A descriptive systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

Colin Laverty*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Homer Tien
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Andrew Beckett
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Saint Michael`s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Avery Nathens
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
JP Rivest-Caissy
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Luis Teodoro da Luz
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
*
Correspondence to: Major Colin Laverty, CANSOFCOM CFB Trenton, P.O. Box 1000 Station Forces, Astra, ONK0K 3W0; Email: [email protected].

Abstract

Objectives

Military Forward Aeromedical Evacuation and civilian Helicopter Emergency Medical Services are widely used to conduct Primary Aeromedical Retrieval. Crew composition in Primary Aeromedical Retrieval missions varies considerably. The ideal composition is unknown. Thus, we conducted a descriptive systematic review on mortality and other outcomes for different Primary Aeromedical Retrieval crew compositions.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched up to January 2020. Results were reported per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Studies of adult trauma air transported by different crews were included. Population, injury severity, crew composition, procedures, and outcomes, including mortality, were abstracted. Risk of bias was assessed using previously validated tools. A lack of reported effect measures precluded a quantitative analysis.

Results

Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria (3 prospective studies, 1 case-control, and 12 retrospective). Overall, studies reported a mortality benefit associated with advanced health care providers. This was most apparent in patients with severe but survivable injuries. In this population, early rapid sequence induction, endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, thoracostomies, blood products transfusion, and treatment of hemorrhagic shock are better performed by advanced providers and may improve outcomes. The quality of evidence reported a moderate risk of bias in the included studies.

Conclusions

Overall, findings were divergent but showed a trend to decreased mortality in patients treated by advanced providers with interventions beyond the basic paramedic level. This trend was most significant in patients with severe but survivable injuries. These results should be cautiously interpreted because most studies were observational, had small sample sizes, and had a high potential for confounding factors.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉObjectif

Les équipes d’évacuation sanitaire aérienne de l'avant dans le monde militaire et les services médicaux d'urgence par hélicoptère dans le monde civil sont souvent appelés à effectuer des évacuations sanitaires aériennes primaires. Toutefois, la composition des équipes de soins dans ce type d’évacuation varie considérablement, et on ne sait pas quelle est la meilleure composition. Aussi l’étude visait-elle à procéder à une revue systématique descriptive de la documentation médicale sur la mortalité et d'autres résultats cliniques associés à différentes compositions d’équipe d’évacuation sanitaire aérienne primaire.

Méthode

Des recherches ont été effectuées dans les bases de données Medline, Embase et Cochrane Controlled Trials Register jusqu’à janvier 2020, et les résultats ont été relevés conformément aux lignes directrices des Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Ont été sélectionnées des études portant sur le transport aérien d'adultes ayant subi un trauma et traités par des équipes de composition différente. Les données sur la population concernée, la gravité des blessures, la composition des équipes, les interventions effectuées et les résultats cliniques, dont la mortalité, ont fait l'objet d'analyse. Le risque de biais a été évalué à l'aide d'instruments déjà validés. Enfin, il n'a pas été possible de procéder à une analyse quantitative en raison du manque d'indicateurs communs d'effets.

Résultats

Seize études satisfaisaient aux critères de sélection (prospectives : 3; cas-témoins : 1; rétrospectives : 12). Dans l'ensemble, une association a été établie entre une diminution de la mortalité et le niveau avancé des fournisseurs de soins, diminution particulièrement marquée chez les patients ayant subi des blessures graves mais non mortelles. Le personnel en soins avancés réalise mieux la mise en route rapide et précoce de l'induction, de l'intubation endotrachéale, de la ventilation mécanique, des thoracotomies, des transfusions de produits sanguins et du traitement des chocs hémorragiques dans cette population, d'où l'amélioration possible des résultats cliniques. Enfin, l'analyse de la qualité des données indiquait un risque modéré de biais dans les études sélectionnées.

