Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:59:36.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Opportunity for Seatbelt Usage by ALS Providers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Richard T. Cook Jr.*
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hershey, Pa., USA
Steven A. Meador
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hershey, Pa., USA
Barry D. Buckingham
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hershey, Pa., USA
Lee V. Groff
Affiliation:
The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Division of Emergency Medicine, Hershey, Pa., USA
*
Division of Emergency Medicine, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, The Pennsylvania State University, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Abstract

Purpose:

Prehospital care providers commonly indicate that they cannot wear seat belts owing to their need to be unrestrained while delivering care to the patient in the back of the ambulance. Each year, providers are injured in situations in which seat belts have been shown to be protective. Are ALS providers able to wear a seat belt and provide care in an ambulance?

Methods:

The ALS providers were asked to complete a form following calls during which they rode with a patient in the back of an ambulance. They indicated the amount of time which they felt they would have needed to have been unrestrained by seat belts and the reasons. There were no attempts to regulate or quantify seat belt usage. Additional information was gathered from the trip report.

Results:

The percentage of the time of each trip during which they felt they needed to be unrestrained was calculated for each trip. The mean was 41%. The mean transport time was 14.7 minutes. Sub-groupings by protocol type, showed that for cardiac arrest patients, providers felt they needed to be unrestrained for 82% of the duration of transport, for patients with “chest pain or cardiac dysrhythmia” 63%, for “shortness of breath” 38%, and for trauma patients 41%. Excluding cardiac arrest patients, the nine patients were assigned by the providers to have the most critical level of case severity required unrestrained time of 72%. Those nine patients with the lowest severity level requires that the provider by unrestrained only 18% of the time. Management of intravenous line and patient assessments most frequently were cited as reasons for needing to be unrestrained.

Conclusion:

Perceived need of ALS providers to be unrestrained varied with respect to the type of call, with cardiac arrest patient transports having the greatest need to be unrestrained. However, on the average, providers felt they needed to be unrestrained only 41% of the time; markedly less on some types of call, with cardiac arrest patient transports having the greatest need to be unrestrained. However, on the average, providers felt they needed to be unrestrained only 41% of the time; markedly less on some types of calls. The ALS providers should be able to wear seat belts for at least part of the time, on most ALS calls.

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the 6th Annual Meeting of the National Association of EMS Physicians at Houston, Texas, June 1990.

References

1. Auerbach, PS, Morris, JA, Phillips, JB et al. : An analysis of ambulance accidents in Tennessee. JAMA 1987;258:14871490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Elling, R: Dispelling myths on ambulance accidents. Jems 1989;14:6064.Google ScholarPubMed
3. New York state examines ambulance accidents. EMS Mgt Advisor 1987;3:18.Google Scholar