• Arhana Chattopadhyay, Clifford C Sheckter, Chao Long, and Yvonne Karanas.
• Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University, California.
• J Burn Care Res. 2018 Jun 13; 39 (4): 598-603.

AbstractAir ambulances rapidly transport burn patients to regional centers, expediting treatment. However, limited guidelines on transport introduce the risk for inappropriate triage and overuse. Given the additional costs of air vs ground transport, evaluation of transportation use is prudent. A retrospective review of all burn patients transported by helicopter to a single burn center from May 2013 to January 2016 was performed. Data gathered included patient demographics, transfer origin, burn characteristics, and inpatient hospital stay. The primary outcome was appropriate triage based on literature-derived severity criteria. Secondary outcomes included independent predictors of emergent treatments and the cost of overuse. Sixty-eight patients were examined, of which 66% met air ambulance criteria. Inappropriately triaged patients sustained smaller burns (% TBSA 4.8 vs 25.3, P < .001), had fewer flame burns (48 vs 82%, P = .007), had decreased lengths of stay (mean days 8.2 vs 21.2, P = .002), underwent fewer inpatient surgeries (mean 0.69 vs 2.57, P = .006), received no emergent procedures (0 vs 56%, P < .001), and suffered no deaths (0 vs 9%, P < .001). Independent predictors of emergent procedures included transport for airway concern (odds ratio = 45.29, confidence interval = 2.49-825.21, P = .010) and % TBSA (odds ratio = 1.13, confidence interval = 1.02-1.27, P = .019). If the 23 inappropriately triaged patients had been transported by ground, a cost savings of $106,370 could have been realized using 2016 California Medicare reimbursements (per-patient savings of $4624). While appropriate in most circumstances, the cost of air ambulances should be weighed in light of their utility, as a significant proportion of patients did not benefit from air transport.

15 keywords...

hide…