Conclusion

Dans l'ensemble, malgré des divergences, les données ont permis de relever une tendance vers une diminution de la mortalité chez les patients traités par des équipes en soins avancés effectuant des interventions qui dépassent la prestation des soins de base paramédicaux. Cette tendance était surtout manifeste chez les patients ayant subi des blessures graves mais non mortelles. Toutefois, l'interprétation des résultats appelle la prudence du fait que, dans la plupart des cas, il s'agissait d’études d'observation, réalisées sur des échantillons de petite taille et comportant un risque élevé de facteurs de confusion.

Type
ORNGE Supplement
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2020

CLINICIAN'S CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

Aeromedical evacuation is risky, resource intensive, and is done by a variety of crew compositions.

What did this study ask?

What impact do advanced provider presence and crew composition have on outcomes for adult trauma patients evacuated by air?

What did this study find?

Findings showed a trend towards improved survival and other outcomes for adult trauma patients treated by aeromedical evacuation crews led by advanced providers.

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

Better outcomes could be achieved by determining how advanced providers contribute to reduced mortality and other metrics in aeromedical evacuation.

INTRODUCTION

Mortality from trauma represents 10% of global deaths. Injuries kill over five million people annually and account for 12% of the global burden of disease.1,Reference Krug, Dhalberg, Mercy, Zwi and Lozano2,Reference Murray and Lopez3 In the military setting, severe injury mechanisms lead to distinctive early lethality patterns and more deaths occurring shortly after wounding.Reference Eastridge, Mabry and Seguin4 Prehospital care improvements have led to increased survival, but the greatest potential for improved outcomes still lies in lowering preventable deaths.Reference Cutting and Agha5,Reference Eastridge, Holcomb and Shackelford6 It is thought that implementing a military rotary-wing Forward Aeromedical Evacuation during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts provided a 2% absolute mortality reduction in hospitalized soldiers, compared with World War II.Reference Galvagno, Sikorski and Hirshon7 In subsequent years, civilian Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) became widespread in the developed world.Reference Butler, Anwar and Willett8

Together, military Rotary Wing and Vertical/Short Take Off and Landing Forward Aeromedical Evacuation and HEMS deliver Primary Aeromedical Retrieval. In this paper, Primary Aeromedical Retrieval is defined as retrieving patients from point of injury and transferring them to a medical treatment facility by Rotary Wing or Vertical/Short Take Off and Landing airframes with medical providers on board. Forward Aeromedical Evacuation refers to military Primary Aeromedical Retrieval, and HEMS refers to civilian Primary Aeromedical Retrieval.

In trauma, Primary Aeromedical Retrieval is thought to improve patient outcomes through rapid transfer to trauma centres and by providing advanced prehospital interventions.Reference Dreyfuss, Faktor and Charnilas9 Many studies show that Primary Aeromedical Retrieval is associated with improvements in morality and other outcomes. However, other studies showed no such benefit.Reference Butler, Anwar and Willet10

HEMS is expensive to implement and maintain. One medium helicopter's annual operating costs can reach 1.3 M USD.Reference Collett11 HEMS is inherently risky for crew members, particularly when responding at night or in marginal weather. Forward Aeromedical Evacuation missions are even costlier and riskier. Military rotary-wing aircraft are more expensive to acquire and operate than their related civilian airframes. Forward Aeromedical Evacuation crews are exposed to enemy action at the point of injury. It is therefore important to clearly determine the benefits of Primary Aeromedical Retrieval and to elucidate from where these benefits are derived.

The benefit of rapid retrieval is more pronounced the farther that the trauma centre is from the scene. Yet studies show that early advanced clinical interventions have a greater positive impact on mortality than retrieval time.Reference Moylan, Fitzpatrick and Beyer12 If clinical procedures during Primary Aeromedical Retrieval have an impact on mortality, does it matter what kind of medical professionals provide them? There are studies that compared physician HEMS to paramedic Ground EMS, with divergent conclusions. But the confounding factors when comparing HEMS and Ground EMS treatment groups are extensive and obviously included the mode of transportation.Reference Garner13 In Europe, where physicians are common, a survival benefit due to physician-led crews was identified.Reference Baker, Neill, Se, Haddon and Long14 Other narrative reviews without a systematic approach reported conflicting results.Reference Sikka and Margolis15 We therefore conducted a descriptive systematic review comparing different crew composition in Primary Aeromedical Retrieval, in military and civilian settings, addressing different clinical outcomes in the trauma population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman16

Studies

The search included prospective and retrospective cohort studies (with or without a control group), case control studies, and randomized controlled trials that addressed clinical outcomes for different air ambulance crew configurations. Case reports and case series were excluded. Studies were included if they reported at least one outcome of interest.

