Eckstein Marc, Schlesinger Shira A, Sanko Stephen
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(4):490-5. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2015.1005258. Epub 2015 Apr 24.
With the increasing development of regional specialty centers, emergency physicians are often confronted with patients needing definitive care unavailable at their hospital. Interfacility transports (IFTs) may be a useful option to ensure timely, definitive patient care. However, since traditional IFT can be a challenging and time-consuming process, some EMS agencies that have previously limited their service to 9-1-1 emergency responses are now performing emergency IFTs.
We sought to determine the frequency and nature of transfers provided by a local fire-based 9-1-1 EMS agency that recently began to provide limited IFT for time-critical emergencies.
A retrospective review of paramedic reports for all IFTs between April 2007 and March 2014 in the City of Los Angeles, California. All IFTs initiated by 9-1-1 call from an emergency department (ED) and performed by Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics were included. Reason for transfer, patient demographics, and key time metrics were captured.
There were 919 IFTs during the study period, out of approximately 1,160,000 total ambulance transports (0.1%). The most frequent reason for IFT request was for transport of patients with ST segment elevation MI (STEMI) to a STEMI receiving center, followed by major trauma to a trauma center, and intracranial hemorrhage to a center with neurosurgical capability. Less common reasons included vascular emergencies, acute stroke, obstetric emergencies, and transfers to pediatric critical care facilities. Median transport time was 8 minutes (IQR 6-13 minutes) and median total time for IFT was 51 minutes (IQR 39-69 minutes). All IFTs involved a potentially life-threatening condition requiring a higher level of care than was available at the referring hospital.
Emergent ED-to-ED interfacility transport can provide access to time critical definitive care. EMS agencies that have limited the scope of their response to community 9-1-1 emergencies should have policies in place to assure timely response for emergent IFT requests.
随着地区专科中心的不断发展,急诊医生常常面临其所在医院无法提供确定性治疗的患者。机构间转运(IFT)可能是确保患者及时获得确定性治疗的一个有用选择。然而,由于传统的IFT可能是一个具有挑战性且耗时的过程,一些以前将服务局限于911紧急响应的急救医疗服务(EMS)机构现在也在进行紧急IFT。
我们试图确定一家当地以消防部门为基础的911 EMS机构最近开始为时间紧迫的紧急情况提供有限的IFT时,转运的频率和性质。
对2007年4月至2014年3月加利福尼亚州洛杉矶市所有IFT的护理人员报告进行回顾性分析。纳入所有由急诊科(ED)的911呼叫发起并由洛杉矶消防部门护理人员执行的IFT。记录转运原因、患者人口统计学特征和关键时间指标。
在研究期间有919次IFT,约占总救护车运输次数1160000次的0.1%。IFT请求最常见的原因是将ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者转运至STEMI接收中心,其次是将严重创伤患者转运至创伤中心,以及将颅内出血患者转运至具有神经外科能力的中心。较不常见的原因包括血管急症、急性中风、产科急症以及转运至儿科重症监护机构。中位运输时间为8分钟(四分位间距6 - 13分钟),IFT的中位总时间为51分钟(四分位间距39 - 69分钟)。所有IFT均涉及需要比转诊医院所能提供的更高水平护理的潜在危及生命的情况。
急诊室到急诊室的紧急机构间转运可以提供获得时间紧迫的确定性治疗的途径。将响应范围局限于社区911紧急情况的EMS机构应制定政策,以确保对紧急IFT请求及时做出响应。