Saito Katsutoshi, Abe Tomohiro, Tanohata Rina, Nagano Takehiko, Ochiai Hidenobu
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Miyazaki Hospital, Japan.
Graduate School of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Japan.
J Rural Med. 2025 Apr;20(2):92-101. doi: 10.2185/jrm.2024-038. Epub 2025 Apr 1.
Providing emergency care to serious patients in rural areas remains challenging. Intentional transit practice involves transporting a serious patient to a nearby hospital while requesting the Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). This study aims to evaluate its effectiveness on earlier primary medical interventions and the decision of the destination hospital.
We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study at a HEMS base hospital in a rural area of Japan. The study participants included patients who underwent the intentional transit practice between April 2012 and March 2019. We compared actual times to estimated times for each case treated with the HEMS alone (HEMS-alone model). Outcomes were the time from ambulance call to reaching the physician (physician reaching time), arrival at the final destination facility (destination hospital arrival time), and helicopter waiting time at the landing zone (helicopter waiting time). Subgroup analyses by region and an analysis of the relationship between diagnostic tests performed at the transit hospital and the type of destination facility were performed.
Eighty-seven patients were eligible for analysis. Compared to the HEMS-alone model, the intentional transit practice reduced the physician reaching time (median [interquartile] min) (26 [21-32] vs. 37 [29-47], <0.0001) while increasing the destination hospital arrival time and the helicopter waiting time (71 [58-93] vs. 65 [59-80], =0.03; 24 [18-34] vs. 19 [18-21], <0.0001; respectively). Subgroup analysis showed a consistent result for physician reaching time but heterogeneity in the other time courses by region. Diagnostic tests were related to transportation to facilities other than the HEMS base hospital.
The intentional transit practice is beneficial for providing primary care earlier than the HEMS alone and for transport to more specific facilities. However, it delays arrival at the destination facility and increases helicopter waiting time.
为农村地区的重症患者提供急救护理仍然具有挑战性。有意转运做法是指在呼叫直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)的同时,将重症患者转运至附近医院。本研究旨在评估其在早期初级医疗干预及目的地医院决策方面的有效性。
我们在日本农村地区的一家HEMS基地医院开展了一项单中心回顾性观察研究。研究参与者包括在2012年4月至2019年3月期间接受有意转运做法的患者。我们将实际时间与仅采用HEMS治疗的每种情况的预估时间进行了比较(仅HEMS模式)。结果指标为从呼叫救护车到医生接诊的时间(医生接诊时间)、到达最终目的地机构的时间(目的地医院到达时间)以及直升机在着陆区的等待时间(直升机等待时间)。进行了按地区的亚组分析以及对转运医院所进行的诊断检查与目的地机构类型之间关系的分析。
87例患者符合分析条件。与仅HEMS模式相比,有意转运做法缩短了医生接诊时间(中位数[四分位间距]分钟)(26[21 - 32]对37[29 - 47],<0.0001),同时延长了目的地医院到达时间和直升机等待时间(71[58 - 93]对65[59 - 80],=0.03;24[18 - 34]对19[18 - 21],<0.0001;分别)。亚组分析显示医生接诊时间结果一致,但其他时间进程因地区而异。诊断检查与转运至HEMS基地医院以外的机构有关。
有意转运做法有利于比仅使用HEMS更早地提供初级护理,并有利于转运至更具针对性的机构。然而,它会延迟到达目的地机构的时间并增加直升机等待时间。