Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.

Importance: Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences. Objective: To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan: A latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had the most casualties since Vietnam with more than 53,000 wounded in action. Novel injury mechanisms, such as improvised explosive devices, and higher rates of survivability compared with previous wars led to a new pattern of combat injuries. The purpose of the present study was to use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds. METHODS: A total of 5,227 combat casualty events with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or greater that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan from December 2002 to July 2019 were identified from the Expeditionary Medical Encounter Database for analysis. The Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix was used to classify injuries into binary variables by site and type of injury. LCA was employed to identify injury profiles that accounted for co-occurring injuries. Injury profiles were described and compared by demographic, operational, and injury-specific variables. RESULTS: Seven injury profiles were identified and defined as: (1) open wounds (18.8%), (2) Type 1 traumatic brain injury (TBI)/facial injuries (14.2%), (3) disseminated injuries (6.8%), (4) Type 2 TBI (15.4%), (5) lower extremity injuries (19.8%), (6) burns (7.4%), and (7) chest and/or abdominal injuries (17.7%). Profiles differed by service branch, combat location, year of injury, injury mechanism, combat posture at the time of injury, and ISS. CONCLUSION: LCA identified seven distinct and interpretable injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious combat injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan. These findings may be of interest to military medical planners as resource needs are evaluated and projected for future conflicts, and medical professionals involved in the rehabilitation of wounded service members.

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care.

Importance: The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. Objective: To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. Results: Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Effectiveness of trauma centre verification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There is a growing trend toward verification of trauma centres, but its impact remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of trauma centre verification. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, HealthStar, MEDLINE and ProQuest databases, as well as the websites of key injury organizations for grey literature, from inception to June 2019, without language restrictions. Our population consisted of injured patients treated at trauma centres. The intervention was trauma centre verification. Comparison groups comprised nonverified trauma centres, or the same centre before it was first verified or re-verified. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included adverse events, resource use and processes of care. We computed pooled summary estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 5125 citations identified, 29, all conducted in the United States, satisfied our inclusion criteria. Mortality was the most frequently investigated outcome (n = 20), followed by processes of care (n = 12), resource use (n = 12) and adverse events (n = 7). The risk of bias was serious to critical in 22 studies. We observed an imprecise association between verification and decreased mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.06) in severely injured patients. Conclusion: Our review showed mixed and inconsistent associations between verification and processes of care or patient outcomes. The validity of the published literature is limited by the lack of robust controls, as well as any evidence from outside the US, which precludes extrapolation to other health care jurisdictions. Quasiexperimental studies are needed to assess the impact of trauma centre verification. Systematic reviews registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42018107083.

Contexte: Le processus d'audit des centres de traumatologie gagne en popularité, mais ses effets concrets ne sont pas bien connus. La présente revue systématique a cherché à résumer les données probantes disponibles sur l'efficacité de l'audit des centres de traumatologie. Méthodes: Nous avons effectué des recherches systématiques dans les bases de données CINAHL, Embase, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE et ProQuest, de même qu'une recherche dans la littérature grise sur les sites Web d'organisations majeures du domaine des traumas, de leur création à juin 2019, sans restriction de langue. La population à l'étude était l'ensemble des patients blessés traités en centre de traumatologie. L'intervention était l'audit du centre de traumatologie. Les groupes de comparaison correspondaient aux centres de traumatologie n'ayant pas subi d'audit, ou le même centre, avant son premier audit ou un audit subséquent. Le principal résultat à l'étude était la mortalité en milieu hospitalier; les résultats secondaires étaient les événements indésirables, l'utilisation des ressources et les processus de soins. Nous avons calculé des estimations sommaires par méta-analyse à effets aléatoires sur données groupées. Résultats: Sur les 5125 citations retenues, 29 publications sur des études menées aux États-Unis répondaient à nos critères d'inclusion. La mortalité était le résultat le plus souvent à l'étude (n = 20), puis suivaient les processus de soins (n = 12), l'utilisation des ressources (n = 12) et les événements indésirables (n = 7). Le risque de biais était important ou critique dans 22 études. Nous avons observé une association imprécise entre l'audit et une baisse de la mortalité (risque relatif 0,74; intervalle de confiance à 95 % 0,52 à 1,06) chez les patients ayant subi un trauma grave. Conclusion: Notre revue a conclu qu'il y avait des associations mitigées et manquant d'uniformité entre l'audit et les processus de soins ou les issues pour les patients. La validité des données à l'étude était limitée par un manque de contrôles fiables, ainsi que par l'absence de données provenant d'autres pays que les États-Unis, ce qui empêche l'extrapolation à d'autres systèmes de santé. Des études quasi expérimentales devront être menées pour évaluer les effets de l'audit des centres de traumatologie. Enregistrement de la revue systématique: Registre PROSPERO, numéro CRD42018107083.

