Timing to First Whole Blood Transfusion and Survival Following Severe Hemorrhage in Trauma Patients.

Importance: Civilian trauma centers have revived interest in whole-blood (WB) resuscitation for patients with life-threatening bleeding. However, there remains insufficient evidence that the timing of WB transfusion when given as an adjunct to a massive transfusion protocol (MTP) is associated with a difference in patient survival outcome. Objective: To evaluate whether earlier timing of first WB transfusion is associated with improved survival at 24 hours and 30 days for adult trauma patients presenting with severe hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program databank from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for adult patients presenting to US and Canadian adult civilian level 1 and 2 trauma centers with systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, with shock index greater than 1, and requiring MTP who received a WB transfusion within the first 24 hours of emergency department (ED) arrival. Patients with burns, prehospital cardiac arrest, deaths within 1 hour of ED arrival, and interfacility transfers were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 3 to October 2, 2023. Exposure: Patients who received WB as an adjunct to MTP (earlier) compared with patients who had yet to receive WB as part of MTP (later) at any given time point within 24 hours of ED arrival. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were survival at 24 hours and 30 days. Results: A total of 1394 patients met the inclusion criteria (1155 male [83%]; median age, 39 years [IQR, 25-51 years]). The study cohort included profoundly injured patients (median Injury Severity Score, 27 [IQR, 17-35]). A survival curve demonstrated a difference in survival within 1 hour of ED presentation and WB transfusion. Whole blood transfusion as an adjunct to MTP given earlier compared with later at each time point was associated with improved survival at 24 hours (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.73; P = .003). Similarly, the survival benefit of earlier WB transfusion remained present at 30 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.45; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, receipt of a WB transfusion earlier at any time point within the first 24 hours of ED arrival was associated with improved survival in patients presenting with severe hemorrhage. The survival benefit was noted shortly after transfusion. The findings of this study are clinically important as the earlier timing of WB administration may offer a survival advantage in actively hemorrhaging patients requiring MTP.

Extending Trauma Quality Improvement Beyond Trauma Centers: Hospital Variation in Outcomes Among Nontrauma Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) conducts a robust quality improvement program for ACS-verified trauma centers, yet many injured patients receive care at non-accredited facilities. This study tested for variation in outcomes across non-trauma hospitals and characterized hospitals associated with increased mortality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The study included state trauma registry data of 37,670 patients treated between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Clinical data were supplemented with data from the American Hospital Association and US Department of Agriculture, allowing comparisons among 100 nontrauma hospitals. METHODS: Using Bayesian techniques, risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted rates of mortality and interfacility transfer, as well as Emergency Departments length-of-stay (ED-LOS) among patients transferred from EDs were calculated for each hospital. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients ages >55 years and those with decreased Glasgow coma scores (GCS). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. RESULTS: Mortality varied 3-fold (0.9%-3.1%); interfacility transfer rates varied 46-fold (2.1%-95.6%); and mean ED-LOS varied 3-fold (81-231 minutes). Hospitals that were high and low statistical outliers were identified for each outcome, and subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable hospital variation. Metropolitan hospitals were associated increased mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7, P = 0.004], decreased likelihood of interfacility transfer (OR 0.7, P ≤ 0.001), and increased ED-LOS (coef. 0.1, P ≤ 0.001) when compared with nonmetropolitan hospitals and risk-adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in trauma outcomes exists across nontrauma hospitals. Efforts to improve trauma quality should include engagement of nontrauma hospitals to reduce variation in outcomes of injured patients treated at those facilities.

Utilizing triage rates to improve ICU admission guidelines of elderly rib fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: Elderly rib fracture patients are generally admitted to an ICU which may result in overutilization of scarce resources. We hypothesized that this practice results in significant overtriage. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients over age 70 with acute rib fracture(s) as sole indication for ICU admission. Primary outcomes were adverse events (intubation, pneumonia, death), which we classified as meriting ICU admission. We utilized Cribari matrices to calculate triage rates. RESULTS: 101 patients met study criteria. 12% had adverse events occurring on average at day 5. Our undertriage rate was 6% and overtriage rate 87%. The 72 overtriaged patients utilized 295 total ICU days. Evaluating guideline modification, ≥3 fractures appears optimal. Changing to this would have liberated 50 ICU days with 3% undertriage. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with small numbers of rib fractures are overtriaged to ICUs. Modifying guidelines to ≥3 rib fractures will improve resource utilization and save ICU beds.

Error reduction in trauma care: Lessons from an anonymized, national, multicenter mortality reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, the landmark report To Err Is Human illustrated the importance of system-level solutions, in contrast to person-level interventions, to assure patient safety. Nevertheless, rates of preventable deaths, particularly in trauma care, have not materially changed. The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program developed a voluntary Mortality Reporting System to better understand the underlying causes of preventable trauma deaths and the strategies used by centers to prevent future deaths. The objective of this work is to describe the factors contributing to potentially preventable deaths after injury and to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies identified by trauma centers to mitigate future harm, as reported in the Mortality Reporting System. METHODS: An anonymous structured web-based reporting template based on the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations taxonomy was made available to trauma centers participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program to allow for reporting of deaths that were potentially preventable. Contributing factors leading to death were evaluated. The effectiveness of mitigating strategies was assessed using a validated framework and mapped to tiers of effectiveness ranging from person-focused to system-oriented interventions. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 395 deaths were reviewed. Of the mortalities, 33.7% were unanticipated. Errors pertained to management (50.9%), clinical performance (54.7%), and communication (56.2%). Human failures were cited in 61% of cases. Person-focused strategies like education were common (56.0%), while more effective system-based strategies were seldom used. In 7.3% of cases, centers could not identify a specific strategy to prevent future harm. CONCLUSION: Most strategies to reduce errors in trauma centers focus on changing the performance of providers rather than system-level interventions such as automation, standardization, and fail-safe approaches. Centers require additional support to develop more effective mitigations that will prevent recurrent errors and patient harm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level V.

Fragmentation of care in the blunt abdominal trauma patient: Capturing our true outcomes and impact on care.

BACKGROUND: Trauma care is associated with unplanned readmissions, which may occur at facilities other than the index treatment facility. This "fragmentation of care" may be associated with adverse outcomes. We evaluated a statewide database that includes readmissions to analyze the incidence and impact of FC. METHODS: The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development patient discharge data set was evaluated for calendar years 2016 to 2018. Patients 15 years or older diagnosed with blunt abdominal solid organ injury during the index admission were identified. Readmissions were evaluated postdischarge at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients readmitted within 6 months to a facility other than the index admission facility (fragmented care [FC]) were compared with those readmitted to their index admission facility (non-FC). Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate risk of FC. RESULTS: Of the total 1,580 patients, there were 752 FC (47.6%) and 828 (52.4%) non-FC. Readmissions representing FC at months 1, 3, and 6 were 40.3%, 49.3%, and 53.4%, respectively. At index admission, the groups were demographically and clinically similar, with similar rates of abdominal operations and complications. Non-FC patients had a higher rate of abdominal reoperation at readmission (5.8% non-FC vs. 2.9% FC, p = 0.006). In an adjusted model, multiple readmissions (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, p = 0.014), readmission >30 days after index facility discharge (OR, 1.98; p < 0.001), and discharge to a nonmedical facility (OR, 2.46; p < 0.0001) were associated with increased odds of FC. Operative intervention at index admission was associated with lower odds of FC (OR, 0.77; p = 0.039). However, FC was not independently associated with demographic or insurance characteristics. CONCLUSION: The rate of FC among patients with blunt abdominal injury is high. The risk of FC is mitigated when patients are managed operatively during the index admission. Trauma systems should implement measures to ensure that these patients are followed postdischarge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III; Care management, level IV.

Proposal of standardization of every step of angiographic procedure in bleeding patients from pelvic trauma.

Trauma accounts for a third of the deaths in Western countries, exceeded only by cardiovascular disease and cancer. The high risk of massive bleeding, which depends not only on the type of fractures, but also on the severity of any associated parenchymal injuries, makes pelvic fractures one of the most life-threatening skeletal injuries, with a high mortality rate. Therefore, pelvic trauma represents an important condition to correctly and early recognize, manage, and treat. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach involving trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, emergency room physicians and interventional radiologists is needed to promptly manage the resuscitation of pelvic trauma patients and ensure the best outcomes, both in terms of time and costs. Over the years, the role of interventional radiology in the management of patient bleeding due to pelvic trauma has been increasing. However, the current guidelines on the management of these patients do not adequately reflect or address the varied nature of injuries faced by the interventional radiologist. In fact, in the therapeutic algorithm of these patients, after the word "ANGIO", there are no reports on the different possibilities that an interventional radiologist has to face during the procedure. Furthermore, variations exist in the techniques and materials for performing angioembolization in bleeding patients with pelvic trauma. Due to these differences, the outcomes differ among different published series. This article has the aim to review the recent literature on optimal imaging assessment and management of pelvic trauma, defining the role of the interventional radiologist within the multidisciplinary team, suggesting the introduction of common and unequivocal terminology in every step of the angiographic procedure. Moreover, according to these suggestions, the present paper tries to expand the previously drafted algorithm exploring the role of the interventional radiologist in pelvic trauma, especially given the multidisciplinary setting.

Implementación de un código de trauma en un servicio de emergencias de un hospital nacional / Implementation of a trauma code

Resumen Objetivo: Desarrollar una propuesta accesible a la realidad local de un hospital general terciario (Hospital Calderón Guardia) para la implementación de un código de trauma, basada en la mejor evidencia médico científica disponible. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión de la bibliografía; se buscaron los trabajos de investigación publicados a nivel nacional e internacional sobre la conformación y criterios relativos al código de trauma, su implementación, sus desafíos, y sus limitaciones; mediante 3 buscadores: Scielo, Pubmed y Ovid. Se incluyeron estudios con diversa metodología, disponibles en inglés o español. Resultados: Treinta artículos publicados en revistas indexadas fueron seleccionados y la información se agrupó en las siguientes categorías: Conformación del equipo de trauma en la activación de los códigos para cada hospital, criterios de activación, niveles de activación, experiencia local y limitaciones. Dicha información permitió identificar dos elementos principales para conseguir un beneficio: la conformación de un equipo multidisciplinario de primera respuesta para los pacientes más graves y la estandarización de criterios específicos para la activación de dicho equipo; entonces, se procedió a elaborar y proponer un modelo viable y concordante con las características del servicio hospitalario. Conclusión: La implementación hospitalaria de un modelo de código de trauma supone un impacto positivo en los desenlaces de morbi-mortalidad, a través de dos 2 mecanismo principales: la conformación de un equipo multidisciplinario de primera respuesta para los pacientes más graves y la estandarización de criterios específicos para la activación de dicho equipo; por lo que se elaboró un modelo ajustado a las necesidades y recursos del hospital.

Abstract Objective: To develop a proposal of a trauma code accessible to the local characteristics of a tertiary general hospital (Hospital Calderón Guardia) based on the best clinical evidence available. Methods: A literary search was made of national and international scientific papers regarding several aspects about trauma code, it´s implementation, it´s challenges, main benefits, and it´s limitations in 3 main web search portals: Scielo, PubMed and Ovid. We included paper studies in English and Spanish. Results: Thirty scientific papers from index journals were selected for review and the following data were extracted: Trauma team conformation, trauma team activation criteria, levels for trauma team activation, local experience, and limitations. That information allowed us to identify 2 main beneficial elements: the conformation of the trauma team and the standardization of the specific criteria necessary for its activation. Also, we elaborated a proposal for a viable model in accordance with our resources. Conclusion: According to scientific review, trauma code implementation in any institution associates a positive impact in clinical patient outcomes through 2 main mechanisms: the conformation of a multidisciplinary trauma team response of severe trauma patients, and the standardization of criteria for activation of the trauma teams. With these findings we elaborated a proposal adjusted to the needs and resources of Hospital Rafael Angel Calderon Guardia.

