It is difficult to define whether an MMT mission is medically appropriate or not [7]. The reason for this is that there has never been designed a prospective randomized study to assess the usefulness of physician-staffed prehospital trauma teams. Though, several retrospective studies indicated that the MMT in the Netherlands offers an increased chance of survival for severely injured patients and could lead to reduced morbidity [8–10]. In studies conducted among prehospital traumatic deaths, airway management has been shown the key in preventable deaths in patients with severe head injury [11, 12]. This study shows that the MMT does indeed reach those patients that benefit the most from its offered care.
Although the dispatch centres operate according to the present MMT-dispatch criteria, a considerable high percentage of overtriage is shown in our study. The main question that needs to be differentiated is: is the overtriage a result of misinterpretation of the dispatch criteria, or are the criteria not accurate enough and do these need to be revised?
Prehospital triage systems are based on anatomical and physiological parameters and the mechanism of injury (MOI). The optimal combination of these parameters seems to form the most effective triage system [13, 14]. Several studies stated that the MOI criteria alone are not good predictors of major trauma or the need for prehospital and inhospital trauma teams. Individual MOI criteria have no clinical or operational significance in prehospital trauma triage of patients who have an absence of physiological distress and no significant pattern of injury [15, 16].
In our study, the on-scene patient's RTS was significantly lower in the MMT-assisted group then for the cancellation group. Previous studies have shown that a lowered RTS can recognize severe trauma victims, with a sensitivity ranging between 60% and 80%. A similar study conducted in the Netherlands found lower results, ranging between 40% and 60% [17]. This difference is possibly seen because of the lower prevalence of trauma in our country due to traffic conditions, for example a high traffic load on the (high)way's due to demographic characteristics resulting in a relatively low average vehicle speed compared with the surrounding countries like Germany and Belgium [18, 19].
The mean prehospital GCS was also found to be lower in the MMT-assisted group. Prehospital lowered GCS has been shown to be a good predictor for inhospital trauma team activation, being indicative of possible serious trauma [20].
Limitation of triage to anatomic and physiologic criteria does not seem to be the solution, because this results in dangerous levels of undertriage. We can say that some degree of trauma mechanism and provider judgement needs to be incorporated [21]. Several retrospective studies have introduced new prehospital triage models to identify major trauma patients in the prehospital setting. However, these models still need to be validated in prospective studies [22].
Overtriage results in little impact to the patient, but it can result in significant strain on hospital and system wide resources and personnel. According to the American College of Surgeons—Committee on Trauma, an undertriage rate of 5–10% is considered unavoidable and is associated with an overtriage rate of 30–50%. In this study, the MMT was cancelled in almost 50% of all dispatches. According to the above-mentioned, our cancellation rate is acceptable, but only if the undertriage rate is minimized. Figure 4 shows that the MMT was cancelled 19 times (4.3%) while the mission was assessed to be appropriate (severely injured patient; cancellations of groups 2 and 4). These cases form the undertriaged group. According to the above-mentioned, we think that this combination of over- and undertriage is acceptable in our trauma system. Of the 19 undertriaged patients, 11 were directly admitted to the ICU and two were directly brought to the operating room. Four of them died within 24 h. Of these, two young patients died in the Emergency Department due to cardiac failure. One died at the scene of the accident and one in the ICU, both due to traumatic brain injury. In the last two cases, the MMT was cancelled because in one the patient was pronounced dead at the scene due to severe traumatic brain injury, in the other the patient needed emergency transportation to a hospital due to neurological symptoms. In the first two cases, the MMT was cancelled before even the ambulance arrived at the scene. The reason for cancellation was that it concerned in both cases a cardiac resuscitation instead of a trauma, which is not a primary dispatch criterion in our trauma region and in the Netherlands until today. Even thought the above-mentioned is true, we think that cardiac resuscitations, especially in young patients can be difficult and the presence of a specialized physician can be helpful.
An earlier study, conducted in the Netherlands, showed that the MMT can be considered cost-effective [23]. The calculated additional costs of the cancelled dispatches summed up to a total of € 34,448. Considering these costs amount to 2.2% of the total MMT costs during the study period (€ 1,537,747) [23], we think these costs are acceptable.
In our study, it was not possible to identify the group of patients who met the dispatch criteria and were severely injured, but for whom the MMT was not deployed at all (primary undertriage). The results of a study in another Dutch trauma region showed that emergency dispatchers only deployed the MMT in 14% of all calls meeting the formal dispatch criteria. This means strict adherence to dispatch protocols can lead to an increase in the number of dispatches by a factor of seven [24].
Therefore, we suggest a study in our trauma region where all trauma emergency ambulance dispatches are included and the primary undertriaged patients are analyzed.
In 128 cases (groups 1 and 2 in Fig. 4), we saw that the mission did not meet the dispatch criteria. This may be a result of incomplete and unclear information given by a lay caller to the dispatch centre. Although in the literature we see cases where incomplete or unclear calls resulted in undertriage, we suppose that this can also cause overtriage [25]. Though, it is known that the use of criteria based dispatch systems increase the efficiency of emergency medical services. According to some studies in the USs, the use of these systems significantly decreased inappropriate advanced life support (ALS) dispatching, as defined by decreased rate of ALS cancellations. When dispatch protocols are used by personnel without ALS training, a rise of inappropriate scene responses and ALS cancellations is seen [26–28].
It was not possible to clearly define the reason of the cancelled, but appropriate missions in this retrospective study. We suppose that time plays a crucial role here. During daylight hours, the MMT is transported by helicopter, which is a fast way to reach the patient. After sunset and until midnight, the MMT is transported by a specially equipped vehicle. This may delay the arrival of the MMT on-scene, especially when the distance is long. In situations with unstable patients (threatened vital signs), the EMS personnel will have to choose between waiting on-scene for the MMT or transporting the patient as fast as possible to the nearest trauma centre and cancelling the MMT. The latter is a justifiable option in our opinion. After approval by the Ministry of Health, one of the Dutch H-MMT's (Lifeliner 3, Nijmegen) started a night pilot in 2006. This H-MMT is 24 h a day available and covers after sunset and especially after midnight almost the whole country. According to the results of this pilot, soon all four Dutch H-MMT's will be available day and night.
The MMT service has been designed to enable a trauma team to arrive as quickly as possible at the scene of injury. The team supplements but does not replace the EMS. Although it is proven that patient transport by helicopter offers a possible time benefit, only 2–15% of patients are transported by helicopter after on-scene treatment in the Netherlands. Due to geographic conditions, in the majority of the cases, within 20–30 min, an appropriate level 1 trauma centre can be reached by ambulance after extrication of the injured patient at the accident scene.
In Europe, there is a great variation in organization of trauma care [29]. Many European countries have designated trauma centres and use mobile medical teams in the prehospital setting in order to improve trauma care [30]. Although the same idea is realized in different areas, substantial differences are seen in dispatch and cancellation frequencies. We think that this difference can be partially explained by the difference in dispatch types. Table 1 shows that the cancellation rate is lower for the MMT's with a higher non-trauma dispatch percentage. In a recent Dutch study, a comparison was made of the dispatch frequencies in different emergency dispatch regions by relating the dispatch of the MMT with the number of inhabitants. The deployment of the MMT proved to differ significantly between emergency dispatch centres. Dispatch centres coordinating MMT's conducted significantly more MMT calls with a lower cancellation rate [31].
Analysis of the German HEMS data of the ADAC (General German Automobile Association) of 33 German HEMS during the same (research) period showed an emergency dispatch rate of 17,823, of which 14.3% were cancelled. Only 38.2% of all dispatches were of traumatic origin. This is not comparable with the results of our study, since in our study the dispatches were predominantly based on trauma indications (95%). This could be caused by the difference between the Dutch and the German EMS systems. An ambulance crew in the Netherlands consists of two persons: an ambulance driver and an ambulance nurse. The ambulance nurse has being trained in A(T)LS and is allowed to perform many advanced medical procedures like endotracheal intubation and administration of analgesic medication. Therefore, the MMT in the Netherlands is predominantly needed in more difficult trauma related situations than in Germany.