Impact of a Streamlined Trauma-Focused Smartphone Application on Protocol Compliance and Delivery of Care.

BACKGROUND: In November 2015, an institution-specific mobile application (app) was created to provide rapid access to trauma protocols. The app was tested, and the results suggested that the app was difficult to use as it linked to web-based databases. In June 2018, the app was redesigned with protocol infographics and algorithms that are available offline, eliminating the need to scroll through web pages. We tested the redesigned app's ability to provide information quickly, in a user-friendly manner. METHODS: This was a prospective, experimental analysis of a streamlined, institution-specific trauma app. Participants included general surgery residents, advanced practice providers, and attending trauma surgeons. The primary outcomes of measure were time to complete an exam with trauma scenarios and the number of questions answered correctly. The primary exposure of interest was access to the app during the exam. RESULTS: There were 35 study participants: 17 with the 2018 version of the app to complete the quiz and 18 without app access. The group with access scored higher than those without access (70% versus 50%, P = 0.0005) as well as those with the old version of the app in the 2015 study (70% versus 55%, P = 0.0250). App access eliminated a significant difference in exam scores between residents and attendings that was present without the app. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile app with offline access to protocol infographics and algorithms gives providers access to recommended practices and may improve delivery of trauma care. The app is helpful to residents and helps bridge the knowledge gap between groups when the app is not available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Splenic Embolization After Trauma: An Opportunity to Improve Best Immunization Practices.

BACKGROUND: The spleen is the second most commonly injured solid organ during blunt abdominal trauma. Although total splenectomy is frequently performed for injury, splenic rupture can also be managed by splenic embolization. For these patients, current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations indicate that if 50% or more of the splenic mass is lost, patients should be treated as though they are asplenic. We have previously demonstrated that compliance with ACIP guidelines regarding immunization after splenectomy is poor. Compliance with vaccination in the setting of splenic embolization for trauma is unknown and we hypothesized patients would not receive the recommended immunizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All admissions at our level 1 trauma center requiring splenic embolization secondary to traumatic injury between January 1, 2010, and November 1, 2015, were reviewed. Demographic and injury data, dates and imaging of splenic embolizations, immunization documentation, subsequent vaccination boosters received, and outcomes were collected from the medical record. The proportion of spleen embolized was estimated by review of angiographic imaging using an established method. RESULTS: Nine thousand nine hundred sixty-five trauma patients were admitted during the period studied. Nineteen patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Median age of the patient population was 35 y, 85% were male, and median injury severity score was 28. Of these, 15 patients underwent a splenic embolization, in which 50% or more of their splenic mass was lost through embolization. Eight patients received at least one immunization before discharge. Six received initial immunizations against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae, while three received only the initial immunization against S pneumoniae. None of the 15 patients received any ACIP-recommended booster. Of the four patients having less than 50% of their spleen embolized, three wrongly received immunization against encapsulated organisms before hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients undergoing splenic embolization at our institution receive postsplenectomy immunizations incorrectly and had no recorded booster vaccines. We speculate that this is common among the U.S. trauma centers. Review of immunization practices in our trauma and nontrauma patient populations is underway in our health system to improve the care of these patients, and our experience may serve as a guide for other centers to reduce complications associated with asplenia.