Participants

We included studies with a population of adult trauma patients transported by air, directly from the scene of the accident to the receiving trauma centre. Providers studied included medical doctors, nurses, and/or paramedics of different backgrounds and levels of expertise.

Interventions and controls

The intervention was the Primary Aeromedical Retrieval crew composition, defined as any difference in provider type (medical doctors, nursing, and paramedics of different levels of training, subspecialties, or expertise). Controls were any comparison between crew configuration, that is, physician compared with paramedic, nurse, and so forth.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome of interest was mortality. Secondary outcomes included, but were not limited to, hemodynamic status, length of stay, disposition, mean response time, scene time, delivery time, clinical interventions, and procedures. We searched for any time-based data on response time, scene time, and time to the emergency department (ED) or operating room. We looked for information about on scene and flight clinical interventions performed, such as rapid sequence induction, endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, oxygen treatment, fluid resuscitation with crystalloids or blood products, thoracic decompression by needle or tube thoracostomies, and analgesia. Finally, we documented patient disposition (discharge home, rehabilitation, direct discharge from ED, and patients transferred to another facility) and length of stay (Intensive Care Unit days, hospital days).

Search methods

We searched Medline (from 1946 to January 1, 2020), Embase (1947 to January 1, 2020), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from inception to January 1, 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar (first 200 hits). The search was not restricted by date, language, or publication status. Search terms were defined a priori and by reviewing the MeSH terms of articles identified in preliminary literature searches. The search strategy was based on the Medline initial search strategy and was modified as necessary for the other databases. A search strategy combining MeSH headings and the keywords “air ambulance/aeromedical evacuation/air evacuation/aeromedical transport/air patient transport” AND “team or group/unit or squad/crew” was used after a decision with an experienced librarian.

Data abstraction

Two review authors (CL, JPRC) not blinded to authors, journal or institutions, examined all study abstracts and full texts independently, which were identified by the search. Titles and abstracts of every record retrieved were screened to determine which of the studies should undergo a full-text review. Full texts of the studies with questionable eligibility or considered eligible were retrieved in this phase for evaluation. The reference lists of the retrieved articles were also searched for additional citations. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus or with another review author (LTDL). Only published data were included. Study authors were not contacted for obtaining or clarifying further information. At the data extraction period, data were also collected independently by two review authors (CL and JPRC).

Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias was assessed by two review authors (LTDL and CL) for each included study. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus with a third author (HT). Each included study was classified as observational cohort or case-control, and the risk of bias was assessed according to each type of study design. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias in cohort studies and case-control studies.Reference Wells, Shea and O'Connell17 This tool defines patient groups as comparable in either the design or analysis when the effect of the exposure is adjusted for confounders. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale assesses risk of bias in the domains of selection of exposed and non-exposed cohorts, comparability of cohorts, assessment of outcomes, and adequacy of follow-up. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale scores 1 to 9. We considered studies with a score of < 3 with high risk of bias, 4–6 moderate, and > 7 low risk.

Analyses

Studies were analysed separately according to their design (retrospective or prospective cohorts and case-control studies). Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies were assessed by examining the details of the subjects, the baseline data, the interventions, and the outcomes to determine whether or not the studies were sufficiently similar. Large heterogeneity and the absence of common outcome measures reported precluded meta-analyses. Therefore, all studies were analysed qualitatively with a descriptive systematic approach.

RESULTS

Included studies (Figure 1)

As indicated in Figure 1, the electronic search identified 3,778 potentially relevant citations. After removing duplicates, the abstracts for 1,668 potentially relevant studies were screened and 89 studies were selected for full-text review. From these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria.Reference Baxt and Moody18Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 There was excellent agreement between the reviewers for study inclusion (Cohen`s Kappa, 0.87).Reference Cohen34

Figure 1. Flow chart of the screening process.

