• C O Davis and L Rodewald.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, New York 14642, USA. colleen_davis@urmc.rochester.edu
• Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999 Apr 1;3(2):102-6.

ObjectivesTo describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) transport seriously ill children from their offices to emergency departments (EDs).MethodsThe authors conducted a mail survey of PCPs in upstate New York.ResultsThe response rate was 60% (119/199). Sixty-six percent (79/119) of the physicians had transferred at least one child from their office to an ED via EMS. Forty-five percent (53/119) had encountered a case of suspected epiglottitis in the office. EMS was used to send 45% (24/53) of suspected epiglottitis cases to the ED, while 40% (21/53) transferred children with possible epiglottitis via family auto. Similarly, the family's auto was used to transport 26% (6/23) of the patients with suspected foreign body aspiration, 46% (32/70) with severe asthma, 59% (30/51) with severe dehydration, and 37% (14/38) with suspected meningococcemia. In contrast, the family's auto was never used for patients with active seizures. The physicians denied that they would call EMS more often if transport time were shorter (58%) or if costs were less (64%). Sixty percent of the PCPs were not sure whether EMS personnel are skilled in pediatric emergencies.ConclusionThe PCPs often failed to call EMS for seriously ill children seen in the office and, instead, used the family's auto for emergency transportation. In this survey, transport time and cost were not barriers to use of EMS. The physicians expressed a lack of confidence in EMS providers' pediatric skills. Targeting educational programs to PCPs that highlight 1) the availability, training, and skill of EMS personnel and 2) the medicolegal risks of family transportation may result in more appropriate use of EMS for children.

29 keywords...

hide…