Evaluation of Prehospital Undertriage in Relation to Trauma Team Activation-Results from a Prospective Study in 12 Level one German Trauma Centers.

Background/Objective: This prospective, multicenter observational cohort study was carried out in 12 trauma centers in Germany and Switzerland. Its purpose was to evaluate the rate of undertriage, as well as potential consequences, and relate these with different Trauma Team Activation Protocols (TTA-Protocols), as this has not been done before in Germany. Methods: Each trauma center collected the data during a three-month period between December 2019 and February 2021. All 12 participating hospitals are certified as supra-regional trauma centers. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of undertriaged patients. Those included in the study were all consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with acute trauma admitted to the emergency department of one of the participating hospitals by the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) within 6 h after trauma. The data contained information on age, sex, trauma mechanism, pre- and in-hospital physiology, emergency interventions, emergency surgical interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death within 48 h. Trauma team activation (TTA) was initiated by the emergency medical services. This should follow the national guidelines for severe trauma using established field triage criteria. We used various denominators, such as ISS, and criteria for the appropriateness of TTA to evaluate the undertriage in four groups. Results: This study included a total of 3754 patients. The average injury severity score was 5.1 points, and 7.0% of cases (n = 261) presented with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16+. TTA was initiated for a total of 974 (26%) patients. In group 1, we evaluated how successful the actual practice in the EMS was in identifying patients with ISS 16+. The undertriage rate was 15.3%, but mortality was lower in the undertriage cohort compared to those with a TTA (5% vs. 10%). In group 2, we evaluated the actual practice of EMS in terms of identifying patients meeting the appropriateness of TTA criteria; this showed a higher undertriage rate of 35.9%, but as seen in group 1, the mortality was lower (5.9% vs. 3.3%). In group 3, we showed that, if the EMS were to strictly follow guideline criteria, the rate of undertriage would be even higher (26.2%) regarding ISS 16+. Using the appropriateness of TTA criteria to define the gold standard for TTA (group 4), 764 cases (20.4%) fulfilled at least one condition for retrospective definition of TTA requirement. Conclusions: Regarding ISS 16+, the rate of undertriage in actual practice was 15.3%, but those patients did not have a higher mortality.

ISS alone, is not sufficient to correctly assign patients post hoc to trauma team requirement.

PURPOSE: An injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 alone, is commonly used post hoc to define the correct activation of a trauma team. However, abnormal vital functions and the requirement of life-saving procedures may also have a role in defining trauma team requirement post hoc. The aim of this study was to describe their prevalence and mortality in severely injured patients and to estimate their potential additional value in the definition of trauma team requirement as compared to the definition based on ISS alone. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a trauma registry including patients with trauma team activation from the years 2009 until 2015, who were 16 years of age or older and were brought to the trauma center directly from the scene. Patients were divided into a group with an ISS ≥ 16 vs. ISS < 16. For analysis a predefined list of abnormal vital functions and life-saving interventions was used. RESULTS: 58,723 patients were included in the study (N = 32,653 with ISS ≥ 16; N = 26,070 with ISS < 16). From the total number of patients that required life-saving procedures or presented with abnormal vital functions 29.1% were found in the ISS < 16 group. From the ISS < 16 group, 36.7% of patients required life-saving procedures or presented with abnormal vital signs. The mortality of those was 8.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Defining the true requirement of trauma team activation post hoc by using ISS ≥ 16 alone does miss a considerable number of subjects who require life-saving interventions or present with abnormal vital functions. Therefore, life-saving interventions and abnormal vital functions should be included in the definitions for trauma team requirement. Further studies have to evaluate, which life-saving procedures and abnormal vital functions are most relevant.

Evaluation of a standardized instrument for post hoc analysis of trauma-team-activation-criteria in 75,613 injured patients an analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the quality of criteria for trauma-team-activation it is necessary to identify patients who benefited from the treatment by a trauma team. Therefore, we evaluated a post hoc criteria catalogue for trauma-team-activation which was developed in a consensus process by an expert group and published recently. The objective was to examine whether the catalogue can identify patients that died after admission to the hospital and therefore can benefit from a specialized trauma team mostly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The catalogue was applied to the data of 75,613 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® between the 01/2007 and 12/2016 with a maximum abbreviated injury score (AIS) severity ≥ 2. The endpoint was hospital mortality, which was defined as death before discharge from acute care. RESULTS: The TraumaRegister DGU® dataset contains 18 of the 20 proposed criteria within the catalogue which identified 99.6% of the patients who were admitted to the trauma room following an accident and who died during their hospital stay. Moreover, our analysis showed that at least one criterion was fulfilled in 59,785 cases (79.1%). The average ISS in this group was 21.2 points (SD 9.9). None of the examined criteria applied to 15,828 cases (average ISS 8.6; SD 5). The number of consensus-based criteria correlated with the severity of injury and mortality. Of all deceased patients (8,451), only 31 (0.37%) could not be identified on the basis of the 18 examined criteria. Where only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was 1.7%; with 2 or more criteria, mortality was at least 4.6%. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based criteria identified nearly all patients who died as a result of their injuries. If only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was relatively low. However, it increased to almost 5% if two criteria were fulfilled. Further studies are necessary to analyse and examine the relative weighting of the various criteria. Our instrument is capable to identify severely injured patients with increased in-hospital mortality and injury severity. However, a minimum of two criteria needs to be fulfilled. Based on these findings, we conclude that the criteria list is useful for post hoc analysis of the quality of field triage in patients with severe injury.

Correction to: Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained some mistakes.

Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

BACKGROUND: The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator. RESULTS: By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS <14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO2) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.

Prone positioning improves oxygenation in post-traumatic lung injury--a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In a prospective randomized trial the effect of prone positioning on the duration of mechanical ventilation was evaluated in multiple trauma patients and was compared with patients ventilated in supine position. METHOD: Multiple trauma patients of the intensive care units of two university hospitals were considered eligible if they met the criteria for acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients in the prone group (N = 21) were kept prone for at least eight hours and a maximum of 23 hours per day. Prone positioning was continued until a PaO2:FiO2 ratio of more than 300 was present in prone as well as supine position over a period of 48 hours. Patients in the supine group (N = 19) were positioned according to standard care guidelines. RESULTS: The duration of ventilatory support did not differ significantly (30 +/- 17 days in the prone group and 33 +/- 23 days in the supine group). Worst case analysis (death and deterioration of gas exchange) displayed ventilatory support for 41 +/- 29 days in the prone group and 61 +/- 35 days in the supine group (p = 0.06). The PaO2:FiO2 ratio increased significantly more in the prone group in the first four days (p = 0.03). The prevalence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) following acute lung injury (p = 0.03) and the prevalence of pneumonia (p = 0.048) were reduced also. One patient in the prone and three patients in the supine group died due to multi organ failure (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent prone positioning was not able to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in this limited number of patients. However the oxygenation improved significantly over the first four days of treatment, and the prevalence of ARDS and pneumonia were reduced.