Virtual Rural Trauma Team Development Course: Trying to Zoom in on a Solution.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prevented centers from providing in-person interactive training programs such as the Rural Trauma Team Development Course. Adapting the course to a virtual platform is an option, yet little is known regarding the feasibility of using this format. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of providing a virtual rural trauma development course during COVID-19. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of emergency medical technicians, nurses, emergency department technicians, and physicians from four rural community health care facilities and local emergency medical services who participated in a virtual Rural Trauma Team Development Course held in November 2021 which was transformed into a virtual platform using live remote interactive lectures, recorded case-based scenarios, and interactive virtual-based questions. The course was evaluated by the changes instituted at the centers based on program recommendations and a participant survey. RESULTS: A total of 41 participants were studied, of whom 31 (75%) returned the emailed postprogram survey. The majority (>75%) of respondents rated the activity as very good, with course objectives met. All four facilities instituted changes following the program, including enhancing policy and procedures, guidelines, advancing performance improvement triggers, and equipment acquisition. Individual-reported participant satisfaction was very high. CONCLUSION: The Rural Trauma Team Development Course can be provided virtually and is a feasible option for trauma centers to provide initial trauma management in the rural community in a safe pandemic-restrictive atmosphere.

Evaluation of a virtual geriatric trauma institute.

Geriatric trauma patients require specialized care. Objective of this study was to compare outcomes for geriatric trauma patients before and after the implementation of a virtual geriatric trauma institute. This is a retrospective chart review of 583 trauma patients older than 65 years admitted to a rural level 1 trauma center before and after the implementation of a geriatric trauma institute. Length of stay was decreased from 4.99 to 3.9 days (P = .0014). Emergency department length of stay was decreased by approximately 10 minutes (P = .059), and time from the emergency department to the operating room was decreased by 470 minutes (P = .262).

Retrospective Evaluation of the Impact of a Geriatric Trauma Institute on Fragility Hip Fracture Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Fragility hip fractures occur in the older than 65-year population at an alarming rate. It is estimated that 260,000 hip fractures occur annually. Patient outcomes following hip fractures are devastating. One of every 5 patients dies within 1 year of injury, and 1 of 3 remains in a nursing home for years after the injury. Published literature recommends an interdisciplinary approach to caring for hip-fractured patients and expediting surgery to improve outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the impact of the Geriatric Trauma Institute (GTI) on fragility hip fracture patient outcomes. Specific outcomes included length of stay (LOS), length of time from emergency department (ED) arrival to operating room (OR), complication rate, and discharge destination. METHODS: This study is a single-center pre- and post-retrospective chart review. Data were collected using database queries within the hospital system. Pre-GTI (n = 326) patients older than 65 years with International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 820.0-820.9 (hip fractures) admitted to either a primary care physician or orthopaedic surgeon service between April 1, 2011, and April 1, 2013, were compared with post-GTI (n = 245) patients older than 65 years with ICD-9 codes 820.0-820.9 (hip fractures) admitted to trauma services (GTI) between May 1, 2013, and May 1, 2015. Descriptive statistics including demographic data (age, sex) and comparison of outcomes (LOS, ED to OR time, complications, and disposition) across the groups using standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation techniques. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, or time from ED to OR pre- versus post-time period using one-way ANOVA, F(1,569) = 1.08, p = .30. The complication rate was calculated pre- and post-GTI and compared using the 2-proportion z-test. The difference between the pre-GTI group (16.6%; 54 of 326 patients) and the post-GTI group (9.4%; 23 of 245 patients) was statistically significant, p = .013. Mean LOS was statistically significantly higher in the pre-GTI group (M = 5) than in the post-GTI group (M = 5.2), U = 33,55, z = -3.32, p = .001. No statistical significance was found between pre- and postdischarge destination, χ(4) = .4.82, p = .307; likelihood ratio test, χ(4) = .5.19, p = .269. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective pre- and post-GTI chart review demonstrates the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team approach in decreasing complications and LOS for fragility hip-fractured patients. A team approach to the care of these patients improves outcomes and quality of life.

The Geriatric Trauma Institute: reducing the increasing burden of senior trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Owing to parallel advances in health care and an aging population, geriatric injury has become an increasing burden to trauma systems, suggesting that specific clinical pathways may improve the care of this cohort. We created a dedicated Geriatric Trauma Institute, with multidisciplinary support, as a part of our existing trauma program, theorizing that the Geriatric Trauma Institute would promote quality care, reduce the length of stay, and reduce hospital charges. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the prospective database of our level 1 trauma center. Patients aged 65 years or older were identified over 12 months, representing 5 months prior and also after the implementation of the new program. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was reduced for admissions to a nontrauma vs geriatric trauma service (5.64 vs 4.43 days; P = .03), generating a charge reduction of 21.4% in only the first 5 months after program implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings, which require longer-term analysis, suggest that a dedicated geriatric trauma multidisciplinary system promotes quality patient care, improves throughput, and results in significant cost savings via reduced length of stay and concomitant hospital charges.