Value of repeat CT for nonoperative management of patients with blunt liver and spleen injury: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of routine repeat computed tomography (CT) for nonoperative management (NOM) of adults with blunt liver and/or spleen injury. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental and observational studies of repeat CT in adult patients with blunt abdominal injury. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from their inception to October 2020 using Cochrane guidelines. Primary outcomes were change in clinical management (e.g., emergency surgery, embolization, blood transfusion, clinical surveillance), mortality, and complications. Secondary outcomes were hospital readmission and length of stay. RESULTS: Search results yielded 1611 studies of which 28 studies including 2646 patients met our inclusion criteria. The majority reported on liver (n = 9) or spleen injury (n = 16) or both (n = 3). No RCTs were identified. Meta-analyses were not possible because no study performed direct comparisons of study outcomes across intervention groups. Only seven of the twenty-eight studies reported whether repeat CT was routine or prompted by clinical indication. In these 7 studies, among the 254 repeat CT performed, 188 (74%) were routine and 8 (4%) of these led to a change in clinical management. Of the 66 (26%) repeated CT prompted by clinical indication, 31 (47%) led to a change in management. We found no data allowing comparison of any other outcomes across intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Routine repeat CT without clinical indication is not useful in the management of patients with liver and/or spleen injury. However, effect estimates were imprecise and included studies were of low methodological quality. Given the risks of unnecessary radiation and costs associated with repeat CT, future research should aim to estimate the frequency of such practices and assess practice variation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Level II.

Impact of trauma centre accreditation on mortality and complications in a Canadian trauma system: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Periodic external accreditation visits aiming to determine whether trauma centres are fulfilling the criteria for optimal care are part of most trauma systems. However, despite the growing trend towards accreditation of trauma centres, its impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. In addition, a recent systematic review found inconsistent results on the association between accreditation and patient outcomes, mostly due to the lack of robust controls. We aim to address these gaps by assessing the impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality and complications, using an interrupted time series (ITS) design. METHODS: We included all major trauma admissions to five level I and four level II trauma centres in Quebec, Canada between 2008 and 2017. In order to perform ITS, we first obtained monthly and quarterly estimates of the proportions of in-hospital mortality and complications, respectively, for level I and level II centres. Prognostic scores were used to standardise these proportions to account for changes in patient case mix and segmented regressions with autocorrelated errors were used to estimate changes in levels and trends in both outcomes following accreditation. RESULTS: There were 51 035 admissions, including 20 165 for major trauma during the study period. After accounting for changes in patient case mix and secular trend in studied outcomes, we globally did not observe an association between accreditation and patient outcomes. However, associations were heterogeneous across centres. For example, in a level II centre with worsening preaccreditation outcomes, accreditation led to -9.08 (95% CI -13.29 to -4.87) and -9.60 (95% CI -15.77 to -3.43) percentage point reductions in mortality and complications, respectively. CONCLUSION: Accreditation seemed to be beneficial for centres that were experiencing a decrease in performance preceding accreditation.

Effectiveness of trauma centers verification: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION: This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: A scoping review and expert consultation survey.

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of health care resources. Choosing Wisely and other organizations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a five-point Likert scale from clearly low value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low value by at least one level I, II, or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these, 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit, and 5 in orthopedics. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step toward the deimplementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Importance: Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. Objective: To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Results: Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

Management of Suspected Tension Pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 17-02.