Interventions performed across the studies (Table 1)

Most studies evaluated the performance of crews that included a physician versus a non-physician crew.Reference Baxt and Moody18Reference Burney, Hubert, Passini and Maio23,Reference Cameron, Pereira, Mulcahy and Seymour27Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29,Reference Apodaca, Olson and Bailey31Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 In two of these studies, the physician provider was a postgraduate resident physician.Reference Hamman, Cue and Miller19,Reference Housel, Pearson, Rhee and Yamada22 In another study, four different HEMS configurations were compared, each with a different physician-led crew composition, helicopter, and base location.Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29 Another study compared multiple crew configurations (dual flight nurse or flight nurse plus paramedic, or emergency medicine (EM) resident or EM physician) with ground crews.Reference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24 Two observational studies did not address the presence of a physician as a crew member: WirtzReference Housel, Pearson, Rhee and Yamada22 examined the performance of a flight nurse + flight paramedic crew versus a dual flight nurse team. MabryReference Mabry, Apodaca and Penrod30 compared the outcomes between a critical care flight paramedic + basic paramedic crew against a lone basic paramedic crew.

Table 1. Summary of included study findings

Notes: CCFP = Critical Care Flight Paramedic; DUSTOFF = U.S. Forward Aeromedical Evacuation helicopter platform with two basic paramedics; ED = emergency department; EM = emergency medicine; EMS = emergency medical services; EP = emergency physician; GE = German; HEMS = Helicopter Emergency Medical Services; HTT = helicopter trauma team; ICP = intensive care paramedic; ISS = Injury Severity Score; LOS = length of stay; MD = medical doctor; MERT = Medical Emergency Response Team – Physician-led UK Forward Aeromedical Evacuation helicopter platform; N/N = Nurse/Nurse; N/P = Nurse/Physician; N/R = Nurse/Resident; PEDRO = U.S. Forward Aeromedical Evacuation helicopter platform with two advanced care paramedics; RSI = rapid sequence induction; TRISS = Trauma Injury Severity Score.

Clinical characteristics (see Table 1)

There were 3 prospective cohort studiesReference Baxt and Moody18, Reference Burney, Hubert, Passini and Maio23, Reference Calderbank, Woolley and Mercer28 (n = 2,172), 12 retrospective cohort studiesReference Hamman, Cue and Miller19Reference Housel, Pearson, Rhee and Yamada22, Reference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25Reference Cameron, Pereira, Mulcahy and Seymour27, Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 (n = 8,491), and 1 case-control studyReference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24 (n = 1,286). In all studies, patients were transported to a trauma centre. Four studiesReference Schmidt, Frame and Nerlich21, Reference Housel, Pearson, Rhee and Yamada22, Reference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25, Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29 transported patients to more than one trauma centre. Four studiesReference Calderbank, Woolley and Mercer28, Reference Mabry, Apodaca and Penrod30-Reference Morrison, Oh and DuBose32 were conducted in a military setting (the Afghanistan conflict), and 12 studiesReference Baxt and Moody18-Reference Cameron, Pereira, Mulcahy and Seymour27, Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29, Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 were conducted in civilian settings. Eight studies were conducted in the United States,Reference Baxt and Moody18-Reference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24, Reference Wirtz, Cayten, Kohrs, Atwater and Larsen26 two in Australia,Reference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25, Reference Cameron, Pereira, Mulcahy and Seymour27 one in Slovenia,Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29 and one in South Korea.Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 One study compared two international settings: a trauma surgeon/paramedic crew in Hannover, Germany, with a flight nurse/paramedic crew in Knoxville, Tennessee.Reference Schmidt, Frame and Nerlich21 The mean age ± SD of patients across all included studies was 35.6 ± 9.3, and their mean ± SD Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 18.0 ± 8.16. Most patients were male (73%).

