title: Defining trauma patient subpopulations for field stabilization.
abstract: Despite several large studies, the scoop and run versus field stabilization debate in prehospital trauma care continues. It is unlikely that all trauma patients are best treated by either field stabilization or scoop and run and the most effective form of prehospital care may be dependent upon the type of injuries sustained. Studies suggest that penetrating trauma involving major vascular injury may be best treated by scoop and run since advanced life support (ALS) measures serve only to delay time to definitive surgical treatment. Conversely, patients with head injuries may benefit from rapid ALS performed on scene in order to control airway and breathing problems, and reduce intracranial pressure prior to transport. Between these two groups of patients lie those with blunt trauma in whom scoop and run may be most appropriate if there is major vascular damage or those in whom field stabilization may offer the patient a greater chance of survival if blood loss is not a life-threatening problem.
authors.affiliation: Helicopter Emergency Medical Service, Royal London Hospital, UK.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Deakin
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Davies
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D006259:Craniocerebral Trauma / Q000628:therapy; D003657:Decision Making; D004632:Emergency Medical Services / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D015601:Injury Severity Score; D009104:Multiple Trauma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000628:therapy*; D014218:Triage; D006113:United Kingdom; D014949:Wounds, Nonpenetrating / Q000628:therapy; D014950:Wounds, Penetrating / Q000628:therapy