Helicopter EMS- Pro Comments

[Richard B the EMT]

At a recent public hearing concerning the closing of a hospital serving an isolated area, one of the commentators yelling at the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health suggested Helicopter EMS be expanded. I was unable to speak with that individual privately, following the hearing.

We in EMT City are also a vocal bunch. This is one of 2 parallel strings on HEMS, this one for Pro on the topic, the other will be for Con.

Comment away, folks!

[Bieber]

Moved to the Con thread.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Bieber

[cscboulder11]

-In a MCI, adds additional transport capability for pts

-Useful in rocky terrain, as it can get pts out where ambulances cannot go

-Can provide faster transport in remote situations than ground transport can

[Bieber]

Csc, I agree with all three of your points, though I question the significance of point number 3.

[cscboulder11]

If you have a more patient with a critical issue (such as a GSW or cardiac issues) and they're out in the middle of nowhere, a heli can be faster in getting them to an ER than an ambulance would be able to.

[JakeEMTP]

If you have a more patient with a critical issue (such as a GSW or cardiac issues) and they're out in the middle of nowhere, a heli can be faster in getting them to an ER than an ambulance would be able to.

Are you sure? Take into consideration how long it would take the helicoptor to get to you. Are you going to stay on scene with the pt.'s you referenced waiting for a helicopter or, are you going to begin transporting to the hospital.

[cscboulder11]

Are you sure? Take into consideration how long it would take the helicoptor to get to you. Are you going to stay on scene with the pt.'s you referenced waiting for a helicopter or, are you going to begin transporting to the hospital.

Note my use of the word 'can.' Is it sometimes faster to go by air? Yes. Is it always? No. Calling for Life Flight needs to be weighed against the condition of the pts and how fast that the heli can reach you and get back to the hospital vs. transporting by ambulance. It's a judgement call in every situation.

[WestMetroMedic]

Generally speaking 35 miles or minutes is a good threshold for consideration of aeromedical. Helicopter flight time is 1/3 the drive time, which assuming you have a 35 min transport and the helicopter is activated immediately (and coming from the receiving area, as often, but not always, is the case), gives the helicopter 5 minutes to get airborne, 12 min to respond, 5 minutes of scene time and 12 minutes of flight time making it about a wash for time, but if you incorporate the factor of having two critcal care practicioners caring for a patient, the data supports an outcome (and more importantly, financial) benefit to aeromedical transport. Obviously situation drives the transport modality, but 35 is often the magic number.

In my PSA, we are not allowed to use aeromedical unless it is outside of our urban interstate loop and it is a prolonged extrication situation and our supervisor approves it. I have never considered it in almost 5 years at my service even in 2 feet of snowy hell, but in my rural days, it was an excellent tool to have.

[Kiwiology]

HEMS are over rated and over used

They do however allow the delivery of very highly educated and skilled providers who can deliver interventions over and above those possessed by most ground ambulances (RSI, chest drains, amputations, thoracotomy etc) and who use their skills frequently (look at Adult Retrieval Victoria and the London Air Ambulance)

I am extremely biased towards having an appropriately trained Doctor on the helicopter

[Bieber]

Maybe they ought to put those highly educated, highly skilled providers on an ambulance or flycar and save air transport for something else.