Risk of bias (Table 2)

Observational cohort studies

Only one studyReference Mabry, Apodaca and Penrod30 scored a 9 in the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and demonstrated a low risk of bias. All other studiesReference Baxt and Moody18-Reference Burney, Hubert, Passini and Maio23, Reference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25Reference Klemenc-Ketis, Tomazin and Kersnik29, Reference Apodaca, Olson and Bailey31-Reference Jung, Huh and Lee33 scored a 6 to 8, demonstrating an overall moderate risk of bias. Most studies had no comparable controls, as they did not report adjustment for confounders in either the design or analysis.

Table 2. Included studies – risk of bias (The Ottawa-Newcastle toolReference Wells, Shea and O'Connell17)

*High quality choices are indicated by a star. Comparability has a maximum of two stars. All other categories have a maximum of one.

Case-control study

The case-control study had a score of 8 in the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.Reference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24

Outcomes measured across the studies (Table 3)

Primary outcome

Mortality was the most common outcome measured across the studies. In most studies, there was a mortality benefit associated with the presence of more advanced providers. In six studies, there was a significant mortality benefit in physician-led crews compared with non-physician-led crews.Reference Baxt and Moody18,Reference Schmidt, Frame and Nerlich21,Reference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24,Reference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25,Reference Apodaca, Olson and Bailey31,Reference Morrison, Oh and DuBose32 BaxtReference Baxt and Moody18 found that, in the physician-led group, 11 patients died, out of n = 316, where 16.9 were predicted to die (Z statistic = 2.284, p < 0.05). The study also identified a 35% reduction in mortality compared with the non-physician-led crews (Z statistic = 2.076, p < 0.05). SchmidtReference Schmidt, Frame and Nerlich21 found 9 unexpected survivors in the physician HEMS group (Z statistic = 2.459, W statistic = 1.35) compared with only 6 unexpected survivors in the United States, non-physician-led crews (Z statistic = 1.049). AbbottReference Abbott, Brauer, Hutton and Rosen24 found an 11% mortality reduction in the air transported group (OR = 1.75, p < 0.01, 95% CI 1.21-2.53), which persisted after adjustment for age (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.06-2.27). GarnerReference Garner, Rashford, Lee and Bartolacci25 found a significant mortality benefit in the physician-treated group (Z = 2.72, p < 0.01 and W = 0.48, 95% CI: 3.84-15.12) but not in the paramedic-treated group (Z = -1.16, p = 0.25). The adjusted W statistic in comparing the physician versus paramedic group was 13.44 (95% CI: 7.8-19.08), suggesting an additional 13 survivors per 100 patients treated by the physician group.

Table 3. Included study characteristics

Notes: a Mean, b Median, *Standard deviation not reported.

Three studies conducted in the military setting revealed that the survival benefit was most pronounced in patients with more severe, but survivable injuries.Reference Mabry, Apodaca and Penrod30Reference Morrison, Oh and DuBose32 MabryReference Mabry, Apodaca and Penrod30 found a significant mortality reduction of 66% in patients with ISS > 15 treated by an advanced care paramedic-led crew compared with a basic paramedic crew. The mortality rate in U.S./North Atlantic Treaty Organization military, Afghan military settings, and Afghan civilian settings treated by Critical Care Flight Paramedic crews were 15%, 4%, and 5%, respectively, compared with respective mortality rates of 12%, 18%, and 16% for patients treated by basic paramedic crews. The 48-hour mortality of patients treated by advanced providers was 8% versus 15% in the group treated by basic paramedics (OR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.14-0.88). ApodacaReference Apodaca, Olson and Bailey31 found a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality in patients with ISS of 20–29 treated by the physician-led UK Medical Emergency Retrieval Team (MERT–UK Forward Aeromedical Evacuation with advanced medical providers) compared with patients treated by two other non-physician-led forward Aeromedical Evacuation capabilities (4.8% v. 16.2%, p < 0.021). Furthermore, the Medical Emergency Retrieval Team–treated groups achieved lower mortality than predicted by the Trauma Injury Severity Score in all ISS > 9 patient groups, whereas the paramedic-led U.S. Army group was found to have a higher than predicted mortality in the ISS 20–29 group.Reference Apodaca, Olson and Bailey31 MorrisonReference Morrison, Oh and DuBose32 found a mortality reduction in patients with ISS 16–50 (after excluding severe traumatic brain injury [TBI]) in patients treated by the physician-led UK Medical Emergency Retrieval Team compared with patients treated by two other Forward Aeromedical Evacuation platforms with no physicians (12.2% v. 18.2%, p = 0.035).

