NZ moves away from doctor/CCP model for HEMS
Outcome of NZ's Aeromedical Commisioning Project has been to move away from a doctor/CCP model and to a CCP/paramedic model for its rotary wing operations.
Lots of debate - mostly on LinkedIn - which I found quite interesting with a few points I've highlighted below, and I'm not taking a position one way or the other.
- Rationale was that there is little-no evidence that doctor/CCP model produces better outcomes than CCP without doctor in NZ context.
- Most of the argument for benefit of doctor presence centres around complex decision making/oversight, which can potentially be replicated with back end/video conference support from base.
- ^ conversely, if doctors aren't regularly actually flying, how will they be sufficiently experienced to provide actually useful advice when asked.
- Many of the limitations on CCP's are artificial/those of governance structures, rather than technical ability.
- Some of the benefits of doctors experience will be mitigated by the fact that a proportion will be rotating registrars, who will still be learning the trade.
- Doctors undoubtedly have a unique critical care skill set and experience of the hospital interface that paramedics won't, and this probably can't be replicated by even the most skilled CCP and the benefit of this is likely to be hard to capture in clinical trials. For a similar reason - they can never fully replicate the skill set - a doctor/doctor model wouldn't be proposed.
- CCP/paramedic likely is cheaper to run, and it may be difficult to fully overlook financial considerations.