To explore the difference between the chain flow method and the control transport method.

A review of 42 patients with chain transport from November 2011 to November 2014 was compared with 80 patients who had been transshipped with conventional method at the same period. The patient’s average age was (49.38±18.52) years old. The diagnosis of critically ill patients included: 4 multiple injuries, 3 high paraplegia, 2 cervical fractures, 2 Severe craniocerebral trauma, 1 sepsis, 4 severe burns. The transmission mileage, time and transfer rate between the two groups were compared. The status of the transfer was aggravated, stable, dead, and the condition of tumor patients who were transferred also were compared.

Compared with the general emergency transport group, the chain procedure group had shorter time (P<0.01), and the difference of transit distance was statistically significant between the two groups (P<0.01). The transfer rate of the chain procedure group was lower than that of the control group (P< 0.01). The aggravation rate (9.8%) of the chain procedure group was lower than that of the control group (40%) (P<0.01). The steady rate of chain group (85.4%) was better than that of control group (26.3%) (P<0.01). The mortality rate of chain group (2.4%) was lower than that of control group (23.1%) (P<0.01). There was a statistically significant difference in the rate of tumor transport between the two groups (P<0.01). The mortality rate of chain group (2.4%) was lower than that of the control group (23.1%) (P<0.01).

The chain transport method has better safety and superiority than the conventional transport method in the transport of critical patients. Strengthening the training and implementation of the chain transporters’ guidelines for the transport of critical patients is safety protection of a long-distance transportation.