ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT VS. BASIC LIFE SUPPORT

Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support in Trauma Care

Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support in Trauma Care

Introduction

The controversy regarding pre-hospital care of trauma patients between Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS), continues. In connection with this unresolved controversy, as well as historical, cultural and political factors are significant differences in the type of pre-hospital care to trauma patients. In this paper we use case studies to answer that the system is better for trauma care.

Discussion

Pre-hospital trauma care provided to patients with emergency medical personnel or for life supports (BLS) or advanced life support (ALS) techniques. BLS (or "scoop and Perspectives") consists of non-invasive procedures such as wound dressing, immobilization, and fracture of the tire, oxygen administration, and noninvasive cardiovascular resuscitation. ALS embraces all of these methods BLS, in addition to invasive procedures, including intubation, starting IV access to the replacement of fluids, administration of medication, but in rare cases, the application of pneumatic antishock garment (PASG) (Hedges et al, 1982).

The paradox is that on-site ALS increases the amount of time that is spent on scene and hence increases the delay of the final in-patient. To date, disputes between the "scoop and Prospects" and "stay and stabilize" approach to pre-hospital trauma care remains unresolved, and the subject of a limited number of studies, most of which were based on small numbers of selected patients (Jacobs et al, 1984). Support ALS Research was unable to show a connection between the on-site ALS and increased survival in patients with major trauma. Research supports the BLS showed higher survival rates for patients with a "scoop and run" approach, as compared with the use of on-site treatment of ALS (Moishe Liberman, 2003).

In addition to increased pre-hospital delay, the argument against the "stay and stabilize" is strengthened, since none of the specific activities of ALS has been proved profitable for the pre-hospital management of severely injured patients. The rationale for the use of on-site IV line placement and infusion of fluids is that it will control hemodynamic deterioration. The volume of fluid infused, however, can not compensate for blood lost in the heavily bleeding patient in such cases, definitive surgical treatment. The time required to start the IV on the stage is the debate: some authors report the minimum time between 2 and 4 minutes while the other shows every 12 minutes or more. There ...