This change to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines that updates the recommendations for management of suspected tension pneumothorax for combat casualties in the prehospital setting does the following things: (1) Continues the aggressive approach to suspecting and treating tension pneumothorax based on mechanism of injury and respiratory distress that TCCC has advocated for in the past, as opposed to waiting until shock develops as a result of the tension pneumothorax before treating. The new wording does, however, emphasize that shock and cardiac arrest may ensue if the tension pneumothorax is not treated promptly. (2) Adds additional emphasis to the importance of the current TCCC recommendation to perform needle decompression (NDC) on both sides of the chest on a combat casualty with torso trauma who suffers a traumatic cardiac arrest before reaching a medical treatment facility. (3) Adds a 10-gauge, 3.25-in needle/ catheter unit as an alternative to the previously recommended 14-gauge, 3.25-in needle/catheter unit as recommended devices for needle decompression. (4) Designates the location at which NDC should be performed as either the lateral site (fifth intercostal space [ICS] at the anterior axillary line [AAL]) or the anterior site (second ICS at the midclavicular line [MCL]). For the reasons enumerated in the body of the change report, participants on the 14 December 2017 TCCC Working Group teleconference favored including both potential sites for NDC without specifying a preferred site. (5) Adds two key elements to the description of the NDC procedure: insert the needle/ catheter unit at a perpendicular angle to the chest wall all the way to the hub, then hold the needle/catheter unit in place for 5 to 10 seconds before removing the needle in order to allow for full decompression of the pleural space to occur. (6) Defines what constitutes a successful NDC, using specific metrics such as: an observed hiss of air escaping from the chest during the NDC procedure; a decrease in respiratory distress; an increase in hemoglobin oxygen saturation; and/or an improvement in signs of shock that may be present. (7) Recommends that only two needle decompressions be attempted before continuing on to the "Circulation" portion of the TCCC Guidelines. After two NDCs have been performed, the combat medical provider should proceed to the fourth element in the "MARCH" algorithm and evaluate/treat the casualty for shock as outlined in the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines. Eastridge's landmark 2012 report documented that noncompressible hemorrhage caused many more combat fatalities than tension pneumothorax.1 Since the manifestations of hemorrhagic shock and shock from tension pneumothorax may be similar, the TCCC Guidelines now recommend proceeding to treatment for hemorrhagic shock (when present) after two NDCs have been performed. (8) Adds a paragraph to the end of the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines that calls for consideration of untreated tension pneumothorax as a potential cause for shock that has not responded to fluid resuscitation. This is an important aspect of treating shock in combat casualties that was not presently addressed in the TCCC Guidelines. (9) Adds finger thoracostomy (simple thoracostomy) and chest tubes as additional treatment options to treat suspected tension pneumothorax when further treatment is deemed necessary after two unsuccessful NDC attempts-if the combat medical provider has the skills, experience, and authorizations to perform these advanced interventions and the casualty is in shock. These two more invasive procedures are recommended only when the casualty is in refractory shock, not as the initial treatment.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Preventable injuries lead to 200 000 hospital stays, 60 000 disabilities, and 13 000 deaths per year in Canada with direct costs of $20 billion. Overall, potentially unnecessary medical interventions are estimated to consume up to 30% of healthcare resources and may expose patients to avoidable harm. However, little is known about overuse for acute injury care. We aim to identify low-value clinical practices in injury care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify research articles, reviews, recommendations and guidelines that identify at least one low-value clinical practice specific to injury populations. We will search Medline, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, websites of government agencies, professional societies and patient advocacy organisations, thesis holdings and conference proceedings. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles using a prepiloted and standardised electronic data abstraction form. Low-value clinical practices will be categorised using an extension of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conceptual framework and data will be presented using narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, international scientific meetings, and to knowledge users through clinical and healthcare quality associations. This review will contribute new knowledge on low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. Our results will support the development indicators to measure resource overuse and inform policy makers on potential targets for deadoption in injury care.

Review of military and civilian trauma registries: Does consensus matter?

BACKGROUND: Structural collection of data from combat injuries is important to improve provided care and the outcome of (combat) casualties. Trauma registries are used in civilian and military health care systems for systematic administration of injury data. However, these registries often use different methods of data management, compromising international comparison of trauma systems. The aim of this review is to aid in reaching international (coalition-wide) consensus for compatible data collection methods with uniform definitions, which is needed for transnational research and subsequent improvement of medical support organizations. METHODS: In this descriptive review, we analyzed different data sets from trauma systems within the American-European context, and included data variables from civilian and military trauma registries. These data sets were analyzed to identify a core set of variables fundamental to describing the tactical context, epidemiology, injury mechanism, injury severity, key treatment, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1,672 unique variables, of which 536 military specific, were identified and divided in 11 elemental categories of medical care (patient info, incident info, injury diagnoses, prehospital care, emergency department, imaging, surgical treatment, intensive care, ward, discharge and outcome) and three military-specific categories (forward medical evacuation, prehospital medical treatment facility, and discharge out of theater). A total of 203 key variables were identified and considered fundamental for effective (military) trauma research. CONCLUSION: Well-established and reliable trauma registries and databases are fundamental in (military) trauma care. We recommend implementation of a (concurrent) UN/NATO wide registry system with a track and follow-up system to further improve the quality of care and registration of casualties. Further research should focus on real time aids available on the battlefield and direct storage/upload in trauma databases in theater. Ultimately, sound and valid data support medical decision process and evaluation necessary to save lives on the battlefield.

Impact of trauma system structure on injury outcomes: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Injury represents one of the greatest public health challenges of our time with over 5 million deaths and 100 million people temporarily or permanently disabled every year worldwide. The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, the organisation of trauma care varies significantly across trauma systems and we know little about which components of trauma systems contribute to their effectiveness. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically significant outcomes including mortality, function and disability, quality of life, and resource utilization. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component (e.g. accreditation by a central agency, interfacility transfer agreements) and at least one injury outcome (e.g. mortality, disability, resource use). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, thesis holdings, key injury organisation websites and conference proceedings for eligible studies. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles. Methodological quality will be evaluated using elements of the ROBINS-I tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized and randomized studies, respectively. Strength of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE tool. DISCUSSION: We expect to advance knowledge on the components of trauma systems that contribute to their effectiveness. This may lead to recommendations on trauma system structure that will help policy-makers make informed decisions as to where resources should be focused. The review may also lead to specific recommendations for future research efforts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28-06-2016. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041336 Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016041336 .

