The risky side of response. Increasing fatalities underscore the need for reconciled safety practices of ground & air ambulances.

It’s 1 a.m. in a rural county surrounding a mid-size American city. A sport utility vehicle driven by an intoxicated driver crosses the median and strikes a car head on, immediately killing the car’s driver and seriously injuring her husband, the passenger. A local volunteer firefighter witnesses the accident and calls it in, triggering a full response to include a paramedic ambulance from the county service and a helicopter headquartered in the region. Help is on the way. The scenario just described could have happened in any number of communities across the United States. Likely, the EMS personnel would arrive on scene by ground first and stabilize surviving patients for transport. Then, the air medical provider would arrive, continue the care and expedite transport by air to the local trauma center. The public would expect nothing less. Right?

[1]  Dave Williams,et al.  2004 JEMS 200-city survey. , 2005, JEMS : a journal of emergency medical services.

[2]  Geoff Scott,et al.  A safety review and risk assessment in air medical transport , 2002 .

[3]  Gordon S. Smith,et al.  Occupational fatalities in emergency medical services: a hidden crisis. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[4]  Susan P Baker,et al.  EMS helicopter crashes: what influences fatal outcome? , 2006, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  Jon Swanson,et al.  An optimal solution for enhancing ambulance safety: implementing a driver performance feedback and monitoring device in ground emergency medical service vehicles. , 2005, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[6]  C. Kahn,et al.  C HARACTERISTICS OF F ATAL A MBULANCE C RASHES IN THE U NITED S TATES : A N 11- YEAR R ETROSPECTIVE A NALYSIS , 2001, Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors.