Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). METHODS: We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. RESULTS: Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. CONCLUSIONS: Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Civilian Trauma Patients: A Content Analysis and Expert Appropriateness Rating Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize and evaluate indications for use of damage control (DC) surgery in civilian trauma patients. BACKGROUND: Although DC surgery may improve survival in select, severely injured patients, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity, suggesting that it should be used only when appropriately indicated. METHODS: Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for DC surgery reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. An international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the coded indications for use in surgical practice. RESULTS: The 1107 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 123 unique pre- (n = 36) and intraoperative (n = 87) indications. The panel assessed 101 (82.1%) of these indications to be appropriate. The indications most commonly reported and assessed to be appropriate included pre- and intraoperative hypothermia (median temperature <34°C), acidosis (median pH <7.2), and/or coagulopathy. Others included 5 different injury patterns, inability to control bleeding by conventional methods, administration of a large volume of packed red blood cells (median >10 units), inability to close the abdominal wall without tension, development of abdominal compartment syndrome during attempted abdominal wall closure, and need to reassess extent of bowel viability. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a comprehensive list of candidate indications for use of DC surgery. These indications provide a practical foundation to guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient care and outcomes.

Multicenter validation of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

BACKGROUND: Incorporating patient and family perspectives into injury care quality assessment is a necessary part of comprehensive quality improvement. However, tools to measure patient and family perspectives of injury care are lacking. Therefore, our objective was to assess the psychometric properties of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM), the first measure developed to assess patient experiences with overall injury care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study of adult injury patients recruited from three trauma centers. Patients or surrogates completed an acute care survey measure in the hospital and a post-acute care survey measure after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Four hundred participants (78%) completed the acute care measure, and 207 (59%) completed the post-acute care measure. We identified three subscales on the acute measure and two subscales on the post-acute measure. All subscales and items had evidence of construct validity. Four subscales had good internal consistency, and three were independent predictors of participants' overall ratings of injury care quality. The majority of items demonstrated suitable test-retest reliability. Comparison of QTAC-PREM scores with those of an existing patient experience tool, the Hospital version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), demonstrated evidence of appropriate divergent and convergent validity. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the QTAC-PREM is feasible to implement at trauma centers and provides evidence of validity and reliability. The tool may be useful to incorporate patient perspectives into trauma care quality measurement and improvement.

Indications for use of thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, and vascular damage control interventions in trauma patients: A content analysis and expert appropriateness rating study.

BACKGROUND: The use of abbreviated or damage control (DC) interventions may improve outcomes in severely injured patients when appropriately indicated. We sought to determine which indications for DC interventions have been most commonly reported in the peer-reviewed literature to date and evaluate the opinions of experts regarding the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the reported indications for use in practice. METHODS: Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for 16 different DC interventions reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. For each indication code, an international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness of conducting the DC intervention of interest in an adult civilian trauma patient. RESULTS: The 424 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 101 unique indications. The panel assessed 12 (70.6%) of the coded indications for the 7 different thoracic, 47 (78.3%) for the 7 different abdominal/pelvic, and 18 (75.0%) for the 2 different vascular interventions to be appropriate for use in practice. These included indications for rapid lung-sparing surgery (pneumonorrhaphy, pulmonary tractotomy, and pulmonary wedge resection) (n = 1); pulmonary tractotomy (n = 3); rapid, simultaneously stapled pneumonectomy (n = 1); therapeutic mediastinal and/or pleural space packing (n = 4); temporary thoracic closure (n = 3); therapeutic perihepatic packing (n = 28); staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 2); temporary abdominal closure (n = 12); extraperitoneal pelvic packing (n = 5); balloon catheter tamponade (n = 6); and temporary intravascular shunting (n = 11). CONCLUSION: This study identified a list of candidate appropriate indications for use of 12 different DC interventions that were suggested by authors of peer-reviewed articles and assessed by a panel of independent experts to be appropriate. These indications may be used to focus future research and (in the interim) guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient outcomes.

Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients. RESULTS: Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study. CONCLUSION: The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.

Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. METHODS: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or -affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared. RESULTS: All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of timeliness of care (23% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Non-teaching centres were more likely to use indicators whose content evaluated triage and patient flow (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of efficiency of care (25% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). While over 80% of teaching centres used time to laparotomy, pulmonary complications, in hospital mortality, and appropriate admission physician/service as quality indicators, only two of these (in hospital mortality and appropriate admission physician/service) were used by over half of non-teaching trauma centres. The majority of centres reported using morbidity and mortality conferences (96% vs. 97%, p = 0.61) and quality of care audits (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.08) while approximately half used report cards (51% vs. 43%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres.

A protocol for a scoping and qualitative study to identify and evaluate indications for damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Initial abbreviated surgery with planned reoperation (damage control surgery) is frequently used for major trauma patients to rapidly control haemorrhage while limiting surgical stress. Although damage control surgery may decrease mortality risk among the severely injured, it may also be associated with several complications when inappropriately applied. We seek to scope the literature on trauma damage control surgery, identify its proposed indications, map and clarify their definitions, and examine the content and evidence on which they are based. We also seek to generate a comprehensive list of unique indications to inform an appropriateness rating process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search 11 electronic bibliographic databases, included article bibliographies and grey literature sources for citations involving civilian trauma patients that proposed one or more indications for damage control surgery or a damage control intervention. Indications will be classified into a predefined conceptual framework and categorised and described using qualitative content analysis. Constant comparative methodology will be used to create, modify and test codes describing principal findings or injuries (eg, bilobar liver injury) and associated decision variables (eg, coagulopathy) that comprise the reported indications. After a unique list of codes have been developed, we will use the organisational system recommended by the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (RAND-UCLA) Appropriateness Rating Method to group principal findings or injuries into chapters (subdivided by associated decision variables) according to broader clinical findings encountered during surgical practice (eg, major liver injury). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will constitute the first step in a multistep research programme aimed at developing appropriate, evidence-informed indications for damage control in civilian trauma patients. With use of an integrated knowledge translation intervention that includes collaboration with surgical practice leaders, this research may allow for development of indications that are more likely to be relevant to and used by surgeons. Ethics approval is not required for this study.

The development and testing of a survey to measure patient and family experiences with injury care.

BACKGROUND: To deliver patient-centered trauma care, we must capture patient and family experiences with the services they receive. We developed and pilot tested a survey to measure patient and family experiences with major injury care. METHODS: We conducted a structured literature review and focus groups to generate survey items. We pilot tested the survey at a Level I trauma center and assessed feasibility of implementation and construct validity with Spearman's correlation coefficients. Open ended questions were qualitatively analyzed to explore whether responses corroborated survey content. RESULTS: We developed a survey with two parts: acute care component (46 items) and post-acute care component (27 items) with nine domains. We offered the survey (acute care component offered before hospital discharge, post-acute care component offered 1-7 months after discharge) to 170 patients/families, of whom 134 (79%) responded. Patients were primarily male (73%) with major injuries (median Injury Severity Score, 18; interquartile range, 16-25). Overall, respondents for both the acute care and post-acute care components of the survey reported being completely (47% vs. 26%), very (37% vs. 38%), or mostly (16% vs. 21%) satisfied with their injury care, whereas a minority reported being slightly (0% vs. 9%) or very (0% vs. 6%) dissatisfied (p = 0.002 Fischer's exact test). Most survey items were significantly correlated with overall satisfaction (46 of 60 items). Almost all qualitatively identified themes matched survey domains, adding support to the survey content. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a survey to capture patient and family experiences associated with major injury care and provides preliminary evidence of the instrument's content and construct validity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.