So You Want to Do Trauma Research? A Practical Guide to Creating a Research Program at Your Home Institution.

BACKGROUND: There are 3 pillars upon which the foundation of a teaching program in health care is founded: research, education, and clinical care. However, in a busy academic trauma practice, the unfortunate reality is that research is often a low priority in the frenzy of mandates for clinical productivity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to advise hospitals on how to create a modest trauma research program that supports research interests without significantly impacting the overall clinical productivity of the department. METHODS: Relevant literature related to the development of an academic trauma research department was reviewed. Relevant articles were then compared to this manuscript to assess the novelty of the topic. RESULTS: There are 4 essential components of a trauma research program: (1) a zealot, (2) institutional commitment and support, (3) a statistician, and (4) registry data access. CONCLUSION: The creation of a trauma research program may seem like a herculean effort, but this work is necessary for institutions hoping to achieve status as a Level I/II trauma center. Following the steps outlined in this report, trauma providers can create a robust research program at their institution without sacrificing clinical productivity.

Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: What You Need to Know.

ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of time, man has been intrigued with the question of when a person is considered dead. Traditionally, death has been considered the cessation of all cardiorespiratory function. At the end of the last century a new definition was introduced into the lexicon surrounding death in addition to cessation of cardiac and respiratory function: Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria (BD/DNC). There are medical, legal, ethical, and even theological controversies that surround this diagnosis. In addition, there is no small amount of confusion among medical practitioners regarding the diagnosis of BD/DNC. For families enduring the devastating development of BD/DNC in their loved one, it is the duty of the principal caregiver to provide a transparent presentation of the clinical situation and clear definitive explanation of what constitutes BD/DNC. In this report, we present a historical outline of the development of BD/DNC as a clinical entity, specifically how one goes about making a determination of BD/DNC, what steps are taken once a diagnosis of BD/DNC is made, a brief discussion of some of the ethical/moral issues surrounding this diagnosis, and finally the caregiver approach to the family of a patient who had been declared with BD/DNC. It is our humble hope that with a greater understanding of the myriad of complicated issues surrounding the diagnosis of BD/DNC that the bedside caregiver can provide needed closure for both the patient and the family enduring this critical time in their life.

The State of the Union: Trauma System Development in the United States.

Injury is both a national and international epidemic that affects people of all age, race, religion, and socioeconomic class. Injury was the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (U.S.) in 2021 and results in an incalculable emotional and financial burden on our society. Despite this, when prevention fails, trauma centers allow communities to prepare to care for the traumatically injured patient. Using lessons learned from the military, trauma care has grown more sophisticated in the last 50 years. In 1966, the first civilian trauma center was established, bringing management of injury into the new age. Now, the American College of Surgeons recognizes 4 levels of trauma centers (I-IV), with select states recognizing Level V trauma centers. The introduction of trauma centers in the U.S. has been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality for the injured patient. However, despite the proven benefits of trauma centers, the U.S. lacks a single, unified, trauma system and instead operates within a "system of systems" creating vast disparities in the level of care that can be received, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In this review we present the history of trauma system development in the U.S, define the different levels of trauma centers, present evidence that trauma systems and trauma centers improve outcomes, outline the current state of trauma system development in the U.S, and briefly mention some of the current challenges and opportunities in trauma system development in the U.S. today.

American Trauma Care: A System of Systems.

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of organized trauma systems have been well-documented during 50 years of trauma system development in the United States. Unfortunately, despite this evidence, trauma system development has occurred only sporadically in the 50 states. METHODS: The relevant literature related to trauma system design and development was reviewed based on relevance to the study. Information from these sources was summarized into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. RESULTS: Strengths discovered were leadership brought forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and meaningful change generated from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report addressing the fractionation of the nation's trauma systems, whereas weaknesses included patient outcome disparities due to the lack of a national governing authority, undertriage, underresourced rural trauma, and underfunded trauma research. Opportunities included the creation of level IV trauma centers; telemedicine; the development of rural trauma management courses; air medical transport to bring high-intensity care to the patient, particularly in rural areas; trauma research; and trauma prevention through outreach and educational programs. The following threats were determined: mass casualty incidents, motor vehicle collisions because of the high rate of motor vehicle collision deaths in the United States relative to other developed countries, and underfunded trauma systems. CONCLUSION: Much work remains to be done in the development of an American trauma system. Recommendations include implementation of trauma care governance at the federal level; national oversight and support of emergency medical services systems, particularly in rural areas with strict reporting processes for emergency medical services programs; national organization of our mass casualty response; increased federal and state funding allocated to trauma centers; a consistent model for trauma system development; and trauma research.

Comprehensive Review of Current Pain Management in Rib Fractures With Practical Guidelines for Clinicians.

Rib fractures are present in 15% of all traumas and 60% of patients with chest traumas. Rib fractures are not life-threatening in isolation, but they can be quite painful which leads to splinting and compromise of respiratory function. Splinting limits the ability of a patient to take a deep breath, which leads to atelectasis, atelectasis to poor secretion removal, and poor secretion removal leads to pneumonia. Pneumonia is the common pathway to respiratory failure in patients with rib fractures. It is noted that in the elderly, each rib fracture increases developing pneumonia by 27% and the risk of dying by 19%. From a public health perspective, rib fractures have long-term implications with only 59% of patients returning to work at 6 months. In this review we will examine the state of art as it currently exists with regard to the management of pain associated with rib fractures. Included in this overview will be a brief review of the anatomy of the thorax and some important physiologic concepts, the latest trends in pharmacologic and noninvasive means of managing rib pain, a special section on epidural anesthesia, some other alternative invasive methods of pain control, and a review of the recent literature on rib plating. Finally, a practical, easy to follow guideline, to manage the patient with pain from rib fractures will be presented.