Big children or little adults? A statewide analysis of adolescent isolated severe traumatic brain injury outcomes at pediatric versus adult trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate managing center for adolescent trauma patients is debated. We sought to determine whether outcome differences existed for adolescent severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) patients treated at pediatric versus adult trauma centers. We hypothesized that no difference in mortality, functional status at discharge (FSD), or overall complication rate would be observed between center types. METHODS: All adolescent trauma patients (aged 15-17 years) presenting with isolated sTBI (head Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score ≥3; all other AIS body region scores ≤2) to accredited Levels I to II trauma centers in Pennsylvania from 2003 to 2015 were extracted from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Dead on arrival, transfer, and penetrating trauma patients were excluded from analysis. Adult trauma centers were defined as non-pediatirc (PED) (n = 24), whereas standalone pediatric hospitals and adult centers with pediatric affiliation were considered Pediatric (n = 9). Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models and a generalized linear mixed models assessed the adjusted impact of center type on mortality, overall complications, and FSD. Significance was defined as a p value less than 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,109 isolated sTBI patients aged 15 to 17 years presented over the 13-year study period (non-PED, 685; PED, 424). In adjusted analysis controlling for age, shock index, head AIS, Glasgow Coma Scale motor, trauma center level of managing facility, case volume of managing facility, and injury year, no significant difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-2.86; p = 0.754), FSD (coefficient, -0.85; 95% CI, -2.03 to 0.28; p = 0.136), or total complication rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.43-3.39; p = 0.714) was observed between center types. CONCLUSION: Although the optimal treatment facility for adolescent patients is frequently debated, patients aged 15 to 17 years presenting with isolated sTBI may experience similar outcomes when managed at pediatric and adult trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

An Analysis of Beta-Blocker Administration Pre-and Post-Traumatic Brain Injury with Subanalyses for Head Injury Severity and Myocardial Injury.

A growing body of literature indicates that beta-blocker administration after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is cerebroprotective, limiting secondary injury; however, the effects of preinjury beta blocker status remain poorly understood. We sought to characterize the effects of pre- and postinjury beta-blocker administration on mortality with subanalyses accounting for head injury severity and myocardial injury. In a Level II trauma center, all admissions of patients ≥18 years with a head Abbreviated Injury Scale Score ≥2, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤13 from May 2011 to May 2013 were queried. Demographic, injury-specific, and outcome variables were analyzed using univariate analyses. Subsequent multivariate analyses were conducted to determine adjusted odds of mortality for beta-blocker usage controlling for age, Injury Severity Score, head Abbreviated Injury Scale, arrival Glasgow Coma Scale, ventilator use, and intensive care unit stay. A total of 214 trauma admissions met inclusion criteria: 112 patients had neither pre- nor postinjury beta-blocker usage, 46 patients had preinjury beta-blocker usage, and 94 patients had postinjury beta-blocker usage. Both unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of preinjury beta-blocker were insignificant with respect to mortality. However, postinjury in-hospital administration of beta blockers was found to significantly in the decrease of mortality in both univariate (P = 0.002) and multivariate analyses (P = 0.001). Our data indicate that beta-blocker administration post-TBI in hospital reduces odds of mortality; however, preinjury beta-blocker usage does not. Additionally, myocardial injury is a useful indicator for beta-blocker administration post-TBI. Further research into which beta blockers confer the best benefits as well as the optimal period of beta-blocker administration post-TBI is recommended.