In four studies,Reference Hamman, Cue and Miller19,Reference Burney, Passini, Hubert and Maio20,Reference Burney, Hubert, Passini and Maio23,Reference Cameron, Pereira, Mulcahy and Seymour27 there was no significant mortality difference associated with the presence of more advanced health care providers. HammanReference Hamman, Cue and Miller19 found similar mortality and similar causes of death when directly comparing flight teams with and without a physician (Z statistic 2.03 v. 3.11 for physician and non-physician groups). BurneyReference Burney, Passini, Hubert and Maio20 found no difference in mortality between patients treated by physician plus nurse and nurse plus nurse teams (year one: 76% v. 78%, p = 0.06, year two: 70% v. 80%, p = 0.06). In addition, WirtzReference Schmidt, Frame and Nerlich21 found no significant difference in mortality outcomes between patients transported by a flight nurse plus paramedic crew versus a dual flight nurse crew (p = 0.14).

For secondary outcomes, see Supplemental Material.

DISCUSSION

Main findings

This review summarizes the evidence for how crew composition in Primary Aeromedical Retrieval impacts clinical outcomes in adult trauma patients. Overall, there was a trend to improved mortality with crews comprising, or led by, providers with advanced training and/or more experience. Where population segments were broken down by ISS, this mortality benefit was most pronounced in patients with severe but survivable injuries, and in patients with severe TBI. With respect to secondary outcomes, most studies reported no significant differences in quality of patient care indicators, such as on-scene time, ratios of appropriate clinical interventions, hypotension, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit stay, and discharge disposition.

In a review of mortality during recent military settings, 87.3% of battlefield deaths occurred prehospital, of which 35.2% died instantaneously due to physical dismemberment, catastrophic brain injury, and destructive cardiothoracic great vessel injuries.Reference Eastridge, Holcomb and Shackelford6 The remainder died within minutes to hours before reaching a trauma centre. Most patients (75.7%) had non-survivable injuries (severe TBI, great vessel injury, high spinal cord injury, and abdomino-pelvic destructive injuries). The remaining 24.3% had potentially survivable injuries, of which 8.0% were airway compromise and 90.9% were hemorrhagic (67.3% truncal, 19.2% junctional, and 13.5% extremity). It is hard to extrapolate from military to civilian settings. However, we can say that this analysis points to a set of “most potentially survivable injuries.” Bearing in mind this (military) injury and mortality pattern, and examining studies showing a pronounced survival trend in severely injured patients treated by (military) Forward Aeromedical Evacuation crews containing advanced providers, one can posit that 1) there is a subset of key prehospital interventions that have the greatest influence on overall mortality,Reference Cutting and Agha5 and 2) there is a subset of providers prepared to a) assess the requirement for, and b) implement the aforementioned interventions better than the remainder.

The evidence suggests that advanced providers in Primary Aeromedical Retrieval may be more decisive and/or competent in performing these interventions. However, our inquiry suffers from a lack of detailed content and high-quality evidence, which precludes robust conclusions about which prehospital interventions are responsible for improving clinical outcomes and which providers are best prepared to administer them. In fact, the current data registries may simply not have sufficiently granular, high-quality data. We also noted that the current evidence does not report on other aspects that advanced providers may offer: leadership, clinical judgement and decision-making, reassurance, leading after action reviews, and coordinating quality improvement.Reference Calderbank, Woolley and Mercer28

Strengths and weaknesses of this review and future research

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine the influence of crew composition on clinical outcomes in adult trauma. This study is limited by the observational nature of the data, so confounding is highly probable. Also, most observational data are represented by small retrospective studies with high clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The interventions and controls varied substantially across all studies. Moreover, the various different endpoints were addressed inconsistently and without adjusted analyses for covariates. Finally, no common effect measures could be pooled for quantitative analysis due to the data's heterogeneity.

