Mass casualty medicine: time for a 21st century refresh.

Mass casualty events are on the rise globally, as we face increasing pressures from scarcity of resources, population growth, systemic inequalities, geopolitical instabilities, and polarised discourse. Although they are rare events for an individual practitioner, they are going to happen to someone, somewhere, this week, this month, this year. And whilst they are often the last consideration for healthcare systems under constant pressures from daily routine work, individuals, departments, hospitals, and systems have to step up effectively in times of crisis. Failure to do so can lead to suboptimal outcomes for casualties, and even perceived failures can have crippling consequences on staff, families, and communities for years.

Managing the surge in demand for blood following mass casualty events: Early automatic restocking may preserve red cell supply.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic hemorrhage is a leading preventable cause of mortality following mass casualty events (MCEs). Improving outcomes requires adequate in-hospital provision of high-volume red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. This study investigated strategies for optimizing RBC provision to casualties in MCEs using simulation modeling. METHODS: A computerized simulation model of a UK major trauma center (TC) transfusion system was developed. The model used input data from past MCEs and civilian and military trauma registries. We simulated the effect of varying on-shelf RBC stock hold and the timing of externally restocking RBC supplies on TC treatment capacity across increasing loads of priority one (P1) and two (P2) casualties from an event. RESULTS: Thirty-five thousand simulations were performed. A casualty load of 20 P1s and P2s under standard TC RBC stock conditions left 35% (95% confidence interval, 32-38%) of P1s and 7% (4-10%) of P2s inadequately treated for hemorrhage. Additionally, exhaustion of type O emergency RBC stocks (a surrogate for reaching surge capacity) occurred in a median of 10 hours (IQR, 5 to >12 hours). Doubling casualty load increased this to 60% (57-63%) and 30% (26-34%), respectively, with capacity reached in 2 hours (1-3 hours). The model identified a minimum requirement of 12 U of on-shelf RBCs per P1/P2 casualty received to prevent surge capacity being reached. Restocking supplies in an MCE versus greater permanent on-shelf RBC stock holds was considered at increasing hourly intervals. T-test analysis showed no difference between stock hold versus supply restocking with regard to overall outcomes for MCEs up to 80 P1s and P2s in size (p < 0.05), provided the restock occurred within 6 hours. CONCLUSION: Even limited-sized MCEs threaten to overwhelm TC transfusion systems. An early-automated push approach to restocking RBCs initiated by central suppliers can produce equivocal outcomes compared with holding excess stock permanently at TCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Minimum data set to measure rehabilitation needs and health outcome after major trauma: application of an international framework.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of long term health outcome after trauma remains non-standardized and ambiguous which limits national and international comparison of burden of injuries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the application of the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) to measure rehabilitation and health outcome worldwide. No previous poly-trauma studies have applied the ICF comprehensively to evaluate outcome after injury. AIM: To apply the ICF categorization in patients with traumatic injuries to identify a minimum data set of important rehabilitation and health outcomes to enable national and international comparison of outcome data. DESIGN: A mixed methods design of patient interviews and an on-line survey. SETTING: An ethnically diverse urban major trauma center in London. POPULATION: Adult patients with major traumatic injuries (poly-trauma) and international health care professionals (HCPs) working in acute and post-acute major trauma settings. METHODS: Mixed methods investigated patients and health care professionals (HCPs) perspectives of important rehabilitation and health outcomes. Qualitative patient data and quantitative HCP data were linked to ICF categories. Combined data were refined to identify a minimum data set of important rehabilitation and health outcome categories. RESULTS: Transcribed patient interview data (N.=32) were linked to 234 (64%) second level ICF categories. Two hundred and fourteen HCPs identified 121 from a possible 140 second level ICF categories (86%) as relevant and important. Patients and HCPs strongly agreed on ICF body structures and body functions categories which include temperament, energy and drive, memory, emotions, pain and repair function of the skin. Conversely, patients prioritised domestic tasks, recreation and work compared to HCP priorities of self-care and mobility. Twenty six environmental factors were identified. Patient and HCP data were refined to recommend a 109 possible ICF categories for a minimum data set. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive measurement of health outcomes after trauma is important for patients, health professionals and trauma systems. An internationally applied ICF minimum data set will standardize the language used and concepts measured after major trauma to enable national and international comparison of outcome data. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: A minimum ICF data set for trauma will standardize rehabilitation language and provide a minimum dataset to capture outcome in trauma systems to enable comparison and service improvement.

Quantifying the healthcare costs of treating severely bleeding major trauma patients: a national study for England.

