• J S Eisen and I Dubinsky.
• Queen's University Faculty of Medicine, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
• Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Jun 1;5(6):592-8.

ObjectiveTo determine whether the provision of advanced life support (ALS) field care has any impact on patient outcome in the urban Canadian environment.MethodsA convenience cohort study was conducted of all emergent ambulance transfers of adults to an urban Canadian hospital from May 22 to July 31, 1996. Data were collected from ambulance call reports regarding presenting complaint and field interventions applied, and from hospital records regarding time in the ED, hospital length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. Patient outcomes were compared within 7 presenting complaint groups (chest pain, altered level of consciousness, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, motor vehicle crash, falls, and other) by field care level: level 1--BLS (basic life support) vs levels 2 and 3--ALS.ResultsThe study population consisted of 1,397 patients. No significant differences were seen between BLS and ALS patients on baseline demographics. ED triage score did not depend on field care level for any group, implying that those in the ALS group were not inherently sicker. Outcome measures (ED LOS, admission rates, and hospital LOS) showed no significant differences between BLS and ALS for each presenting complaint group. Discharge dispositions were analyzed by chi2 but were not varied enough to allow reliable analysis. Observation of trends suggested no difference between BLS and ALS.ConclusionsThere was no beneficial impact on the measured patient outcomes found in association with the provision of ALS vs BLS field care in Metropolitan Toronto for patients who were brought to a nontrauma center.

20 keywords...

hide…