Primary Aeromedical Retrieval's high costs, high risks, combined with high military trauma prehospital mortality with its great proportion of survivable injuries underscore a need for well-designed studies. Randomized controlled studies that are planned in detail from the design and research question phase should be conducted. Interventions and controls should be better standardized. Meaningful clinical endpoints should be addressed, such as mortality and other important outcome measures in patients with brain injury, compromised airway and ventilator status, and hemorrhagic injuries. Data points should detail the type of intervention performed, by which provider, and to what effect. Some examples of important interventions are intravenous and intraosseous access, chest decompression, time between injury and transfusion of blood products and tranexamic acid administration, junctional and extremity tourniquet application, use of vasoactive drugs, and hypothermia prevention.

CONCLUSION

In trauma, the data on the outcomes of different crew composition in Primary Aeromedical Retrieval demonstrated that a trend towards decreased mortality was associated with the presence of advanced providers. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the evidence is constrained by small sample sizes, observational studies, non-random treatment group allocation, and a high likelihood of confounding factors. Ultimately, an appropriately powered randomized trial that captures sufficient details on injury patterns, crew configurations, interventions and procedures performed, and meaningful clinical outcomes will be required to determine the most appropriate Primary Aeromedical Retrieval crew composition.

Supplemental material

The supplemental material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2020.404.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Henry Lam, Librarian, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Captain Sean Wilson, MD, Flight Surgeon CANSOFCOM CFB Trenton, for assistance with the literature search and proofreading, respectively.

Competing interests

None declared.