Variation in pediatric cervical spine imaging across trauma centers-A cause for concern?

BACKGROUND: Traumatic pediatric cervical spine injury can be challenging to diagnose, and the clinical algorithms meant to aid physicians differ from adult trauma protocols. Despite the existence of standardized guidelines, imaging decisions may vary according to physician education, subjective assessment, and experience with pediatric trauma patients. Our study investigates the rates of pediatric posttraumatic cervical spine imaging across trauma centers, hypothesizing that more specialized centers will have lower rates of advanced cervical spine imaging. METHODS: The 2015 to 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was reviewed for patients younger than 18 years- to assess rates of cervical spine imaging on presentation across different trauma centers. Propensity stratification logistic regression was performed controlling for patient- and center-specific variables. p Values less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of 110,769 pediatric trauma patients, 35.2% were female, and the average age was 9.6 years. Overall, 3.6% had cervical spine computed tomography (CT) and less than 1% had cervical spine MRI or X-ray. Compared with all others, Level I trauma centers were significantly less likely to use cervical spine CT for the initial evaluation of younger (≤14 years) but not older trauma patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.99; AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.09); Level I centers had higher odds of cervical spine MRI use, but only for patients 14 years or younger (AOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.09-2.44). Pediatric-designated trauma centers had significantly lower odds of cervical spine CT (≤14 years: AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; >14 years: AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75) and higher odds of cervical spine X-ray (≤14 years: AOR, 4.75; 95% CI, 3.55-6.36; >14 years: AOR, 4.50; 95% CI, 2.72-7.45) for all ages, but higher odds of cervical spine MRI for younger patients only (≤14 years: AOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21). CONCLUSION: Level I and pediatric designations were associated with lower rates of cervical spine CT. Pediatric centers were also more likely to use cervical spine X-ray. This variability of imaging use further supports the need to disseminate and educate providers on pediatric-specific cervical spine evaluation guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Preparation for the next major incident: are we ready? Comparing major trauma centres and other hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: A major incident is any emergency requiring special arrangements by the emergency services. All hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) detailing the response to such events. In 2006 and 2019, we assessed the preparedness and knowledge of key individuals in hospitals across England and found a substantial gap in responding to the MIP. In this report, we compare responses from doctors at major trauma centres (MTCs) and other hospitals (non-MTCs). METHODS: We identified trusts in England that received over 30 000 patients through the ED in the fourth quarter of 2016/2017. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked three questions assessing their confidence in using their hospital's MIP: (1) Have you read your hospital's MIP? (2) Do you know where you can access your hospital's MIP guidelines? (3) Do you know what role you would play if an MIP came into effect while you are on call?We compared data from MTCs and non-MTCs using multinomial mixed proportional odds models. RESULTS: There was a modest difference between responses from individuals at MTCs and non-MTCs for question 2 (OR=2.43, CI=1.03 to 5.73, p=0.04) but no evidence of a difference between question 1 (OR=1.41, CI=0.55 to 3.63, p=0.47) and question 3 (OR=1.78, CI=0.86 to 3.69, p=0.12). Emergency medicine and anaesthetic registrars showed significantly higher preparedness and knowledge across all domains. No evidence of a systematic difference in specialty response by MTC or otherwise was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Confidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England remains low. Doctors at MTCs tended to be better prepared and more knowledgeable, but this effect was only marginally significant. We make several recommendations to improve education on major incidents.

Don't mess with the pancreas! A multicenter analysis of the management of low-grade pancreatic injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, level IV.

Using performance frontiers to differentiate elective and capacity-based surgical services.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery (ACS) model of care delivery has many benefits. However, since the ACS surgeon has limited control over the volume, timing, and complexity of cases, traditional metrics of operating room (OR) efficiency almost always measure ACS service as "inefficient." The current study examines an alternative method-performance fronts-of evaluating changes in efficiency and tests the following hypotheses: (1) in an institution with a robust ACS service, performance front methodology is superior to traditional metrics in evaluating OR throughput/efficiency, and (2) introduction of an ACS service with block time allocation will improve OR throughput/efficiency. METHODS: Operating room metrics 1-year pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation were collected. Overall OR efficiency was calculated by mean case volumes for the entire OR and ACS and general surgery (GS) services individually. Detailed analysis of these two specific services was performed by gathering median monthly minutes-in block, out of block, after hours, and opportunity unused. The two services were examined using a traditional measure of efficiency and the "fronts" method. Services were compared with each other and also pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation. RESULTS: Overall OR case volumes increased by 5% (999 ± 50 to 1,043 ± 46: p < 0.05) with almost all of the increase coming through ACS (27 ± 4 to 68 ± 16: p < 0.05). By traditional metrics, ACS had significantly worse median efficiency versus GS in both periods: pre (0.67 [0.66-0.71] vs. 0.80 [0.78-0.81]) and post (0.75 [0.53-0.77] vs. 0.83 [0.84-0.85]) (p < 0.05). As compared with the pre, GS efficiency improved significantly in post (p < 0.05), but ACS efficiency remained unchanged (p > 0.05). The alternative fronts chart demonstrated the more accurate picture with improved efficiency observed for GS, ACS, and combined. CONCLUSION: In an institution with a busy ACS service, the alternative fronts methodology offers a more accurate evaluation of OR efficiency. The provision of an OR for the ACS service improves overall throughput/efficiency.

Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.

BACKGROUND: The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN). METHODS: Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared. RESULTS: There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III.

An Evaluation of Pediatric Secondary Overtriage in the Pennsylvania Trauma System.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the secondary overtriage rate of pediatric trauma patients admitted to pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that pediatric secondary overtriage (POT) would constitute a large percentage of admissions to PTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for pediatric (age ≤ 18 y) trauma patients transferred to accredited pediatric trauma centers in Pennsylvania (n = 6). Patients were stratified based on discharge within (early) and beyond (late) 24 h following admission. POT was defined as patients transferred to a PTC with an early discharge. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model controlling for demographic and injury severity covariates were utilized to determine the adjusted impact of injury patterns on early discharge. RESULTS: A total of 37,653 patients met inclusion criteria. For transfers, POT compromised 18,752 (49.8%) patients. Compared to POT, non-POT were more severely injured (ISS: 10 versus 6;P < 0.001) and spent less time in the ED (Min: 181 versus 207;P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, concussion, closed skull vault fractures, supracondylar humerus fractures, and consults to neurosurgery were associated with increased odds of POT. Overall, femur fracture, child abuse evaluation, and consults to plastic surgery, orthopedics, and ophthalmology were all associated with a decreased risk of being POT. CONCLUSIONS: POT comprises 49.8% of PTC transfer admissions in Pennsylvania's trauma system. Improving community resources for management of pediatric concussion and mild TBI could result in decreased rates of POT to PTCs. Developing better inter-facility transfer guidelines and increased education of adult TC and nontrauma center hospitals is needed to decrease POT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

