Poll result: Should shooting, stabbing victims self-transport or wait for EMS?
We asked the EMS1 community to sound off on which option they thought was best; here are their responses
By Sarah Calams, EMS1 Associate Editor
A study led by John Hopkins Medicine claims that shooting and stabbing victims have a better chance of survival if they use private vehicles over ambulances for transport to a trauma center.
Dr. Elliott Haut, an associate professor of surgery and emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, advised victims to get in their own cars, Ubers or police vehicles instead of waiting for EMS.
The study's findings sparked heated discussion within the EMS1 community. As a result, we created a poll to query which is more preferable in a trauma scenario: quick transport in a private vehicle or medical professional care in an ambulance. We asked our Facebook fans to sound off on which option is best; here are your responses.
And, if you haven't already, be sure to add your thoughts in the comment section below.
1. "Whether we like it or not, the data is now saying rapid transport by any means, even POV, has the best outcome for major trauma patients. It's a blow to our egos, and minimizes our necessity to the public in those situations, but it reinforces the significance of getting into the OR as soon as possible." – Keith Robinson
2. "Depends on what systems are affected by the trauma, is the airway compromised? Is exsanguination a possibility with delayed transport? Potentially fatal increase in ICP? It varies case by case." – William Dobnak
3. "It's simple, which would happen first. Can I drive the GSW to the chest to the nearest trauma center before EMS arrives? Yes. OR is optimal, but the patient is going to need a lot of things done before surgery (IV, airway, meds, etc.). Rendezvous with EMS would be the absolute best outcome, but we're not ready for that yet. Until then, it's a matter of which will happen first. I say for everyone, if someone can drive the patient to an appropriate hospital before EMS can get to you why wait?" – Matthew Johntony
4. "The issue here is not the pre-hospital care, it is the immediacy of surgical intervention. Patients who go by EMS have to wait for EMS, thus delaying the surgical intervention and lowering the chance of survival. The study is wrong in its conclusion because the measure is flawed." – Patrick J. Stanton
5. "I think it would depend on where you live. In a rural setting, I would have to believe you have a better chance of surviving with ALS medical care within 10 minutes, than ED care in the 45 to 50 minutes it would take you to drive to the ED in your POV while your loved one is bleeding to death in the seat next to you." – Cynthia A. Handly
6. "Just like everything else in EMS ... it depends." – Tony Smith
7. "It depends. Where I live, EMS is four minutes away. In more rural areas, it can be longer in which case I would advocate for personal transport." – Kyle Haag
Here's where the current results stand. Have you weighed in yet?