Does in-hospital trauma mortality in urban Indian academic centres differ between "office-hours" and "after-hours"?

INTRODUCTION: Trauma services within hospitals may vary considerably at different times across a 24 h period. The variable services may negatively affect the outcome of trauma victims. The current investigation aims to study the effect of arrival time of major trauma patients on mortality and morbidity. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of the Australia-India Trauma Systems Collaboration (AITSC) registry established in four public university teaching centres in India Based on hospital arrival time, patients were grouped into "Office-hours" and "After-hours". Outcome parameters were compared between the above groups. RESULTS: 5536 (68.4%) patients presented "after-hours" (AO) and 2561 (31.6%) during "office-hours" (OH). The in-hospital mortality for "after-hours" and "office-hours" presentations were 12.1% and 11.6% respectively. On unadjusted analysis, there was no statistical difference in the odds of survival for OH versus AH presentations. (OR,1.05, 95% CI 0.9-1.2). Adjusting for potential prognostic factors (injury severity, presence of shock on arrival, referral status, sex, or extremes of age), there was no statistically significant odds of survival for OH versus AH presentations (OR,1.02, 95%CI 0.9-1.2).ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation was longer in the AH group. CONCLUSION: The in-hospital mortality did not differ between trauma patients who arrived during "after-hours" compared to '"office-hours".

Standardising trauma monitoring: the development of a minimum dataset for trauma registries in Australia and New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma registries are central to the implementation of effective trauma systems. However, differences between trauma registry datasets make comparisons between trauma systems difficult. In 2005, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium began a process to develop a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for use in Australasian trauma registries. This study aims to describe the steps taken in the development and preliminary evaluation of the BMDS. METHODS: A working party comprising sixteen representatives from across Australasia identified and discussed the collectability and utility of potential BMDS fields. This included evaluating existing national and international trauma registry datasets, as well as reviewing all quality indicators and audit filters in use in Australasian trauma centres. After the working party activities concluded, this process was continued by a number of interested individuals, with broader feedback sought from the Australasian trauma community on a number of occasions. Once the BMDS had reached a suitable stage of development, an email survey was conducted across Australasian trauma centres to assess whether BMDS fields met an ideal minimum standard of field collectability. The BMDS was also compared with three prominent international datasets to assess the extent of dataset overlap. Following this, the BMDS was encapsulated in a data dictionary, which was introduced in late 2010. RESULTS: The finalised BMDS contained 67 data fields. Forty-seven of these fields met a previously published criterion of 80% collectability across respondent trauma institutions; the majority of the remaining fields either could be collected without any change in resources, or could be calculated from other data fields in the BMDS. However, comparability with international registry datasets was poor. Only nine BMDS fields had corresponding, directly comparable fields in all the national and international-level registry datasets evaluated. CONCLUSION: A draft BMDS has been developed for use in trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand. The email survey provided strong indications of the utility of the fields contained in the BMDS. The BMDS has been adopted as the dataset to be used by an ongoing Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

Trauma resuscitation errors and computer-assisted decision support.

HYPOTHESIS: This project tested the hypothesis that computer-aided decision support during the first 30 minutes of trauma resuscitation reduces management errors. DESIGN: Ours was a prospective, open, randomized, controlled interventional study that evaluated the effect of real-time, computer-prompted, evidence-based decision and action algorithms on error occurrence during initial resuscitation between January 24, 2006, and February 25, 2008. SETTING: A level I adult trauma center. PATIENTS: Severely injured adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome variable was the error rate per patient treated as demonstrated by deviation from trauma care algorithms. Computer-assisted video audit was used to assess adherence to the algorithms. RESULTS: A total of 1171 patients were recruited into 3 groups: 300 into a baseline control group, 436 into a concurrent control group, and 435 into the study group. There was a reduction in error rate per patient from the baseline control group to the study group (2.53 to 2.13, P = .004) and from the control group to the study group (2.30 to 2.13, P = .04). The difference in error rate per patient from the baseline control group to the concurrent control group was not statistically different (2.53 to 2.30, P = .21). A critical decision was required every 72 seconds, and error-free resuscitations were increased from 16.0% to 21.8% (P = .049) during the first 30 minutes of resuscitation. Morbidity from shock management (P = .03), blood use (P < .001), and aspiration pneumonia (P = .046) were decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-aided, real-time decision support resulted in improved protocol compliance and reduced errors and morbidity. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00164034.

Trauma reception and resuscitation.

The hospital reception phase of major trauma management requires a great number of expedient decisions. However, despite widely taught programmes advocating a standardized, algorithmic approach to decision-making, there is an ongoing rate of human errors contributing to adverse outcomes. It is now time for a fundamental change in our approach to trauma resuscitation. Point-of-care computer technology linked to real-time decision-making and trauma team coordination may achieve error reduction through standardized decision-making and a corresponding reduction in preventable mortality and morbidity.