INTRODUCTION: Severely bleeding trauma patients are a small proportion of the major trauma population but account for 40% of all trauma deaths. Healthcare resource use and costs are likely to be substantial but have not been fully quantified. Knowledge of costs is essential for developing targeted cost reduction strategies, informing health policy, and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: In collaboration with the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) detailed patient-level data on in-hospital resource use, extended care at hospital discharge, and readmissions up to 12 months post-injury were collected on 441 consecutive adult major trauma patients with severe bleeding presenting at 22 hospitals (21 in England and one in Wales). Resource use data were costed using national unit costs and mean costs estimated for the cohort and for clinically relevant subgroups. Using nationally available data on trauma presentations in England, patient-level cost estimates were up-scaled to a national level. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) total cost of initial hospital inpatient care was £19,770 (£18,177 to £21,364) per patient, of which 62% was attributable to ventilation, intensive care, and ward stays, 16% to surgery, and 12% to blood component transfusion. Nursing home and rehabilitation unit care and re-admissions to hospital increased the cost to £20,591 (£18,924 to £22,257). Costs were significantly higher for more severely injured trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥15) and those with blunt injuries. Cost estimates for England were £148,300,000, with over a third of this cost attributable to patients aged 65 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: Severely bleeding major trauma patients are a high cost subgroup of all major trauma patients, and the cost burden is projected to rise further as a consequence of an aging population and as evidence continues to emerge on the benefits of early and simultaneous administration of blood products in pre-specified ratios. The findings from this study provide a previously unreported baseline from which the potential impact of changes to service provision and/or treatment practice can begin to be evaluated. Further studies are still required to determine the full costs of post-discharge care requirements, which are also likely to be substantial.

Improving outcomes in the early phases after major trauma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review is to describe what is known about injury outcomes and the principles by which they can be improved by acute phase interventions. Assessing which outcomes matter to trauma patients is important both for the evaluation of existing and novel acute interventions and to assess the delivery of care within trauma systems' performance improvement frameworks. RECENT FINDINGS: Trauma care is moving away from the straightforward assessment of simple endpoints such as mortality or amputation. These have limited applicability and may not truly demonstrate the effectiveness of some acute interventions. Other intermediate or long-term measures are more patient-centred but are harder to measure, collect and interpret. Acute interventions improve outcomes through a combination of early definitive care concurrent with techniques to maintain homeostasis and preserve cells and tissues. These interventions need to be delivered within a regional systems framework. Trauma systems improve outcomes by reducing randomness and error from trauma care pathways. SUMMARY: Improving outcomes in the acute phase of trauma care requires the timely delivery of complex interventions with an organized trauma system. Research is needed both in developing novel interventions and in developing and validating patient-centred and surrogate outcome tools.

The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the CRASH-2 trial was to assess the effects of early administration of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage. Tranexamic acid significantly reduced all-cause mortality. Because tranexamic acid is thought to exert its effect through inhibition of fibrinolysis, we undertook exploratory analyses of its effect on death due to bleeding. METHODS: The CRASH-2 trial was undertaken in 274 hospitals in 40 countries. 20,211 adult trauma patients with, or at risk of, significant bleeding were randomly assigned within 8 h of injury to either tranexamic acid (loading dose 1 g over 10 min followed by infusion of 1 g over 8 h) or placebo. Patients were randomly assigned by selection of the lowest numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight numbered packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Both participants and study staff (site investigators and trial coordinating centre staff ) were masked to treatment allocation. We examined the effect of tranexamic acid on death due to bleeding according to time to treatment, severity of haemorrhage as assessed by systolic blood pressure, Glasgow coma score (GCS), and type of injury. All analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered as ISRCTN86750102, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00375258, and South African Clinical Trial Register/Department of Health DOH-27-0607-1919. FINDINGS: 10,096 patients were allocated to tranexamic acid and 10,115 to placebo, of whom 10,060 and 10,067, respectively, were analysed. 1063 deaths (35%) were due to bleeding. We recorded strong evidence that the effect of tranexamic acid on death due to bleeding varied according to the time from injury to treatment (test for interaction p<0.0001). Early treatment (≤1 h from injury) significantly reduced the risk of death due to bleeding (198/3747 [5.3%] events in tranexamic acid group vs 286/3704 [7.7%] in placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.82; p<0.0001). Treatment given between 1 and 3 h also reduced the risk of death due to bleeding (147/3037 [4.8%] vs 184/2996 [6.1%]; RR 0.79, 0.64-0.97; p=0.03). Treatment given after 3 h seemed to increase the risk of death due to bleeding (144/3272 [4.4%] vs 103/3362 [3.1%]; RR 1.44, 1.12-1.84; p=0.004). We recorded no evidence that the effect of tranexamic acid on death due to bleeding varied by systolic blood pressure, Glasgow coma score, or type of injury. INTERPRETATION: Tranexamic acid should be given as early as possible to bleeding trauma patients. For trauma patients admitted late after injury, tranexamic acid is less effective and could be harmful. FUNDING: UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme, Pfizer, BUPA Foundation, and J P Moulton Charitable Foundation.