Hyponatremia as a fall predictor in a geriatric trauma population.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one in three older adults fall each year, resulting in a significant proportion of geriatric traumatic injuries. In a hospital with a focus on geriatric fall prevention, we sought to characterize this population to develop targeted interventions. As mild hyponatremia, defined as a serum sodium <135meq/L, has been reported to be associated with falls, unsteadiness and attention deficits, we hypothesized that hyponatremia is associated with falls in our geriatric trauma population. METHODS: Gender, age, pre-existing conditions (cardiac disease, diabetes, hematologic disorder, liver disease, malignancy, musculoskeletal disorder, neurological disorder, obesity, psychiatric disorder, pulmonary disease, renal disease, thyroid disease), mechanism of injury and admitting serum sodium level were queried for all geriatric trauma admissions from 2008 to 2011. Mechanism of injury was coded as falls admissions and non-falls admissions. Admitting serum sodium levels were coded as hyponatremic (<135mmol/L) and not hyponatremic (≥135mmol/L). RESULTS: Of the 2370 geriatric trauma admissions during the study period, there were 1841 (77.7%) falls admissions and 293 (12.4%) patients who were hyponatremic. Gender, age, neurological disorder, hematologic disorder, and hyponatremia were found to be significant predictors of falls in both univariate and multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: Hyponatremic patients are significantly more likely to be admitted for a fall than non-hyponatremic patients, when adjusting for age, neurological disorder, and hematologic disorder. Consequently, hyponatremia identification and management should be an integral part of any geriatric trauma fall prevention programme. Additionally, if hyponatremia is found during a geriatric fall workup, it should be corrected prior to discharge and closely monitored by a primary care physician to prevent recurrent episodes of falls.

Prothrombin complex concentrate accelerates international normalized ratio reversal and diminishes the extension of intracranial hemorrhage in geriatric trauma patients.

Warfarin therapy increases the incidence intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), especially in the geriatric population. Timely reversal of international normalized ratio (INR) is integral in the management of these patients for whom fresh frozen plasma (FFP) with vitamin K is the standard of treatment. We hypothesized that implementing a protocol that used prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) would reverse INR values more swiftly and decrease the amount of FFP administered. In November 2011, a protocol was implemented for administering PCC to the geriatric population on warfarin admitted for life-threatening bleeds. These patients received 25 IU/kg ideal body weight of a three-factor PCC (Profilnine SD) if their INR was over 1.5 or greater. FFP was given if follow-up INR revealed an INR of 1.5 or greater. Retrospectively the data from 29 patients who received PCC were compared with a historical control group of 34 patients. Protocol use resulted in a significantly faster INR reversal (PCC: 151.6 ± 84.3 minutes vs control: 485.0 ± 321 minutes; P < 0.001), time to achieve an INR less than 1.5 (PCC: 484 ± 242 minutes vs control: 971 ± 1208 minutes; P = 0.036), and less FFP administered (PCC: 1.3 ± 1.0 vs control:3.3 ± 1.5; P < 0.001). PCC patients had a decreased incidence of progression of their ICH (PCC: 17.2% vs control: 44.2%; P = 0.031). Rapid reversal of coagulopathy in geriatric patients on warfarin is vital to limit the extent of ICH. PCC allows a much more rapid reversal than standard treatment with only FFP and vitamin K. Adopting such a protocol is associated not only with a more rapid reversal and less FFP use, but also less patients went on to extend their head bleeds.

Checklist-styled daily sign-out rounds improve hospital throughput in a major trauma center.

The checklist concept has received much attention as a result of its ability to improve patient care by minimizing complications. We hypothesized daily sign-out rounds using a checklist, by improving team communication and consistency of clinical care, could lead to expedited throughput for patients at a major trauma center. A retrospective study examined patients admitted to a mature trauma center. Two time periods, PRE (September 2008 to January 2009) and POST (September 2009 to January 2010), were selected to match for seasonal variation in admission diagnosis. An organ system-based checklist was used during daily sign-out for all admitted trauma patients in the POST period. We examined discharge status, complications and rates, and intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital length of stay for differences. There were similar numbers of patients (824 PRE vs 798 POST) admitted in these two cohorts. We found no statistical differences in the incidence of complications or mortality rate. We did discover statistically significant differences in the median ICU days (2 PRE vs 1 POST, P = 0.007) as well as median hospital length of stay (2 days, interquartile differences Q1 to Q3 PRE [1 to 5] and POST [1 to 4] P = 0.000). These trends remained valid even among the severely injured (Injury Severity Score 16 or greater) with a hospital length of stay of 5 (PRE) versus 3 days (POST; P = 0.021). A simple, organ system-based checklist can be successfully adopted for daily sign-out round on a busy, multiprovider trauma service. We were able to expedite trauma patient throughput in both ICU and overall hospital stays with a trend toward decreasing mortality. This improved throughput may potentially translate into a cost saving for the hospital.

