Læknablaðið - 15.02.1994, Side 37

LÆKNABLAÐIÐ
79
treatment and determine the outcome of patients
transported.
Retrospective review of the flight physicians’
medical records for the year 1991 was made.
Additional information was obtained from the
medical records of the hospitals to which the
patients were admitted and from the log books
of the Coast Guard Coordination Center. Using
a modification of the ASA-classification, each
patient’s condition was evaluated. The usefulness
of the helicopter as means of transportation and
the importance of the flight physician as a crew
member was evaluated as well.
Seventy two individuals were transported in 57
flights. The majority of those transported, 54 (76%)
were males. Of these 36 (56%) were between 20
and 40 years of age.
The majority or 44 (61%) of the patients
transported were trauma victims. Forty four (61%)
were classified as seriously ill or injured (class
111 to IV). Eighteen (25%) were moderately ill
or injured. Most of these patients were rescued
from the ocean or the wildemess. Ten (14%) were
healthy individuals rescued from danger at sea.
Forty three of the flights were directly to the scene,
only 14 were interhospital transfers. Approximately
one third of the individuals were flown in from
rural areas, one third from the wildemess and one
third from off shore. A helicopter was found to be
a necessary means of transportation for 32 (45%)
individuals and important for the transportation
of other 39 (54%). Treatment provided by the
flight physician was regarded as necessary for
the beneficial outcome of 13 (18%) patients and
important for 29 (40%).
Our conclusion is that helicopters are a vitaly
important component of emergency medical
services (EMS) and search and rescue (SAR) in
Iceland. A flight physician is a necessary crew
member on board the helicopter on all EMS- and
SAR- mns. Flelicopters may not yet be adequately
utilized for emergency services in Iceland.
HEIMILDIR
1. Egilsson JG. Nokkrir punktar úr þyrlusögu íslands.
Reykjavík: Björgunarskóli Landsbjargar, 1991.
2. Valgarðsson A. Sjúkraflutningar með þyrlu. Óbirt, í
handriti.
3. Jónsson ÓÞ. Sjúkraflutningar með flugvélum.
Læknablaðið 1980; 9: 280-7.
4. Möller AD. Sjúkraflutningar með þyrlu
Landhelgisgæslunnar. Tfmaritið 000 1991; 1: 22-8.
5. Handbók flugmanna. Reykjavík: Flugmálastjóm,
1992.
6. American society of anesthesiologists; New
classificaton of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;
24:111.
7. Ingvarsson Þ. Ársskýrsla þyrluvaktar lækna 1990.
Óbirt, í handriti.
8. Bumey RE, Fischer RP. Ground versus air
transport of trauma victims: medical and logistical
considerations. Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15: 1491-5.
9. Wright SW, Dronen SC, Combs TJ, Storer D.
Aeromedical transport of patient with post-traumatic
cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med 1989: 18: 721-6.
10. Baxt W, Moody P. The Impact of a rotorcraft
aeromedical emergency care service on trauma
mortality. JAMA 1983; 249: 3047-51.
11. Rhee KJ, Strozeski M, Burney RE, et al. Is the flight
physician needed for helicopter emergency medical
services? Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15: 111/174-
114/177.
12. Campbell JP, Low RB, Bowman D. The efficacy of
ground versus helicopter transport in patient outcome.
J Okla State Med Assoc 1989; 82: 311-4.
13. Schwartz RJ, Jacobs LM, Lee M. The role of the
physican in a helicopter emergency medical service.
Prehospital and disaster medicine 1990; 5: 31-9.
14. Harris BH. Performance of aeromedical
crewmembers, training or experience? Am J Emerg
Med 1986; 4: 409-11.
15. Urdaneta LF, Miller BK, Ringenberg BJ, Cram AE,
Scott DH. Role of an emergency helicopter transport
service in rural trauma. Arch Surg 1987; 122: 992-6.
16. Mulrooney P. Aeromedical patient transfer. Br J Hosp
Med 1991; 45; 209-12.
17. Poulton T, Kisicki P. Physiologic monitoring during
civilian air medical transport. Aviat Space Environ
Med 1987; 265: 367-9.
18. Wilson A, Driscoll P. ABC of major trauma.
Transport of injured patient. Br Med J 1990; 301:
658-62.