In-house versus on-call trauma surgeon coverage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented. CONCLUSION: A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Trauma Center Outcomes After Transition From Level 2 to Level 1: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous US-based studies have shown that a trauma center designation of level 1 is associated with improved patient outcomes. However, most studies are cross-sectional, focus on volume-related issues and are direct comparisons between levels. This study investigates the change in patient characteristics when individual trauma centers transition from level 2 to level 1 and whether the patients have similar outcomes during the initial period of the transition. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study that analyzed hospital and patient records included in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2016. Patient characteristics were compared before and after their hospitals transitioned their trauma level. Mortality; complications including acute kidney injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac arrest with CPR, deep surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, extremity compartment syndrome, surgical site infection, osteomyelitis, pulmonary embolism, and so on; ICU admission; ventilation use; unplanned returns to the OR; unplanned ICU transfers; unplanned intubations; and lengths of stay were obtained following propensity score matching, comparing posttransition years with the last pretransition year. RESULTS: Sixteen trauma centers transitioned from level 2 to level 1 between 2007 and 2016. One was excluded due to missing data. After transition, patient characteristics showed differences in the distribution of race, comorbidities, insurance status, injury severity scores, injury mechanisms, and injury type. After propensity score matching, patients treated in a trauma center after transition from level 2 to 1 required significantly fewer ICU admissions and had lower complication rates. However, significantly more unplanned intubations, unplanned returns to the OR, unplanned ICU transfers, ventilation use, surgical site infections, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections and higher mortality were reported after the transition. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centers that transitioned from level 2 to level 1 had lower overall complications, with fewer patients requiring ICU admission. However, higher mortality and more surgical site infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, unplanned intubations, and unplanned ICU transfers were reported after the transition. These findings may have significant implications in the planning of trauma systems for administrators and healthcare leaders.

Toward an all-inclusive trauma system in Central South Ontario: development of the Trauma-System Performance Improvement and Knowledge Exchange (T-SPIKE) project.

Background: There is currently no integrated data system to capture the true burden of injury and its management within Ontario's regional trauma networks (RTNs), largely owing to difficulties in identifying these patients across the multiple health care provider records. Our project represents an iterative effort to create the ability to chart the course of care for all injured patients within the Central South RTN. Methods: Through broad stakeholder engagement of major health care provider organizations within the Central South RTN, we obtained research ethics board approval and established data-sharing agreements with multiple agencies. We tested identification of trauma cases from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2017, and methods to link patient records between the various echelons of care to identify barriers to linkage and opportunities for administrative solutions. Results: During 2017, potential trauma cases were identified within ground paramedic services (23 107 records), air medical transport services (196 records), referring hospitals (7194 records) and the lead trauma hospital trauma registry (1134 records). Linkage rates for medical records between services ranged from 49% to 92%. Conclusion: We successfully conceptualized and provided a preliminary demonstration of an initiative to collect, collate and accurately link primary data from acute trauma care providers for certain patients injured within the Central South RTN. Administration-level changes to the capture and management of trauma data represent the greatest opportunity for improvement.

Contexte: On ne dispose actuellement d'aucun système intégré de gestion des données pour évaluer le fardeau réel des traumatismes et de leur gestion dans les réseaux régionaux de traumatologie (RRT) en Ontario, en bonne partie en raison de la difficulté d'identifier les cas parmi la multiplicité des dossiers d'intervenants médicaux. Notre projet représente un effort itératif pour créer la capacité de cartographier le parcours de soin de tous les polytraumatisés du RRT de la région Centre-Sud. Méthodes: Grâce à l'engagement général des intervenants des grandes organisations de santé du RRT de la région Centre-Sud, nous avons obtenu l'approbation d'un comité d'éthique de la recherche et conclu des accords de partage des données avec plusieurs agences. Nous avons testé l'identification des cas de traumatologie du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2017 et les méthodes de liaison des dossiers de patients entre les divers échelons de soin pour identifier les obstacles à la liaison et leurs solutions administratives possibles. Résultats: Au cours de 2017, les cas de traumatologie potentiels ont été identifiés auprès des services ambulanciers terrestres (23 107 dossiers), des services de transport médical aérien (196 dossiers), des hôpitaux référents (7194 dossiers) et du registre hospitalier principal de traumatologie (1134 dossiers). Les taux de liaison entre les différents services pour les dossiers médicaux variaient de 49 % à 92 %. Conclusion: Nous avons conceptualisé et présenté avec succès la démonstration préliminaire d'un projet visant à recueillir, colliger et relier avec justesse les données primaires des intervenants en traumatologie aiguë pour certains patients blessés du RRT du Centre-Sud. Des changements administratifs centrés sur la saisie et la gestion des données de traumatologie représentent la meilleure voie vers une amélioration.

