Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Prehospital analysis of northern trauma outcome measures: the PHANTOM study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Prehospital analysis of northern trauma outcome measures: the PHANTOM study
Do you wish to request the book?
Prehospital analysis of northern trauma outcome measures: the PHANTOM study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Prehospital analysis of northern trauma outcome measures: the PHANTOM study
2019
Overview
ObjectiveTo compare the mortality and morbidity of traumatically injured patients who received additional prehospital care by a doctor and critical care paramedic enhanced care team (ECT), with those solely treated by a paramedic non-ECT.MethodsA retrospective analysis of Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) data and case note review of all severe trauma cases (Injury Severity Score ≥9) in North East England from 1 January 2014 to 1 December 2017 who were treated by the North East Ambulance Service, the Great North Air Ambulance Service or both. TARN methods were used to calculate the number of unexpected survivors or deaths in each group (W score (Ws)). The Glasgow Outcome Scores were contrasted to evaluate morbidity.ResultsThe ECT group treated 531 patients: there were 17 unexpected survivors and no unexpected deaths. The non-ECT group treated 1202 patients independently: there were no unexpected survivors and 31 unexpected deaths. The proportion of patients requiring critical care interventions differed between the two groups 49% versus 33% (CI for difference 12% to 20%). In the ECT group, the Ws was 3.22 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.64). In the non-ECT group, the Ws was −2.97 (95% CI −1.22 to −4.71). The difference between the Ws was 6.18 (95% CI 3.19 to 9.17). There was no evidence of worse morbidity in the ECT group.ConclusionThis is the first UK ECT service to demonstrate a risk-adjusted mortality benefit in trauma patients with no detriment in morbidity: our results demonstrate an additional 3.22 survivors per 100 severe trauma casualties when treated by an ECT. The authors encourage other ECT services to conduct similar research.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