Breaking down the barriers! Factors contributing to barrier days in a mature trauma center.

BACKGROUND: As we enter the brave new world of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, it is imperative that trauma centers provide not only excellent but also cost-effective trauma care. To that end, we sought to determine those factors that contribute significantly to barrier days (BDs), when a patient is medically cleared for discharge but unable to leave the hospital. We hypothesized that there would be significant demographic and payor factors associated with BDs. METHODS: All trauma admissions to a Level II trauma center discharged alive from 2010 to 2012 were queried from the trauma registry. BDs were identified and recorded at daily sign-out. Patients with a hospital length of stay of 24 hours or less or transferred to another hospital were excluded. Univariate logistic regression was used to analyze which factors were significant (p ≤ 0.05) for BDs. Significant variables were then included in a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 3,056 patients were included in the study, 105 (3.44%) of whom had at least one BD. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients awaiting nursing home placement and rehabilitation placement were at 6.39 and 2.79 times higher odds of having significant barriers to discharge, respectively, compared with patients who were discharged home. The multivariate model also showed that Medicaid coverage, one or more comorbidities, Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater, and one or more ventilation days had a significant correlation with the incidence of BDs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that discharge destination is a significant factor associated with BDs. Understanding what type of patient is prone to develop barriers to discharge will allow case managers and social workers to intervene with discharge planning early in that patient's hospital course to secure placement and possibly reduce health care costs and improve functional outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Factors associated with patient satisfaction scores for physician care in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act of 2010 identifies "patient experience of care" as one of five domains of excellent care. We hypothesized that there are specific demographic factors associated with higher or lower physician satisfaction (PS) scores in trauma patients. METHODS: Press-Ganey PS scores for September 2004 to December 2010 were compared with trauma variables and the association of a mean PS greater than or equal to 75 (high score) or less than or equal to 50 (low score). Those variables that proved significant on univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis. Significance was at p < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 12,196 admissions, of whom 1,631 (13.4%) returned patient satisfaction survey. A total of 1,174 patients (75.5%) returned a high PS (≥75), and 126 patients (8.1%) returned a low PS (≤50). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, 65 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 1.7), having had a surgical procedure (OR, 1.6), and having a positive impression of the hospital care (OR, 7.0) proved significant for a high PS. Those patients who scored a low PS were significantly more likely to be younger (18-29 years: OR, 2.4; 30-64 years: OR, 1.8), to have not had surgery (OR, 2.2), had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or lower (OR, 2.6), had a complication of care (OR, 4.4), and rated the hospital care as poor (OR, 9.2). CONCLUSION: A trauma patient who is satisfied with his or her physician care is one who is 65 years or older, requires surgery, and is predominantly satisfied with other aspects of their hospital care. Unsatisfied patients are younger, are nonoperative, had lower ISS, had a complication of care, and rated their hospital care as poor. Understanding the specific characteristics of Press-Ganey results for trauma patients will allow trauma surgeons and their hospital partners to develop strategies to improve patients' satisfaction with their trauma surgeon's care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Acute care and trauma surgeons: we can't get no satisfaction--what do satisfaction surveys measure?

Patient satisfaction surveys are increasingly being used as a measure of physician performance in a hospital setting. We sought to determine what role the clinical condition the physician is treating has on overall patient satisfaction scores. Patient satisfaction scores were calculated for elective and emergent general surgery and trauma patients for eight surgeons taking care of all three types of patients. Both physician satisfaction (PP) and hospital satisfaction (GP) scores were calculated. Mean scores (± standard deviation) between groups were compared with P < 0.05 significance. Of 1521 trauma patients and 3779 general surgery patients, there was 14.8 and 15.1 per cent response rate, respectively, to the survey. Trauma patients had a significantly lower PP than general surgery patients (81.0 ± 19.4 vs 85.7 ± 16.4; P < 0.001). However, the GP between trauma and general surgery was not significant (84.0 ± 13 vs 84.0 ± 12.3; nonsignificant) When general surgery patients were divided into emergent versus elective, the PP was significantly higher for elective than emergent (87.9 ± 14.6 vs 82.7 ± 18; P < 0.001). A patient's underlying clinical condition may influence response to patient satisfaction surveys. Further research needs to be performed before patient satisfaction surveys can be adopted as a overall measure of physician competency.

