BackgroundThe 19 Norwegian Emergency medical communication centres (EMCCs) use Norwegian Index for medical emergency assistance (Index) as dispatch guidelines. Little is known about the use of Index, nor its validity. We aimed to document the epidemiology of contacts made to the public emergency medical phone number and the operators’ self-reported use of Index as a first step towards a validation study.MethodsWe registered all medical emergency calls to the EMCCs during a 72 h period in a national cross sectional study. We subsequently sent a questionnaire to all EMCC operators in Norway, asking how they use Index. A combined outcome variable “use of Index” was computed through a Likert scale, range 1–5. Regression models were used to examine factors influencing use.Results2 298 contacts were included. National contact rate was 56/1 000 inhabitants per year, range between EMCCs 34 – 119. Acute contact (life-threatening situations) rate was 21/1 000 per year, range between EMCCs 5 – 31. Index criteria 6 – ’Unresolved problem’ accounts for 20% of the 113 contacts, range between EMCCs 10 – 42%. The mean use of Index was 3.95 (SD 0.39), corresponding to “more than 75% of emergency calls”. There were differences in use of Index on EMCC level, range 3.7 – 4.4, and a multi regression model explained 23.4% of the variation in use. Operators working rotation with ground ambulance services reported reduced use of Index compared to operators not working in rotation, while distinct EMCC focus on Index increased use of Index compared to EMCCs with no focus on Index. Use of electronic records and operators experience were the main reasons given for not using Index.ConclusionsThere is a large variation between the EMCCs with regard to both contact patterns and use of Index. There is a relatively high overall self-reported use of Index by the operators, with variations on both individual and EMCC level.

BackgroundRapid and precise dispatch of resources is a key element in pre‐hospital emergency medicine. Emergency medical communication centres (EMCCs) dispatch resources based on protocols and guidelines, balancing the acute need of the individual and the resource allocation of the pre‐hospital emergency medical system. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of stroke identification by the Norwegian dispatch guidelines.Method and materialThis was a register‐based study where patients suspected for stroke were compared to those with the final diagnosis of stroke as an indicator group for the guideline validation. One EMCC and its three associated hospitals participated with 13 months of data. Four subcodes of the stroke dispatch code were defined as suspicious of stroke and further analysed. Factors associated with stroke identification were explored.ResultsThe sensitivity for identifying a stroke patient at initial EMCC contact was 57.9% (51.5, 64.1), specificity was 99.1% (98.9, 99.2), positive predictive value was 45.7% (40.1, 51.4) and negative predictive value was 99.4% (99.3, 99.5). The emergency medical access telephone (113) was initial EMCC contact line in only 48% of the cases. Paralyses and admittance to a smaller hospital were associated with increased probability for stroke (OR 2.6, P = 0.001 and OR 2.7, P = 0.01), respectively.ConclusionThe sensitivity for identification of stroke patients by the dispatch guidelines is modest, while the specificity is high. The 113 telephone line was initial EMCC access point for less than half of the stroke patients.

BackgroundStudies of severely injured patients suggest that advanced pre‐hospital care and/or rapid transportation provides a survival benefit. This benefit depends on the disposition of resources to patients with the greatest need. Norway has 19 Emergency Helicopters (HEMS) staffed by anaesthesiologists on duty 24/7/365. National regulations describe indications for their use, and the use of the national emergency medical dispatch guideline is recommended. We assessed whether severely injured patients had been treated or transported by advanced resources on a national scale.MethodsA national survey was conducted collecting data for 2013 from local trauma registries at all hospitals caring for severely injured patients. Patients were analysed according to hospital level; trauma centres or acute care hospitals with trauma functions. Patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 were considered severely injured.ResultsThree trauma centres (75%) and 17 acute care hospitals (53%) had data for trauma patients from 2013, a total of 3535 trauma registry entries (primary admissions only), including 604 victims with an ISS > 15. Of these 604 victims, advanced resources were treating and/or transporting 51%. Sixty percent of the severely injured admitted directly to trauma centres received advanced services, while only 37% of the severely injured admitted primarily to acute care hospitals received these services.ConclusionA highly developed and widely distributed HEMS system reached only half of severely injured trauma victims in Norway in 2013.