Changes in trends during the COVID-19 lockdown: An urban, Level-1 trauma center's experience.

BACKGROUND: A community lockdown has a profound impact on its citizens. Our objective was to identify changes in trauma patient demographics, volume, and pattern of injury following the COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at a Level-1 Trauma Center from 2017 to 2020. RESULTS: A downward trend in volume is seen December-April in 2020 (R2 = 0.9907). February through April showed an upward trend in 2018 and 2019 (R2= 0.80 and R2 = 0.90 respectively), but a downward trend in 2020 (R2 = 0.97). In April 2020, there was 41.6% decrease in total volume, a 47.4% decrease in blunt injury and no decrease in penetrating injury. In contrast to previous months, in April the majority of injuries occurred in home zip codes. CONCLUSIONS: A community lockdown decreased the number of blunt trauma, however despite social distancing, did not decrease penetrating injury. Injuries were more likely to occur in home zip codes.

Effectiveness of trauma centre verification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There is a growing trend toward verification of trauma centres, but its impact remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of trauma centre verification. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, HealthStar, MEDLINE and ProQuest databases, as well as the websites of key injury organizations for grey literature, from inception to June 2019, without language restrictions. Our population consisted of injured patients treated at trauma centres. The intervention was trauma centre verification. Comparison groups comprised nonverified trauma centres, or the same centre before it was first verified or re-verified. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included adverse events, resource use and processes of care. We computed pooled summary estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 5125 citations identified, 29, all conducted in the United States, satisfied our inclusion criteria. Mortality was the most frequently investigated outcome (n = 20), followed by processes of care (n = 12), resource use (n = 12) and adverse events (n = 7). The risk of bias was serious to critical in 22 studies. We observed an imprecise association between verification and decreased mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.06) in severely injured patients. Conclusion: Our review showed mixed and inconsistent associations between verification and processes of care or patient outcomes. The validity of the published literature is limited by the lack of robust controls, as well as any evidence from outside the US, which precludes extrapolation to other health care jurisdictions. Quasiexperimental studies are needed to assess the impact of trauma centre verification. Systematic reviews registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42018107083.

Contexte: Le processus d'audit des centres de traumatologie gagne en popularité, mais ses effets concrets ne sont pas bien connus. La présente revue systématique a cherché à résumer les données probantes disponibles sur l'efficacité de l'audit des centres de traumatologie. Méthodes: Nous avons effectué des recherches systématiques dans les bases de données CINAHL, Embase, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE et ProQuest, de même qu'une recherche dans la littérature grise sur les sites Web d'organisations majeures du domaine des traumas, de leur création à juin 2019, sans restriction de langue. La population à l'étude était l'ensemble des patients blessés traités en centre de traumatologie. L'intervention était l'audit du centre de traumatologie. Les groupes de comparaison correspondaient aux centres de traumatologie n'ayant pas subi d'audit, ou le même centre, avant son premier audit ou un audit subséquent. Le principal résultat à l'étude était la mortalité en milieu hospitalier; les résultats secondaires étaient les événements indésirables, l'utilisation des ressources et les processus de soins. Nous avons calculé des estimations sommaires par méta-analyse à effets aléatoires sur données groupées. Résultats: Sur les 5125 citations retenues, 29 publications sur des études menées aux États-Unis répondaient à nos critères d'inclusion. La mortalité était le résultat le plus souvent à l'étude (n = 20), puis suivaient les processus de soins (n = 12), l'utilisation des ressources (n = 12) et les événements indésirables (n = 7). Le risque de biais était important ou critique dans 22 études. Nous avons observé une association imprécise entre l'audit et une baisse de la mortalité (risque relatif 0,74; intervalle de confiance à 95 % 0,52 à 1,06) chez les patients ayant subi un trauma grave. Conclusion: Notre revue a conclu qu'il y avait des associations mitigées et manquant d'uniformité entre l'audit et les processus de soins ou les issues pour les patients. La validité des données à l'étude était limitée par un manque de contrôles fiables, ainsi que par l'absence de données provenant d'autres pays que les États-Unis, ce qui empêche l'extrapolation à d'autres systèmes de santé. Des études quasi expérimentales devront être menées pour évaluer les effets de l'audit des centres de traumatologie. Enregistrement de la revue systématique: Registre PROSPERO, numéro CRD42018107083.