Old and undertriaged: a lethal combination.

The geriatric trauma patient poses unique challenges to the trauma surgeon due to occult injuries and occult hypoperfusion. We hypothesized that those elderly patients with significant injuries, who were not initially evaluated via trauma activation, would suffer worse outcomes. All cases of elderly (age ≥ 65) admitted to the trauma service from the years 2000 to 2010 were included. Our trauma activation system encompasses anatomic, physiologic, and mechanism of injury criteria. We defined patients as undertriaged (UT) if they had an ISS > 15 and did not undergo a trauma team activation, but had a regular workup by an emergency department physician and trauma team consultation. Factors that contributed to being UT in the emergency department were investigated by univariate and multivariate analysis. A total of 4534 elderly patients constitute this analysis, of which 15.1 per cent were UT. The UT patients were more likely to die, when adjusted for Revised Trauma Score, Glasgow Coma score, the occurrence of ≥1 complication, and whether the patient was on Coumadin. UT has a high risk of death in elderly patients. Trauma triage guidelines need to be better tailored to identify the high-risk geriatric trauma patient.

In a mature trauma system, there is no difference in outcome (survival) between Level I and Level II trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: The state of Pennsylvania (PA) has one of the oldest, most well-established trauma systems in the country. The requirements for verification for Level I versus Level II trauma centers within PA differ minimally (only in the requirement for patient volume, residency, and research). We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcome at Level I versus Level II trauma centers. METHODS: Odds of mortality for 16 Level I and 11 Level II hospitals in PA over a 5-year period (2004-2008) was computed using a random effects logistic regression model. Overall adjusted mortality rates at Level I versus Level II hospitals were compared using the nonparametric Wilcoxon's rank sum test. The crude mortality rates for 140,691 patients over the 5-year period were similar (5.07% Level II vs. 5.48% Level I), but statistically significant (odds ratio mortality at Level I = 1.084, p = 0.002 Fisher's exact test). RESULTS: Although Level I centers had on average crude mortality rates that were higher than those of Level II centers, median adjusted mortality rates were not different for the two types of centers (Wilcoxon's rank sum test). Performance of Level I versus Level II shows considerable variability among centers (basic random effects model, age, blunt/penetrating, and Injury Severity Score [ISS]). However, Level II centers seem no different from Level I. CONCLUSION: As trauma systems mature, the distinction between Level I and Level II trauma centers blurs. The hierarchal descriptors "Level I" or "Level II" in a mature trauma system is pejorative and implies in those hospitals labeled "Level II" as inferior, and as such should be replaced with nonhierarchal descriptors.

Does prehospital prolonged extrication (entrapment) place trauma patients at higher risk for venous thromboembolism?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine if prolonged immobility and tissue injury from a prehospital entrapment would place patients at higher risk for in-hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE) complications. It was hypothesized that entrapment would increase in-hospital VTE. METHODS: All consecutive trauma admissions over a 10-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those who were entrapped according to defined prehospital criteria for entrapment and those who were not entrapped. The complications of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were noted. RESULTS: There were 15,159 patients admitted between 1999 and 2008. Of these, 1,176 met the criteria for prehospital entrapment. Those patients who met the criteria for entrapment had a significant risk for developing both deep vein thrombosis (P < .001, χ(2) test) and pulmonary embolism (P = .005, Fisher's exact test). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed entrapment to be a significant contributing risk factor to the development of VTE (odds ratio, 1.54; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prehospital entrapment are at higher risk for VTE. These results mandate aggressive VTE prophylaxis in patients with histories of prehospital entrapment.