Rock and contemporary music concerts are popular, recurrent events requiring on-site medical staffing.

To describe a novel severity score used to stratify the level of acuity of patients presenting to first-aid stations at these events.

Retrospective review of charts generated at the first-aid stations of five major rock concerts within a 60,000 spectator capacity, outdoor, professional sports stadium. Participants included all concert patrons presenting to the stadiums first-aid stations as patients. Data were collected on patient demographics, history of drug or ethanol usage while at the concert event, first-aid station time, treatment rendered, diagnosis, and disposition. All patients evaluated were retrospectively assigned a “DRUG-ROCK” Injury Severity Score (DRISS) to stratify their level of acuity. Individual concert events and patient dispositions were compared statistically using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and the ANOVA Mean tests.

Approximately 250,000 spectators attended the five concert events. First-aid stations evaluated 308 patients (utilization rate of 1.2 per 1,000 patrons). The most common diagnosis was minor trauma (130; 42%), followed in frequency by ethanol/illicit drug intoxication (98; 32%). The average time in the first-aid station was 23.5±22.5 minutes (± standard deviation; range: 5–150 minutes). Disposition of patients included 100 (32.5%) who were treated and released; 98 (32%) were transported by paramedics to emergency departments (EDs); and 110 (35.5%) signed-out against medical advise (AMA), refusing transport. The mean DRISS was 4.1 (±2.65). Two-thirds (67%) of the study population were ranked as mild by DRISS criteria (score = 1–4), with 27% rated as moderate (score = 5–9), and 6% severe (score >10). The average of severity scores was highest (6.5) for patients transported to hospitals, and statistically different from the scores of the average of the treated and released and AMA groups (p <0.005).

The DRISS was useful in stratifying the acuity level of this patient population. This severity score may serve as a potential triage mechanism for future mass gatherings such as rock concerts.

In recent years, several authors have begun to address the medical and legal risks associated with patients refusing or being refused transport by emergency medical services (EMS) systems. However, data regarding patient outcomes still are lacking.

The purpose of this study was to determine: 1) why patients are not transported; and 2) the subsequent outcome of these patients.

A busy, suburban, volunteer EMS service with indirect medical control, but no guidelines for non-transport of patients.

A retrospective review of the records of 158 consecutive EMS incidents in which an ambulance was called, but the patient was not transported. Follow-up was attempted by telephone contact with the patient and/or family.

Telephone follow-up was established successfully for 93 cases (59%). Of the 93 patients, 60 (64.5%) subsequently sought care from a physician, 15 of whom (25%) later were admitted. The mean hospital stay was 6.6±7.9 days (median=3 days) with a range of 1–30 days. Two were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and two others died. Of the 93 study cases, 43 (46%) involved situations in which the patient refused transport. Paramedics declined transport or mutually agreed not to transport in 50 cases (54%). This latter category accounted for 11 (73%) of the 15 hospitalizations. Ten percent of patients (or their families) stated that they were dissatisfied with the non-transport decisions.

Serious, even fatal outcomes were identified in the follow-up of patients not transported by EMS. Although a direct causal relationship was not established within the context of this study, situations in which EMS personnel either denied transport (or mutually agreed with the patient not to transport by ambulance) were twice as likely to result in hospitalization than were those cases in which the patients declined transportation against the advice of the EMS personnel.