Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Interfacility Transport of Emergency Patients by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Versus Ground Emergency Medical Services

Suha Turkmen, Haris Iftikhar, Robin Muller, Ahmed Labib Shehatta, Muhammad S.M. Hardan, Suresh Babu Chellapandian, Maarij Masood, Guillaume Alinier*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: The Interfacility transportation of critically ill patients is a common practice in modern medical care. Transportation of patients may be necessary for clinical or hospital capacity issues. Patient transfers are typically conducted by specialized teams via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) using emergency medical vehicles (i.e., ambulances) or helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) using rotary-wing air ambulances. The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of HEMS and GEMS in terms of the duration of time-critical interfacility transfers. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of emergency interfacility transfer of critically ill adult patients in Qatar between 2018 and 2022. Data on patient demographics, facilities’ locations, and multiple mission-related time parameters were collected from the Ambulance Service database and the hospitals’ centralized electronic medical records and analyzed. Patients with non-emergency conditions, incomplete transfer data, or HEMS activation delays exceeding 30 min were excluded. Results: Data of 518 emergency interfacility transfers (355 GEMS and 163 HEMS) was collected and analyzed. Patients’ median age was 45 years old. For transfers shorter than 50 km, HEMS was used in 50.2% (109/217) of cases, while for transfers over 50 km, GEMS was used in 82.1% (247/301) of cases (p < 0.001). The GEMS transfers had a significantly shorter call-to-departure time by 21.9 min, whereas HEMS had a significantly shorter departure-to-arrival time by 23.6 min. However, the difference in total mission time was not significant (p > 0.05). In transfers less than 50 kilometers, HEMS had a longer call-to-departure time by 18.4 min and a shorter departure-to-arrival time by 12.3 min (both p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed in both short (<50 km) and long (>50 km) transfers. Conclusions: Ground ambulance may offer a comparably as efficient option for emergency patient transfers over short and medium distances, as no significant difference was found in the total transfer times and clinical patient outcomes were not assessed. The results obtained in Qatar’s context may not be universally generalizable. Helicopter ambulance may be advantageous when the patient needs to be transferred very quickly over a longer distance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalPrehospital Emergency Care
Early online date23 Jan 2026
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 23 Jan 2026
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Interfacility Transport of Emergency Patients by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Versus Ground Emergency Medical Services'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this