We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
EDs each year with potential cervical spine (C-spine) injury, prompting approximately 800,000 C-spine radiographs. C-spine or neck radiographs are often useful in evaluating non-traumatic conditions commonly presenting to the ED. C-spine injuries are present in only 2% to 6% of blunt trauma victims and in even fewer non-traumatic ED patients, but the potential for catastrophic outcomes of missed C-spine injuries has led to a high index of suspicion by emergency physicians. C-spine injury is relatively uncommon in the pediatric population; however, rates of mortality and neurological damage are alarmingly high. The pitfall of pediatric C-spine radiography lies in the condition known as spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. A growing body of evidence and an increasing amount of authorities are now advocating a shift to computed tomography (CT)-based screening of blunt trauma victims for C-spine injury. CT has been shown to be up to 100% sensitive in multiple studies.
Privately transported, major trauma patients made up approximately 4% of the total trauma patients population at a major, regional trauma center which treats over 90% of all major trauma victims in the geographic area. This study was undertaken to evaluate the patient profile of those individuals who did not access 9-1-1 for transport to a trauma center, including their reasons for such non-use.
Methods:
Data on all major trauma occurring within Dade County, Florida, were collected by the county trauma registry.
Results:
In the last six months of 1989, 1,672 patients were entered into the trauma registry. One-thousand-six-hundred-thirteen (1,613) were transported by professional ground or air services, 59 by private vehicle. For those patients transported directly from the Emergency Department to the Operating Room, only 35% of private vehicle patients entered surgery within 90 minutes of presentation compared to 57% of those who gained access to the 9-1-1 system and used emergency medical services (EMS). One-half of those patients who did not use 9-1-1 did not have telephone access. Patient acuity was similar for those transported by private vehicle compared to those transported by basic or advanced life support units. Private vehicle transport often delayed patient triage and assessment. Thus, for a number of lower income patients, 9-1-1 access was difficult.
Conclusion:
Underestimation of the severity of the injury or fear of delay in rescue response were prominent reasons for non-use of 9-1-1. While educational efforts should concentrate on decreasing inappropriate 9-1-1 use for nonemergencies, the causes of underutilization should not be ignored.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.