BackgroundPrevious comparison studies regarding two types of transportation, helicopter (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS), have shown underlying heterogeneity as these options have completely different routes and consequent times with reference to one patient. To compare the two types of transportation on a case-by-case basis, we analyzed the retrospectively reviewed HEMS and predicted GEMS data using an open-source navigation software. MethodsPatients transferred by military HEMS from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The HEMS records on the time of noti cation, injury point and destination addresses, and time required were reviewed. The GEMS data on distance and the predicted time required were acquired using open-source social navigation systems. Comparison analyses between the two types of transportation were conducted. Further, linear logistic regression analyses were performed on the distance and time of the two options. ResultsA total of 183 patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference (p=0.3021) in the distance between the two types of transportation, and the HEMS time was signi cantly shorter than that of GEMS (61.31 vs. 116.92 minutes, p<0.001). The simple linear curves for HEMS and GEMS were separately secured, and two graphs presented the statistical signi cance (p) as well as reasonable goodness-of-t (R 2 ). In general, the HEMS graph demonstrates a more gradual slope and narrow distribution compared to that of GEMS. ConclusionIdeally, HEMS is identi ed as a better transportation modality because it has a shorter transportation time (56 minutes saved) and a low possibility of potential time delays (larger R 2 ). With a strict patient selection, HEMS can rescue injured or emergent patients who are "out of the golden hour."
BackgroundPrevious comparison studies regarding two types of transportation, helicopter (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS), have shown underlying heterogeneity as these options have completely different routes and consequent times with reference to one patient. To compare the two types of transportation on a case-by-case basis, we analyzed the retrospectively reviewed HEMS and predicted GEMS data using an open-source navigation software.MethodsPatients transferred by military HEMS from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The HEMS records on the time of notification, injury point and destination addresses, and time required were reviewed. The GEMS data on distance and the predicted time required were acquired using open-source social navigation systems. Comparison analyses between the two types of transportation were conducted. Further, linear logistic regression analyses were performed on the distance and time of the two options.ResultsA total of 183 patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference (p=0.3021) in the distance between the two types of transportation, and the HEMS time was significantly shorter than that of GEMS (61.31 vs. 116.92 minutes, p<0.001). The simple linear curves for HEMS and GEMS were separately secured, and two graphs presented the statistical significance (p) as well as reasonable goodness-of-fit (R2). In general, the HEMS graph demonstrates a more gradual slope and narrow distribution compared to that of GEMS.ConclusionIdeally, HEMS is identified as a better transportation modality because it has a shorter transportation time (56 minutes saved) and a low possibility of potential time delays (larger R2). With a strict patient selection, HEMS can rescue injured or emergent patients who are “out of the golden hour.”
IntroductionPrevious comparison studies regarding two types of transportation, helicopter (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS), have shown underlying heterogeneity as these options have completely different routes and consequent times with reference to one patient. To compare the two types of transportation on a case-by-case basis, we analyzed the retrospectively reviewed HEMS and predicted GEMS data using an open-source navigation software.MethodsPatients transferred by military HEMS from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The HEMS records on the time of notification, injury point and destination address, and time required were reviewed. The GEMS data on distance and the predicted time required were acquired using open-source social navigation systems. Comparison analyses between the two types of transportation were conducted. Further, linear logistic regression analyses were performed on the distance and time of the two options.ResultsA total of 183 patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference (p=0.3021) in the distance between the two types of transportation, and the HEMS time was significantly shorter than that of GEMS (61.31 vs. 116.92 minutes, p<0.001). The simple linear curves for HEMS and GEMS were separately secured, and two graphs presented the statistical significance (p) as well as reasonable goodness-of-fit (R2). In general, the HEMS graph demonstrates a more gradual slope and narrow distribution compared to that of GEMS. ConclusionIdeally, HEMS is identified as a better transportation modality because it has a shorter transportation time (56 minutes saved) and a low possibility of potential time delays (larger R2).Running tileHelicopter vs. navigation-based ground ambulance
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.