Introduction

The Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS) estimates that 400,000 patients per year are transported by rotor wing aircraft. Despite the frequent utilization of air medical transport, little is known about the operational environment and regulations of hospital owned helipads. We sought to understand the environment and regulations of hospital helipads, hypothesizing that the majority of these facilities have strict rules regarding who may use their facilities and how aircraft approach and depart.

Methods

We developed a 23-item survey to explore the operational environment and regulations surrounding the use of helipads at level I trauma centers in the United States. Flight crew members and administration, as well as hospital administrators, were invited to complete a multiple choice and free text survey hosted by a secure online data collection tool. The survey was publicized through relevant professional organizations, social media, and individual invitation. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

Results

We received 138 responses and analyzed survey data for 87 adult and pediatric level I trauma centers representing 34 states after excluding surveys that did not name a specific center, level II trauma centers, and duplicates for a facility already enrolled. The mean (SD) number of helipads controlled by a center is 2 (1) with the majority (84%) being rooftop helipads. 17/87 (20%) of facilities require a formal agreement with a transport program prior to use of their helipad. Of that group, 8/17 (47%) indicate pre-specified consequences for violation of the agreement and 7/8 (88%) of those consequences include loss of landing privileges. A minority of facilities (9%) require CAMTS accreditation as a prerequisite for helipad use, and the most common restrictions in place are specific approach paths (67%), specific departure paths (64%) and aircraft type and weight restrictions (64%). 74/87 (85%) of facilities require 10-15 minute notification prior to arrival, while only 13/87 (15%) require notification prior to departure.

Conclusion

There is significant variation in the operational environment and regulations surrounding the use of hospital owned helipads at level I trauma centers, with a minority requiring formal agreement for use of the helipad or specifying repercussions for violation of the agreement.

中文翻译：

---

一级创伤中心医院自有直升机停机坪运行环境及法规调查

介绍

空中医疗服务协会 (AAMS) 估计每年有 400,000 名患者由旋翼飞机运送。尽管空中医疗运输频繁使用，但对医院直升机停机坪的运营环境和规定知之甚少。我们试图了解医院直升机停机坪的环境和规定，假设这些设施中的大多数对谁可以使用他们的设施以及飞机如何进近和离开都有严格的规定。

方法

我们开展了一项包含 23 个项目的调查，以探索在美国一级创伤中心使用直升机停机坪的运营环境和法规。飞行机组成员和管理人员以及医院管理人员被邀请完成由安全在线数据收集工具主持的多项选择和自由文本调查。本次调查通过相关专业组织、社交媒体、个人邀请等方式进行公示。计算描述性统计。

结果

我们收到了 138 份回复，并分析了代表 34 个州的 87 个成人和儿科 I 级创伤中心的调查数据，其中排除了未指定特定中心、II 级创伤中心和已注册设施重复项的调查。中心控制的直升机停机坪的平均 (SD) 数量为 2 (1) 个，其中大多数 (84%) 是屋顶直升机停机坪。17/87 (20%) 的设施在使用直升机停机坪之前需要与运输计划签订正式协议。在该组中，8/17 (47%) 表示违反协议的预先指定后果，其中 7/8 (88%) 的后果包括失去登陆特权。少数设施 (9%) 需要 CAMTS 认证作为使用直升机停机坪的先决条件，最常见的限制是特定进近路径 (67%)，特定离场路径 (64%) 以及飞机类型和重量限制 (64%)。74/87 (85%) 的设施需要在抵达前 10-15 分钟通知，而只有 13/87 (15%) 的设施需要在出发前通知。

结论

在一级创伤中心使用医院拥有的直升机停机坪的运营环境和法规存在显着差异，少数人需要正式同意使用直升机停机坪或规定违反协议的后果。