Status of trauma quality improvement programs in the Americas: a survey of trauma care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Global disparities in trauma care contribute to significant morbidity and mortality (M&M) in low- and middle-income countries. Implementation of quality improvement (QI) programs has been shown to be a cost-effective strategy to improve trauma care quality. In this study, we aim to characterize the trauma QI programs in a broad range of low- to high-income countries in the Americas to assess areas for targeted improvement in global trauma QI efforts. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods survey of trauma care providers in North and South America distributed in-person at trauma care conferences and online via a secure survey platform. Responses were analyzed to observe differences across respondent country income categories. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two surveys were collected, representing 21 different countries from three income strata (three lower-middle-, eleven upper-middle-, and eight high-income countries). Respondents were primarily physicians or physicians-in-training (85%). Eighty-nine percent of respondents worked at an institution where M&M conferences occurred. M&M conferences were significantly more frequent at higher income levels (P = 0.002), as was attending physician presence at M&M conferences (70% in high-income countries versus 43% in lower-middle-income countries). There were also significant differences in the structure, quality, and follow-up of M&M conferences in lower versus higher income countries. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported observing some kind of positive change at their institution due to M&M conferences. The survey also suggested significantly higher utilization of autopsy (P < 0.001) and electronic trauma registries (P = 0.01) at higher income levels. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated an encouraging pattern of widespread adoption of trauma QI programs in several countries in North and South America. However, there continue to be significant disparities in the structure and function of trauma QI efforts in low- and middle-income countries in the Americas. There are several potential areas for development and improvement of trauma care systems, including standardization of case selection and follow-up for M&M conferences and increased use of medical literature to improve evidence-based care.

Tracheostomies of Patients With COVID-19: A Survey of Infection Reported by Health Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) performing tracheostomies in patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors underlying HCPs' COVID-19 infection and determine whether tracheostomy providers report increased rates of infection. METHODS: An anonymous international survey examining factors associated with COVID-19 infection was made available November 2020 through July 2021 to HCPs at a convenience sample of hospitals, universities, and professional organizations. Infections reported were compared between HCPs involved in tracheostomy on patients with COVID-19 and HCPs who were not involved. RESULTS: Of the 361 respondents (from 33 countries), 50% (n = 179) had performed tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19. Performing tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19 was not associated with increased infection in either univariable (P = .06) or multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.90-2.46; P = .13). Working in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC) was associated with increased infection in both univariable (P < .001) and multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 2.88; CI, 1.50-5.53; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Performing tracheostomy was not associated with COVID-19 infection, suggesting that tracheostomies can be safely performed in infected patients with appropriate precautions. However, HCPs in LMICs may face increased infection risk.

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study.

Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either "early" (within 14 d of intubation) or "late" (more than 14 d after intubation). DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, -16 to -8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, -23 to -9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, -31 to -12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity.

Safety and effectiveness of propranolol in severely burned patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant outcomes in severely burned patients (TBSA >20%). METHODS: Relevant articles from randomized controlled trials were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included trials involving patients with a severe burn (>20% of total body surface area affected). Trials were eligible if they evaluated propranolol and compared to usual care or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included ten studies in our systematic review. These studies randomized a total of 1236 participants. There were no significant differences between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (RD -0.02 [95% CI -0.06 to 0.02]), sepsis (RD -0.03 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.04]), and the overall hospital stay (MD -0.37 [-4.52 to 3.78]). Propranolol-treated adults had a decrease in requirements of blood transfusions (MD -185.64 [95% CI -331.06 to -40.43]) and a decreased heart rate (MD -26.85 [95% CI -39.95 to -13.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates that there were no differences in mortality or sepsis in severely burned patients treated with propranolol compared with those who had usual care or placebo. However, the use of propranolol in these patients resulted in lower requirements of blood transfusion and lower values of heart rate. The evidence synthesized in this systematic review is limited to conclude that propranolol reduces the length of hospital stay among severely burned patients. Future trials should assess the impact of propranolol on clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events.

Status of trauma quality improvement programs in the Andean region: What foundation do we have to build on.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma quality improvement (QI) programs have been shown to improve outcomes and decrease cost. These are high priorities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 2,000,000 deaths due to survivable injuries occur each year. We sought to define areas for improvement in trauma QI programs in four LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a survey among trauma care providers in four Andean middle-income countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. RESULTS: 336 physicians, medical students, nurses, administrators and paramedical professionals responded to the cross-sectional survey with a response rate greater than 90% in all included countries except Bolivia, where the response rate was 14%. Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences occur at their hospital. Conferences were often reported as infrequent - 45% occurred less than every three months and poorly attended - 63% had five or fewer staff physicians present. Only 23% of conferences had standardized selection criteria, most lacked documentation - notes were taken at only 35% of conferences. Importantly, only 13% of participants indicated that discussions were routinely followed-up with any sort of corrective action. Multivariable analysis revealed the presence of standardized case selection criteria (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.16-10.46), written documentation of the M&M conferences (OR 5.73, 95% CI 1.73-19.06), and a clear plan for follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.59-14.50) to be associated with effective M&M conferences. Twenty-two percent of respondents worked at hospitals with a trauma registry. Fifty-two percent worked at institutions where autopsies were conducted, but only 32% of those reported the autopsy results to ever be used to improve hospital practice. CONCLUSIONS: M&M conferences are frequently practiced in the Andean region of Latin America but often lack methodologic rigor and thus effectiveness. Next steps in the maturation of QI programs include optimizing use of data from autopsies and registries, and systematic follow-up of M&M conferences with corrective action to ensure that these activities result in appreciable changes in clinical care.