Post-crash Support Systems

Reference work entry

Automatic Crash Notification (ACN) systems employ advanced vehicle sensor data and in-vehicle communications technology to facilitate more efficient and effective post-crash support for drivers and passengers. An immediate call for help coupled with accurate information on location and crash severity could positively impact multiple levels of the transportation and rescue system. First, and most importantly, the rapid notification of rescue services and appropriate treatment of occupants following a serious crash has been proven to be a critical factor in reducing patient morbidity and mortality. These systems have the ability to save lives and directly improve patient care. Second, knowledge of the characteristics of a crash will allow rescue services to dispatch the most appropriate resources, which becomes critical in areas with limited resources or in areas where the crash site is at a significant distance from the nearest treatment facility. Finally, immediate recognition of a...


Emergency Medical Service Trauma Center Injury Risk Safety Belt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ACS (2006) Resources for optimal care of the injured patient 2006. R Coscia, J Meredith. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedard M, Guyatt G et al (2002) The independent contribution of driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics to driver fatalities. Accid Anal Prev 34(6):717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark D, Cushing B (2002) Predicted effect of automatic crash notification on traffic mortality. Accid Anal Prev 34(4):507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cudnik M, Newgard C et al (2008) Distance impacts mortality in trauma patients with an intubation attempt. Prehosp Emerg Care 12(4):459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings P, Rivara F (2004) Car occupant death according to the restraint use of other occupants: a matched cohort study. J Am Med Assoc 291(3):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham P (1995) North Carolina preventable mortality study with inter-rater reliability modifications. NHTSA report DOT HS 808 345Google Scholar
  7. Esposito T, Illness C et al (1992) Rural preventable mortality study. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; NTIS [distributor], Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Farmer C, Braver E et al (1997) Two-vehicle side impact crashes: the relationship of vehicle and crash characteristics to injury severity. Accid Anal Prev 29(3):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones I, Champion H (1989) Trauma triage: vehicle damage as an estimate of injury severity. J Trauma 29(5):646–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohn M, Hammel J et al (2004) Trauma team activation criteria as predictors of patient disposition from the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 11(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacKenzie E, Rivara F et al (2006) A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med 354(4):366–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maio R, Burney R et al (1996) A study of preventable trauma mortality in rural Michigan. J Trauma 41(1):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. NHTSA (2010) Traffic safety facts: highlights of 2009 motor vehicle crashes. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Norwood S, McAuley C et al (2002) A prehospital Glasgow coma scale score < or = 14 accurately predicts the need for full trauma team activation and patient hospitalization after motor vehicle collisions. J Trauma 53(3):503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiFloridaUSA
  2. 2.Impact Research, Inc.ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations