Creating a gold medal Olympic and Paralympics health care team: a satisfaction survey of the mobile medical unit/polyclinic team training for the Vancouver 2010 winter games.

BACKGROUND: The mobile medical unit/polyclinic (MMU/PC) was an essential part of the medical services to support ill or injured Olympic or Paralympics family during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympics winter games. The objective of this study was to survey the satisfaction of the clinical staff that completed the training programs prior to deployment to the MMU. METHODS: Medical personnel who participated in at least one of the four training programs, including (1) week-end sessions; (2) web-based modules; (3) just-in-time training; and (4) daily simulation exercises were invited to participate in a web-based survey and comment on their level of satisfaction with training program. RESULTS: A total of 64 (out of 94 who were invited) physicians, nurses and respiratory therapists completed the survey. All participants reported favorably that the MMU/PC training positively impacted their knowledge, skills and team functions while deployed at the MMU/PC during the 2010 Olympic Games. However, components of the training program were valued differently depending on clinical job title, years of experience, and prior experience in large scale events. Respondents with little or no experience working in large scale events (45%) rated daily simulations as the most valuable component of the training program for strengthening competencies and knowledge in clinical skills for working in large scale events. CONCLUSION: The multi-phase MMU/PC training was found to be beneficial for preparing the medical team for the 2010 Winter Games. In particular this survey demonstrates the effectiveness of simulation training programs on teamwork competencies in ad hoc groups.

Geriatric trauma: resource use and patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients who suffer trauma have a higher mortality and use disproportionately more trauma resources than younger patients. To compare these 2 groups and determine the outcomes and characteristics of elderly patients, we reviewed patients in these 2 groups admitted and treated in our tertiary care provincial trauma centre. METHODS: From the provincial trauma registry we selected a cohort of 40 geriatric patients (group 1) (> or = 65 yr of age) with an ISS of 16 or more who were admitted to and spent time in our trauma service for more than 48 hours and compared them with a similar randomly selected cohort of 44 patients (group 2) aged 20-30 years. Family physicians were contacted for follow-up of these patients 2 years after discharge. We considered length of hospital stay, complications, disposition of the patients and use of consultation services. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 had a mean age of 72.1 years (range from 65-98 yr) and a mean ISS of 27.3 (range from 17-50). Patients in group 2 had a mean age of 26.3 years (range from 22-29 yr) and a mean ISS of 26.3 (range from 17-54). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the group 1: 34.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24-44 d) versus 21.6 days (95% CI: 15-28 d). More elderly patients experienced complications (35 v. 13, p < 0.001) and required medical consultations (35 v. 26, p < 0.001). In-hospital death rates were 8% (3 of 40) and 4% (2 of 44) respectively (p = 0.3). Fewer geriatric patients could be discharged home (35% [14 of 40] v. 27% [22 of 44], p = 0.056) or to rehabilitation facilities (28% [11 of 40] v. 34% [15 of 44], p = 0.3). Five geriatric patients were discharged to nursing homes (p = 0.007). Of the geriatric patients discharged to rehabilitation facilities or home, 75% were independent 2 years after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive care for geriatric trauma patients is warranted, and resources should be directed toward rehabilitation. Based on our findings, we expect that creating a directed care pathway for these patients, targetting complications and earlier discharge, will further improve their outcomes.

Relative importance of designation and accreditation of trauma centers during evolution of a regional trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Improved survival after injury has been demonstrated with trauma system implementation and designation of trauma centers. Local designating health authorities or national verification (United States) or accreditation (Canada) programs audit trauma center performance. The relative importance of designation versus accreditation with respect to improved outcomes is not clear. The purpose of this study was to measure outcomes within a single regional trauma system after designation of trauma centers and to compare outcomes in the one accredited center to the nonaccredited centers. METHODS: Data from three trauma centers were studied. All were large, university-affiliated regional medical centers, integrated into a regional trauma system and served by a single ambulance service. The study period was 1992 to 1999, immediately after trauma center designation in 1991. The British Columbia Trauma Registry was used to identify trauma patients, mechanism of injury, length of stay, case mix, case volume, acuity, pediatric caseload, and proportion of transfers at each center. A questionnaire was circulated to each hospital to determine the level of institutional support and programmatic development for trauma. The Trauma Registry was used to calculate z scores (TRISS methodology) for each center and TRISS-adjusted mortality odds ratios between institutions. Differences in covariables were controlled for in subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Two centers (hospitals A and C) had a high trauma caseload; one (hospital B) had a small and diminishing caseload. Only one center (hospital A) developed a trauma program consistent with Canadian accreditation criteria; z scores for center A were consistently better than at hospital B or C and survival odds ratios were significant. This finding applied to the total trauma population, blunt adult trauma patients (whether or not transfers and hip fracture patients were excluded), and in the more severely injured blunt trauma subgroups. There were no differences between hospitals for the relatively small number of patients with penetrating trauma. CONCLUSION: Differences between hospitals were apparent from the outset of the trauma system. However, designation as a trauma center does not appear to necessarily improve survival in large regional medical centers. Development of a trauma program and commitment to meeting national guidelines through the accreditation process does appear to be associated with improved outcome after injury.