2. Who commissioned this report? I am always suspicious about possible hidden vested interests.
I believe the article cited by mickjoebill was an academic article by a research group in Sheffield (UK) - vested interests (or conflicts of interests) may be many/varied but this particular paper appears to have been commissioned by the Department of Health. It is quite an old paper (published 1996) and the financial figures quoted are certainly outdated. In addition, some of the paper's points no longer fully reflect the pre-hospital practices of the UK.
A more contemporary discussion about HEMS has recently been published by the Emergency Medicine Journal - "
Is it the H or the EMS in HEMS that has an impact on trauma patient mortality? A systematic review of the evidence" Butler
et al., Emerg Med J 2010;27:692-701.
The article can be downloaded for free by following the link below and selecting your download option from the right of the screen:
http://emj.bmj.com/content/27/9/692.abstract
This is a systematic review (i.e review of published literature rather than de-novo research) which goes through the HEMS debate step by step. Whilst I personally believe there are some methodological flaws to this paper, and I'm not convinced about the results generated by some of the papers they have selected, it is still an interesting read. As usual, no definitive conclusions are drawn and the debate as to the merits of HEMS will continue...
What is clear is that the crux of many arguments as to HEMS effectiveness rest on:
1) the geography of any given country;
2) how you judge effectiveness (?morbidity ?mortality ?return to tax payer status);
3) how you staff your aircraft.
I could go on but I think this post is long enough as it is!
Simon