Incidental Findings in the Trauma Population: Interdisciplinary Approach and Electronic Medical Record Reminder Association with Pre-Discharge Reporting and Medicolegal Risk.

BACKGROUND: Incidental findings (IFs) are reported in 20% or more of trauma CT scans. In addition to the importance of patient disclosure, there is considerable legal pressure to avoid missed diagnoses. We reported previously that 63.5% of IFs were disclosed before discharge and with 20% were nondisclosed. We initiated a multidisciplinary systemic plan to effect predischarge disclosure by synoptic CT reports with American College of Radiology recommended follow-up, electronic medical records discharge prompts, and provider education. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational series patients from November 2019 to February 2020 were included. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS, version 21 (IBM Corp). RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy-seven patients underwent 1 or more CT scans for the evaluation of trauma (507 were male and 370 were female). Mean age of the patients was 57 years (range 14 to 99 years) and 96% had blunt injury. In 315 patients, there were 523 IFs (1.7 per patient); the most common were lung (17.5%), kidney (13%), and liver (11%). Radiology report compliance rate was 84% (210 of 249 patients). There were 66 studies from outside facilities. Sixteen IFs were suspicious for malignancy. A total of 151 patients needed no follow-up and 148 patients needed future follow-up evaluation. Predischarge IF disclosure compliance rate was 90.1% (286 patients); 25 were post discharge. Four patients remained undisclosed. Compared with our previous report, clearer reporting and electronic medical records prompts increased predischarge disclosure from 63.5% to 90.1% (p < 0.01, chi-square test) and decreased days to notification from 29.5 (range 0 to 277) to 5.2 (range 0 to 59) (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSIONS: Timely, complete disclosure of IFs improves patient outcomes and reduces medicolegal risk. Collaboration among trauma, radiology, and information technology promotes improved disclosure in trauma populations.

Direct versus indirect transfer for traumatic brain injury to James Cook University Hospital: a retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with traumatic brain injury are referred to the neurosurgical unit at James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, either from local accident and emergency departments (direct transfer from the scene) or from other hospitals (indirect transfer). This study looked at the outcome in both groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study using trauma audit research network data for patients treated for traumatic brain injury at the neurosurgery department at the neurosurgical unit at James Cook University Hospital. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients with traumatic brain injury were admitted under the care of neurosurgeons; 143 (40%) of these patients had a neurosurgical procedure. Of the patients undergoing a neurological procedure, 111 patients were transferred directly while 32 were indirect transfers; 213 patients were managed conservatively. Of those managed conservatively, 165 were transferred directly while 48 were indirect transfers. We compared the length of hospital stay and Glasgow Outcome Scale score for the patients based on whether they were conservatively managed or required surgery in the direct and indirect transfer groups. The difference in the length of stay in the surgical and conservative groups following direct and indirect transfer was insignificant (p = 0.07). The time to the operation in direct and indirect transfer was also not statistically significant (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Patients are as safe, if not safer, by reaching the nearest trauma unit with facilities for resuscitation and imaging.