A question please. The popular validity of HEMS seems to rest on the idea of "saving lives". Where does "decreasing morbidity" through rapid transport (if this is a major reality) come to play?
My guess is doctors get nervous about patient outcome and pull the helicopter trigger in accordance with criteria that caters not only to life-saving but to decreasing morbity to assure quality of life; and such that medical liability is decreased and insurance companies possibly lose less in ongoing rehab and care. Another way of saying the dollar rules. But is that all bad? Where does the HEMS transport criteria line get redefined? Is this line medically driven or mostly a liability/insurance problem, or all three?
Completing transports obviously must not come at the expense of an accident record that can otherwise be dealt with; if all involved decide to do so.
Thanks.
WIII