RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Very little data is available about the involvement of lifeboat crews in medical emergencies at sea. The aim of this study is to analyze the medical operations at sea performed by the Royal Netherlands Sea Rescue Institution (KNRM). METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive analysis of all medical operations at sea performed by the KNRM between January 2017 and January 2020. The operations were divided in three groups: with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat, ambulance crew on land waiting for the arrival of the lifeboat, and autonomous operations (without ambulance crew involvement). The main outcome measures were circumstances, encountered medical problems, follow-up and crew departure time. RESULTS: The KNRM performed 282 medical operations, involving 361 persons. Operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat (n = 39; 42 persons) consisted mainly of persons with serious trauma or injuries; 32 persons (76.2%) were transported to a hospital. Operations with ambulance crew on land (n = 153; 188 persons) mainly consisted of situations where time was essential, such as persons who were still in the water, with risk of drowning (n = 45, 23.9%), on-going resuscitations (n = 9, 4.8%) or suicide attempts (n = 7, 3.7%). 101 persons (53,7%) were transported to a hospital. All persons involved in the autonomous operations (n = 90; 131 persons) had minor injuries. 38 persons (29%) needed additional medical care, mainly for (suspected) fractures or stitches. In 115 (40.8%) of all operations lifeboat crews did not know that there was a medical problem at the time of departure. Crew departure time in operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat (13.7 min, min. 0, max. 25, SD 5.74 min.) was significantly longer than in operations with ambulance crew on land (7.7 min, min. 0, max 21, SD 4.82 min., p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provides new information about the large variety of medical emergencies at sea and the way that lifeboat and ambulance crews are involved. Crew departure time in operations with ambulance crew aboard the lifeboat was significantly longer than in operations with ambulance crew on land. This study may provide useful indications for improvement of future medical operations at sea, such as triage, because in 40.8% of operations, it was not known at the time of departure that there was a medical problem.
Asunto(s)
Ambulancias , Fracturas Óseas , Humanos , Urgencias Médicas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Instituciones de SaludRESUMEN
AIM OF THE STUDY: Accidental hypothermia (AH) is a complex and life threatening condition. Knowledge about epidemiology, rewarming treatments, complications and outcome is limited. This study was initiated to obtain data on causes, rewarming treatments and complications. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all patients with a body temperature ≤ 35°C admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of the VU university medical centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2008. A predefined set of epidemiological and clinical data was retrieved. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included (median age: 47 years). Categories of hypothermia included immersion (18), submersion (29) and exposure to cold (37); concomitant factors were intoxication (26), trauma (40) and homelessness (7). Temperature at admission in the ED was 31.6 ± 2.6°C (mean ± SD), lowest temperature 24.2°C. Fourteen different rewarming treatments were used resulting in a wide range of rewarming speeds. Seventy-nine complications occurred: pulmonary, renal and neurological complications in 20, 17 and 10 patients respectively. Seventeen patients had 2 or more late complications. Twenty-four patients (28.6%) died: 10 during rewarming and 14 after rewarming was completed. Prognosis was poor in older and colder patients and after indoor exposure and submersion. CONCLUSION: AH is a rare diagnosis in an inhomogeneous population, treated with a large variety of rewarming techniques. Most complications and death occurred late, after rewarming was completed. Because individual teams gain little clinical experiences, we suggest multiple centre data collection as a first step towards an evidence-based standard of care.