Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) is presumably an effective way of patient transport in rural trauma, yet the literature addressing its effectiveness is scarce. In this study, we compared the clinical outcome of rural trauma patients between Ground Emergency Medical Services (GEMS) and HEMS transportation from the beginning of 2006 to the end of 2012. Focus was placed on identifying factors associated with survival to discharge in these patients. Over the seven-year study period, 4492 patients met the inclusion criteria with 2414 patients (54%) being transferred by GEMS and 2078 patients (46%) being transferred by HEMS. In comparison with GEMS, patients transferred by HEMS were younger men who were admitted with a higher mean Injury Severity Score and a lower mean Glasgow Coma Score (all Ps < 0.0001). HEMS patients were more frequently intubated before arrival at the trauma center (32% vs 9%, P < 0.0001) and were more frequently transferred to the operating room from the emergency department (11% vs 5%, P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, transfer by HEMS was associated with a significant increase in survival to discharge (odds ratio: 1.57, 95% confidence interval: 1.03–2.40, P = 0.036). Blunt injury, no intubation, and Glasgow Coma Score >8 were also associated with significantly improved odds of survival to discharge (all P < 0.0001). These findings show that although patients transferred by HEMS arrived in less favorable clinical conditions, HEMS transfer was associated with significantly higher odds of survival in rural trauma.

Urban areas house the majority of the population in the United States but trauma deaths occur more commonly in rural areas. In this study, we aimed to investigate if direct patient admission to a Level I trauma center improves outcomes in rural trauma. We retrospectively reviewed data in our trauma database from January 2008 to the end of December 2012 to compare the overall outcomes between direct admissions (DAs) and interhospital transfers (IHTs). Of the 6118 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 59.5 per cent were in the DA group and 40.5 per cent in the IHT group. Injury severity score was similar between the two groups but severe traumatic brain injury was more common (P = 0.001) in the DA group. Hospital length of stay, complication rate, and in-hospital mortality were not different between the two groups (all P > 0.2). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between the two modes of admission (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.91, 0.69–1.20, P = 0.51). We concluded that rural trauma IHTs had no detrimental impact on the outcome. Prospective studies would better elucidate factors associated with patient outcomes in rural trauma.