header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

THE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF INCREASED MOBILE PHONE USE FOR CONTACTING EMERGENCY SERVICES IN LIFE THREATENING TRAUMA AND EMERGENCY EVENTS



Abstract

Objectives: to determine whether initial contact with emergency services via a mobile phone (MP) in life threatening situations is associated with increased survival or reduced length of stay when compared to contact via a landline.

A retrospective cohort – data from all emergency dispatches from a UK county ambulance service was linked to the Patient Admission System at local hospitals. All emergency dispatches for immediately life-threatening events (designated as Code Red) between 01/01/1995 and 31/06/2006 were tracked to death or discharge.

Main Outcome Measures:

  1. Mortality (at scene, at emergency department, and during hospitalisation), admissions (to the emergency department (ED), inpatients care, and the intensive care unit (ICU)) and mean lengths of stay were analysed by initial exposure (MP versus landline) using multi-variant analysis with logistic regression controlling for potential confounding variables.

354,199 ambulances were dispatched in the 11.5 years. Mobile phone use rose to 25% by study end. 66% of ambulances subsequently transferred patients to hospital. MP compared to landline reporting of emergencies resulted in significant reductions in the risk of death at scene for medical events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85), but not for trauma (OR 1.04). ED medical deaths were higher (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.72) as were in-patient (OR 1.19). There was no effect on ED or hospital trauma deaths (ORs 0.81, 0.84). The probability of being admitted to hospital and ICU was higher with MP call for trauma (ORs 1.22, 1.44). There was no difference in mortality between mobile or landline calls from either urban or rural areas.

There is little evidence to suggest a lower threshold to make an emergency call from a MP. The potential advantages of MP use of ease of access, supplying bystander/patient advice and shortening the ‘golden hour’ appear confined to non-trauma emergencies.

Correspondence should be addressed to Editorial Secretary Mr ML Costa or Assistant Editorial Secretary Mr B.J. Ollivere at BOA, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England; Email: mattcosta@hotmail.com or ben@ollivere.co.uk