[ATLS® and TDSC®: how it fits together : A treatment concept for mass casualty and terrorist-related mass casualty situations, life-threatening and special scenarios]. / ATLS® und TDSC®: How it fits together : Ein Behandlungskonzept für MANV und TerrorMANV, lebensbedrohliche oder besondere Lagen.

Terrorist-related mass casualty incidents represent a medical and organizational challenge for all hospitals. The main reasons are the special patterns of injuries, the onset and development of the scenario, the lack of information at the beginning, the overall number of casualties and the number of uninjured but involved patients presenting at the hospital.Due to these circumstances and the high percentage of penetrating injuries with a permanent risk of uncontrollable bleeding and other life-threatening complications, a strategic and tactical initial surgical care is necessary.For these special terrorist-related mass casualty (MasCal) situations, the Terror and Disaster Surgical Care (TDSC®) course was developed and imparts special medical and surgical knowledge as well as a scenario-based training in surgical decision-making. The TDSC® course focusses on the scenario-related provision of surgical care and distribution of the limited resources to enable survival for as many patients as possible.To improve individualized trauma care course formats, such as the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) were established and are nowadays widespread in Germany. It could be shown that standardized approaches and algorithm-based treatment could improve the outcome of trauma victims. Faced with the present day permanent risk of a possible terrorist-related MasCal situation, the question arises how and to what extent elements and principles of both course formats (TDSC® and ATLS®) could be used to improve and organize the initial care in a terrorist-linked MasCal incident.For the first time it is shown that the key elements of both courses (primary survey of the ATLS® and the TDSC® principles: categorization, prioritization, disposition and realization) could be established and integratively used to structure the initial intrahospital medical and surgical care.

[Transport of ventilated emergency patients from the air rescue service to the hospital destination (HOVER study) : Results of an online survey]. / Transport beatmeter Notfallpatienten vom Hubschrauber zum Krankenhauszielort (HOVER-Studie) : Ergebnisse einer Onlineumfrage.

BACKGROUND: In Germany more than 110,000 helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) missions are carried out annually. A considerable number of patients are ventilated during the flight. So far, structured surveys with respect to the ground transport from the helipad to the hospital facility and handover of ventilated patients in the emergency room (ER) are not available in the German-speaking HEMS system. The handover of ventilated HEMS patients in the ER (HOVER I study) explored the use of the helicopter ventilator and medical equipment during the transport from the hospital landing site to the ER. METHOD: After approval by the HEMS operators, emergency medical doctors and HEMS technical crew members (HEMS-TC) of 145 German-speaking HEMS bases were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey (period: 1 February 2018-1 March 2018). Each participant was only allowed to submit the survey once. RESULTS: Data of 569 participants were completely analyzed, with responses from 429 emergency physicians and 140 HEMS-TC (75% from Germany, 13% Switzerland, 11% Austria, 1% Italy and Luxembourg). The most frequent type of aircraft used was the Eurocopter (EC)/Airbus helicopter (H) 135 (60.5%) followed by the EC/H 145 (33%). The majority of the respondents (53%) principally used the helicopter ventilator machine for patient transport from the helipad to the ER, 38% used it depending on the circumstances and 7% never used it. Of the participants 52% always took the emergency backpack for patient transport to the ER, 43% depending on the situation and 5% never took it along. The availability of oxygen or a ventilator at the helipad was considered to be helpful (59% and 45%, respectively), obligatory (25% and 14%, respectively) but was also considered unnecessary by some participants (16% and 40%, respectively). The collection of the HEMS team by a hospital team at the helipad was rated as helpful (64%) or mandatory (19%), 12% considered it to be unimportant and 5% even disturbing. For most respondents (58.5%) the responsibility for the patient ended after a structured handover on reaching the internal hospital target area (e.g. the ER). CONCLUSION: The management of the handover of ventilated emergency patients in German-speaking HEMS is heterogeneously structured. Only approximately 50% of the participants frequently carried the helicopter ventilator and emergency equipment during patient transport to the ER. Depending on the situation, more than 90% of the respondents used the helicopter ventilator and emergency backpack during the transport. The collection of the HEMS team by a hospital team at the helipad was appreciated by the majority of participants. The use of the helicopter ventilator for patient transport to the ER needs to be explored in future studies. The study was registered at the Research Registry ( www.researchregistry.com ) under the following number: researchregistry2925.