References

REFERENCES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 Leading causes of death, United States. 1999–2006, all races, both sexes; 2020. Available at: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html (accessed October 1, 2019).Google Scholar
Krug, EG, Dhalberg, LL, Mercy, JA, Zwi, AB, Lozano, R, eds. World report on violence and health. World Health Organization; 2002, 119.Google ScholarPubMed
Murray, CJ, Lopez, A. The global burden of disease: I. A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, and injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
Eastridge, BJ, Mabry, RL, Seguin, P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): implications for the future of combat casualty care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73(6 Suppl 5):S431–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Cutting, PA, Agha, R. Surgery in a Palestinian refugee camp. In: Clarke JE, Davis PR. Medical Evacuation and Triage of Combat Casualties in Helmand Province, Afghanistan: October 2010–April 2011. Mil Med 2012;177(11):1261–6.Google Scholar
Eastridge, BJ, Holcomb, JB, Shackelford, S. Outcomes of traumatic hemorrhagic shock and the epidemiology of preventable death from injury. Transfusion 2019;59(S2):1423–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvagno, SM Jr, Sikorski, R, Hirshon, JM, et al. Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;epub, CD009228.Google ScholarPubMed
Butler, DP, Anwar, I, Willett, K. Is it the H or the EMS in HEMS that has an impact on trauma patient mortality? A systematic review of the evidence. Emerg Med J 2010;27(9):692701.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, UY, Faktor, JH, Charnilas, JZ. Aeromedical evacuation in Israel—a study of 884 cases. Aviat Space Environ Med 1979;50(9):958–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Butler, DP, Anwar, I, Willet, K. Is it the H or the EMS in HEMS that has an impact on trauma patient mortality? A systematic review of the evidence Emerg Med J 2010;27:692701.10.1136/emj.2009.087486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collett, H. Aeromedical program prices. In: Jacobs LM, Bennett B. A Critical Care Helicopter System in Trauma. J Natl Med Assoc 1989;81(11):1157–67.Google Scholar
Moylan, JA, Fitzpatrick, KT, Beyer, AJ, et al. Factors improving survival in multisystem trauma patients. In: Hamman BL, Cue JI, Miller FB, et al. Helicopter Transport of Trauma Victims: Does a Physician Make a Difference? J Trauma 1991;31(4):490–4.Google Scholar
Garner, AA. The role of physician staffing of helicopter emergency medical services in prehospital trauma response. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16(4):318–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, SP, Neill, BO, Se, B, Haddon, W, Long, WB. The Injury Severity Score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. In: Apodaca A, Olson CM Jr, Bailey J, et al. Performance Improvement Evaluation of Forward Aeromedical Evacuation Platforms in Operation Enduring Freedom. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75(2 Suppl 2):S157–63.Google Scholar
Sikka, N, Margolis, G. Understanding diversity among prehospital care delivery systems around the world. In: Clarke JE, Davis PR. Medical Evacuation and Triage of Combat Casualties in Helmand Province, Afghanistan: October 2010–April 2011. Mil Med 2012;177(11):1261–6.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med 2009;3(3):123–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Wells, G, Shea, B, O'Connell, D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis; 2000. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.Google Scholar
Baxt, WG, Moody, P. The impact of a physician as part of the Aeromedical Prehospital Team in patients with blunt trauma. JAMA 1987;257(23):3246–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamman, BL, Cue, JI, Miller, FB, et al. Helicopter transport of trauma victims: does a physician make a difference? J Trauma 1991;31(4):490–4.Google Scholar
Burney, RE, Passini, L, Hubert, D, Maio, R. Comparison of aeromedical crew performance by patient severity and outcome. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21(4):375–8.10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82653-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, U, Frame, SB, Nerlich, ML, et al. On-scene helicopter transport of patients with multiple injuries – comparison of a German and an American system. J Trauma 1992;33(4):548–53.Google Scholar
Housel, FB, Pearson, D, Rhee, KJ, Yamada, J. Does the substitution of a resident for a flight nurse alter scene time? J Emerg Med 1995;13(2):151–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burney, RE, Hubert, D, Passini, L, Maio, R. Variation in air medical outcomes by crew composition: a two-year follow-up. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25(2):187–92.10.1016/S0196-0644(95)70322-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abbott, D, Brauer, K, Hutton, K, Rosen, P. Aggressive out-of-hospital treatment regimen for severe closed head injury in patients undergoing air medical transport. Air Med J 1998;17(3):94100.Google ScholarPubMed
Garner, A, Rashford, S, Lee, A, Bartolacci, R. Addition of physicians to paramedic helicopter services decreases blunt trauma mortality. Aust NZ J Surg 1999;69(10):697701.Google ScholarPubMed
Wirtz, MH, Cayten, CG, Kohrs, DA, Atwater, R, Larsen, EA. Paramedic versus nurse crews in the helicopter transport of trauma patients. Air Med J 2002;21(1):1721.Google ScholarPubMed
Cameron, S, Pereira, P, Mulcahy, R, Seymour, J. Helicopter primary retrieval: tasking who should do it? Emerg Med Australas 2005;17(4):387–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Calderbank, P, Woolley, T, Mercer, S, et al. Doctor on board? What is the optimal skill-mix in military pre-hospital care? Emerg Med J 2011;28(10):882–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Klemenc-Ketis, Z, Tomazin, I, Kersnik, J. HEMS in Slovenia: one country, four models, different quality outcomes. Air Med J 2012;31(6):298304.Google ScholarPubMed
Mabry, RL, Apodaca, A, Penrod, J, et al. Impact of critical care-trained flight paramedics on casualty survival during helicopter evacuation in the current war in Afghanistan. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73(2 Suppl 1):S32–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Apodaca, A, Olson, CM Jr, Bailey, J, et al. Performance improvement evaluation of forward aeromedical evacuation platforms in Operation Enduring Freedom. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75(2 Suppl 2):S157–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Morrison, JJ, Oh, J, DuBose, JJ, et al. En-route care capability from point of injury impacts mortality after severe wartime injury. Ann Surg 2013;257(2):330–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Jung, K, Huh, Y, Lee, JC, et al. Reduced mortality by physician-staffed HEMS dispatch for adult blunt trauma patients in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2016;31(10):1656–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20(1):3746.10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow chart of the screening process.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of included study findings

Figure 2

Table 2. Included studies – risk of bias (The Ottawa-Newcastle tool17)

Figure 3

Table 3. Included study characteristics

Supplementary material: File

Laverty et al. supplementary material

Laverty et al. supplementary material

Download Laverty et al. supplementary material(File)
File 11.1 KB