Prospective validation and application of the Trauma-Specific Frailty Index: Results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional observational trial.

BACKGROUND: The frailty index is a known predictor of adverse outcomes in geriatric patients. Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI) was created and validated at a single center to accurately identify frailty and reliably predict worse outcomes among geriatric trauma patients. This study aims to prospectively validate the TSFI in a multi-institutional cohort of geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multi-institutional trial across 17 American College of Surgeons Levels I, II, and III trauma centers. All geriatric trauma patients (65 years and older) presenting during a 3-year period were included. Frailty status was measured within 24 hours of admission using the TSFI (15 variables), and patients were stratified into nonfrail (TSFI, ≤0.12), prefrail (TSFI, 0.13-0.25), and frail (TSFI, >0.25) groups. Outcome measures included index admission mortality, discharge to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities (rehab/SNFs), and 3-month postdischarge readmissions, fall recurrences, complications, and mortality among survivors of index admission. RESULTS: A total of 1,321 geriatric trauma patients were identified and enrolled for validation of TSFI (nonfrail, 435 [33%]; prefrail, 392 [30%]; frail, 494 [37%]). The mean ± SD age was 77 ± 8 years; the median (interquartile range) Injury Severity Score was 9 (5-13). Overall, 179 patients (14%) had a major complication, 554 (42%) were discharged to rehab/SNFs, and 63 (5%) died during the index admission. Compared with nonfrail patients, frail patients had significantly higher odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; p = 0.018), major complications (aOR, 3.55; p < 0.001), and discharge to rehab/SNFs (aOR, 1.98; p < 0.001). In addition, frailty was significantly associated with higher adjusted odds of mortality, major complications, readmissions, and fall recurrence at 3 months postdischarge ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: External applicability of the TSFI (15 variables) was evident at a multicenter cohort of 17 American College of Surgeons trauma centers in geriatric trauma patients. The TSFI emerged as an independent predictor of worse outcomes, both in the short-term and 3-month postdischarge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Trauma center funding: time for an update.

BACKGROUND: Uncompensated care (UC) is healthcare provided with no payment from the patient or an insurance provider. UC directly contributes to escalating healthcare costs in the USA and potentially impacts patient care. In Texas, there has been a steady increase in the number of trauma centers and UC volumes without an increase in trauma funding of UC. The method of calculating UC trauma funds in Texas is imprecise as it is driven by Medicaid volumes and not actual trauma care costs. METHODS: Five years of annual trauma UC disbursement reports from the Texas Department of State Health Services were used to determine changes in UC economic considerations for level I, II, and III trauma centers in the largest urban trauma service areas (TSAs). Data for UC costs, compensation, and TSA demographics were used to assess variations. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's pairwise comparison post-hoc analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: TSA-E (Dallas-Fort Worth area) has 33% of the level I trauma centers in Texas (n=6) and yet serves only 27% of the total state population across 14 metropolitan and 5 non-metropolitan counties. Since 2015, TSA-E has shown higher UC costs (p<0.02) and lower reimbursement (p<0.01) than the second largest urban hub, TSA-Q (Houston area). TSA-E level I trauma centers trended towards decreased UC reimbursements. DISCUSSION: The unregulated expansion of trauma centers in Texas has led to an unprecedented increase in hospitals participating in trauma care. The unbalanced allocation of UC funding could lead to further economic instability, compromise resource allocation, and negatively impact patient care in an already fragile healthcare environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Retrospective economic analysis and evaluation.

Avoiding Cribari gridlock 2: The standardized triage assessment tool outperforms the Cribari matrix method in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric US trauma centers submitted data for 97,282 encounters. Mixed models estimated the effects of overtriage and undertriage versus appropriate triage on the odds of complication, odds of discharge to a continuing care facility, and differences in length of stay for both CMM and STAT. Significance was assessed at p <0.005. RESULTS: Overtriage (53.49% vs. 30.79%) and undertriage (17.19% vs. 3.55%) rates were notably lower with STAT than with CMM. CMM and STAT had significant associations with all outcomes, with overtriages demonstrating lower injury burdens and undertriages showing higher injury burdens than appropriately triaged patients. STAT indicated significantly stronger associations with outcomes than CMM, except in odds of discharge to continuing care facility among patients who received a full trauma team activation where STAT and CMM were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study strongly indicates STAT safely and accurately flags fewer cases for triage reviews, thereby reducing the subjectivity introduced by manual triage determinations. This may enable better refinement of activation criteria and reduced workload.

Should age be a factor to change from a level II to a level I trauma activation?

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients have a higher incidence of medical comorbidities when compared with their younger cohorts. Currently, the minimally accepted criteria established by the Committee on Trauma for the highest level of trauma activation (Level I) does not include age as a factor. Should patients older than 60 years with multiple injuries and/or a significant mechanism of injury be considered as part of the criteria for Level I activation? Would these patients benefit from a higher level of activation? METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for the period of January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2008, for all trauma patients and associated injury severity score (ISS). The data abstracted were based on age and ISS. RESULTS: The National Trauma Data Bank contained 802,211 trauma patients. Seventy-nine percent were younger than 60 years, and 21% were older than 60 years. Our analysis shows that in all levels of injury, patients older than 60 years have an increased risk for morbidity and mortality. We found a threefold increase in morbidity and a fivefold increase in mortality among the older (age >60 years) population with a minor ISS. Elderly patients with a major ISS demonstrated a twofold increase in morbidity and a fourfold increase in mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with an ISS between 0 and 15 are often triaged to Level II activation. Our data would suggest that patients older than 60 years should be a criterion for the highest level of trauma activation.

Rethinking the definition of major trauma: The need for trauma intervention outperforms Injury Severity Score and Revised Trauma Score in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Patients' trauma burdens are a combination of anatomic damage, physiologic derangement, and the resultant depletion of reserve. Typically, Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 defines major anatomic injury and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) <7.84 defines major physiologic derangement, but there is no standard definition for reserve. The Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) identifies severely depleted reserves (NFTI+) with emergent interventions and/or early mortality. We hypothesized NFTI would have stronger associations with outcomes and better model fit than ISS and RTS. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric U.S. trauma centers submitted data for 88,488 encounters. Mixed models tested ISS greater than 15, RTS less than 7.84, and NFTI's associations with complications, survivors' discharge to continuing care, and survivors' length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The NFTI had stronger associations with complications and LOS than ISS and RTS (odds ratios [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 9.44 [8.46-10.53]; ISS = 5.94 [5.36-6.60], RTS = 4.79 [4.29-5.34]; LOS incidence rate ratios (99.5% confidence interval): NFTI = 3.15 [3.08-3.22], ISS = 2.87 [2.80-2.94], RTS = 2.37 [2.30-2.45]). NFTI was more strongly associated with continuing care discharge but not significantly more than ISS (relative risk [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 2.59 [2.52-2.66], ISS = 2.51 [2.44-2.59], RTS = 2.37 [2.28-2.46]). Cross-validation revealed that in all cases NFTI's model provided a much better fit than ISS greater than 15 or RTS less than 7.84. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, NFTI had better model fit and stronger associations with the outcomes than ISS and RTS. By determining depletion of reserve via resource consumption, NFTI+ may be a better definition of major trauma than the standard definitions of ISS greater than 15 and RTS less than 7.84. Using NFTI may improve retrospective triage monitoring and statistical risk adjustments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level IV.