Background Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a useful means of reducing inequity of access to specialist emergency care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variations in HEMS provision across Europe, in order to inform the further development of emergency care systems.
Methods This is a survey of primary HEMS in the 32 countries of the European Economic Area and Switzerland. Information was gathered through internet searches (May to September 2016), and by emailing service providers, requesting verification and completion of data (September 2016 to July 2017). HEMS provision was calculated as helicopters per million population and per 1000 km2 land area, by day and by night, and per US$10 billion of gross domestic product (GDP), for each country.
Results In 2016, the smallest and least prosperous countries had no dedicated HEMS provision. Luxembourg had the highest number of helicopters by area and population, day and night. Alpine countries had high daytime HEMS coverage and Scandinavia had good night-time coverage. Most helicopters carried a doctor. Funding of services varied from public to charitable and private. Most services performed both primary (from the scene) and secondary (interfacility) missions.
Conclusions Within Europe, there is a large variation in the number of helicopters available for emergency care, regardless of whether assessed with reference to population, land area or GDP. Funding of services varied, and did not seem to be clearly related to the availability of HEMS.
- emergency care systems
- global health
- prehospital care, helicopter retrieval
- prehospital care, doctors in PHC
- trauma, majot trauma management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to the paper. AJ and JOJ conceived the idea for and designed this study. MJD assisted with the planning. AJ performed the literature search, collected, analysed and interpreted data, and wrote the first draft. JOJ contributed to data analysis and was the senior investigator. All authors critically revised the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Plymouth University Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry Health Students Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.