Time and place of death from automobile crashes: Research endpoint implications.

BACKGROUND: Vehicle crashes are a leading cause of US injury and death. Early death, however, has almost entirely been studied in-hospital. The US Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database captures both prehospital and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: FARS location (prehospital, in-hospital) and time of death were reviewed (1978-2013), and a 2003-2005 subgroup of 55,537 early deaths (i.e., between 5 minutes and 4 hours after injury) was analyzed to quantify risk of death over time. RESULTS: There has been an overall decrease in 1978-2013 US vehicle-related deaths (from 3.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to 1.1 and from 22.6 per 100,000 population to 10.4). Snapshots of the death data reveal an overall downward trend of total in-hospital and prehospital deaths. The proportion of hospital deaths decreased by 58%, whereas the proportion of deaths in the prehospital period increased to 56%. Subgroup analysis revealed a rate of mortality risk of 0.4% per minute for the first 30 minutes, 1% per minute for the next 60 minutes, and 0.2% per minute and plateauing thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of census FARS data of motor vehicle crash-related deaths showed an overall 35% decrease in mortality over a period of 36 years. The disproportionate reduction in in-hospital deaths is perhaps a testament to the effectiveness of trauma centers. However, there is a demonstrable need to focus on prehospital deaths with resuscitative and adjuvant therapy research and trauma system design. Quantifying risk of death over time should help focus emergency medical services, trauma system, and resuscitation goals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

The Effect of a Golden Hour Policy on the Morbidity and Mortality of Combat Casualties.

IMPORTANCE: The term golden hour was coined to encourage urgency of trauma care. In 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mandated prehospital helicopter transport of critically injured combat casualties in 60 minutes or less. OBJECTIVES: To compare morbidity and mortality outcomes for casualties before vs after the mandate and for those who underwent prehospital helicopter transport in 60 minutes or less vs more than 60 minutes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of battlefield data examined 21,089 US military casualties that occurred during the Afghanistan conflict from September 11, 2001, to March 31, 2014. Analysis was conducted from September 1, 2014, to January 21, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data for all casualties were analyzed according to whether they occurred before or after the mandate. Detailed data for those who underwent prehospital helicopter transport were analyzed according to whether they occurred before or after the mandate and whether they occurred in 60 minutes or less vs more than 60 minutes. Casualties with minor wounds were excluded. Mortality and morbidity outcomes and treatment capability-related variables were compared. RESULTS: For the total casualty population, the percentage killed in action (16.0% [386 of 2411] vs 9.9% [964 of 9755]; P < .001) and the case fatality rate ([CFR] 13.7 [469 of 3429] vs 7.6 [1344 of 17,660]; P < .001) were higher before vs after the mandate, while the percentage died of wounds (4.1% [83 of 2025] vs 4.3% [380 of 8791]; P = .71) remained unchanged. Decline in CFR after the mandate was associated with an increasing percentage of casualties transported in 60 minutes or less (regression coefficient, -0.141; P < .001), with projected vs actual CFR equating to 359 lives saved. Among 4542 casualties (mean injury severity score, 17.3; mortality, 10.1% [457 of 4542]) with detailed data, there was a decrease in median transport time after the mandate (90 min vs 43 min; P < .001) and an increase in missions achieving prehospital helicopter transport in 60 minutes or less (24.8% [181 of 731] vs 75.2% [2867 of 3811]; P < .001). When adjusted for injury severity score and time period, the percentage killed in action was lower for those critically injured who received a blood transfusion (6.8% [40 of 589] vs 51.0% [249 of 488]; P < .001) and were transported in 60 minutes or less (25.7% [205 of 799] vs 30.2% [84 of 278]; P < .01), while the percentage died of wounds was lower among those critically injured initially treated by combat support hospitals (9.1% [48 of 530] vs 15.7% [86 of 547]; P < .01). Acute morbidity was higher among those critically injured who were transported in 60 minutes or less (36.9% [295 of 799] vs 27.3% [76 of 278]; P < .01), those severely and critically injured initially treated at combat support hospitals (severely injured, 51.1% [161 of 315] vs 33.1% [104 of 314]; P < .001; and critically injured, 39.8% [211 of 530] vs 29.3% [160 of 547]; P < .001), and casualties who received a blood transfusion (50.2% [618 of 1231] vs 3.7% [121 of 3311]; P < .001), emphasizing the need for timely advanced treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A mandate made in 2009 by Secretary of Defense Gates reduced the time between combat injury and receiving definitive care. Prehospital transport time and treatment capability are important factors for casualty survival on the battlefield.