Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

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.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

International Association for Trauma Surgery and Intensive Care (IATSIC): a historical vignette.

IATSIC was conceived in the mid-1980s by Martin Allgöwer. Its goal was to provide an international forum and to disseminate knowledge of trauma care globally. It has met and continues to meet this goal. IATSIC provides a forum for scholarly exchange and thus for elevating the global discussion of trauma. The organization propagates standards of care and provides courses for training surgeons and other healthcare professionals. Further, IATSIC continues to provide a solid foundation for quality practice and management of trauma by emphasizing not only the need to prioritize care of the injured worldwide, but also the knowledge, skills, tactics, and techniques needed to provide the care in a wide variety of environments around the globe. With the other specialty societies (IAES, IASMEN, ISDS, and BSI), it provides a substantial and sustaining underpinning for the ongoing activities of ISS/SIC. Martin Allgöwer died on October 27, 2007, but his vision lives on (Fig. 6).

Combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan: A latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had the most casualties since Vietnam with more than 53,000 wounded in action. Novel injury mechanisms, such as improvised explosive devices, and higher rates of survivability compared with previous wars led to a new pattern of combat injuries. The purpose of the present study was to use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify combat injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious wounds. METHODS: A total of 5,227 combat casualty events with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or greater that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan from December 2002 to July 2019 were identified from the Expeditionary Medical Encounter Database for analysis. The Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix was used to classify injuries into binary variables by site and type of injury. LCA was employed to identify injury profiles that accounted for co-occurring injuries. Injury profiles were described and compared by demographic, operational, and injury-specific variables. RESULTS: Seven injury profiles were identified and defined as: (1) open wounds (18.8%), (2) Type 1 traumatic brain injury (TBI)/facial injuries (14.2%), (3) disseminated injuries (6.8%), (4) Type 2 TBI (15.4%), (5) lower extremity injuries (19.8%), (6) burns (7.4%), and (7) chest and/or abdominal injuries (17.7%). Profiles differed by service branch, combat location, year of injury, injury mechanism, combat posture at the time of injury, and ISS. CONCLUSION: LCA identified seven distinct and interpretable injury profiles among U.S. military personnel who survived serious combat injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan. These findings may be of interest to military medical planners as resource needs are evaluated and projected for future conflicts, and medical professionals involved in the rehabilitation of wounded service members.

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care.

Importance: The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. Objective: To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. Results: Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.

Importance: Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences. Objective: To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.

Recombinant activated factor VII safety in trauma patients: results from the CONTROL trial.

BACKGROUND: Safety data on recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa, NovoSeven; Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) in actively hemorrhaging trauma patients are limited. We present detailed safety data from a large multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study (the CONTROL trial). METHODS: Data from 560 patients were analyzed. Subjects were monitored for adverse events (AEs) after rFVIIa or placebo administration. Incidences, timing, and presence of risk factors were reported by site investigators, supported by external study monitors and overseen by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: There were no differences in overall mortality, organ system failure, or AEs, serious AEs, or medical events of special interest. Arterial and venous thromboembolic (TE) events and their risk factors were similar in both groups. The greatest risk factor for TE events was a chest injury requiring mechanical ventilation >3 days (86%). There were four site investigator-reported myocardial infarctions in the rFVIIa group of which only one met diagnostic criteria preestablished by the Data Monitoring Committee. There were no reported myocardial infarctions in the placebo group. Troponins were increased in 30% of all patients. The rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome was lower in the rFVIIa (3.0%) than in the placebo (7.2%) group (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: This represents the largest placebo-controlled dataset of rFVIIa use in trauma patients to date. In this prospective study of critically bleeding trauma patients, rFVIIa use was associated with an imbalance of investigator-reported Acute myocardial infarction/non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI/NSTEMI), but was not associated with an increased risk for other AEs, including TE complications.

Impact of trauma centre accreditation on mortality and complications in a Canadian trauma system: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Periodic external accreditation visits aiming to determine whether trauma centres are fulfilling the criteria for optimal care are part of most trauma systems. However, despite the growing trend towards accreditation of trauma centres, its impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. In addition, a recent systematic review found inconsistent results on the association between accreditation and patient outcomes, mostly due to the lack of robust controls. We aim to address these gaps by assessing the impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality and complications, using an interrupted time series (ITS) design. METHODS: We included all major trauma admissions to five level I and four level II trauma centres in Quebec, Canada between 2008 and 2017. In order to perform ITS, we first obtained monthly and quarterly estimates of the proportions of in-hospital mortality and complications, respectively, for level I and level II centres. Prognostic scores were used to standardise these proportions to account for changes in patient case mix and segmented regressions with autocorrelated errors were used to estimate changes in levels and trends in both outcomes following accreditation. RESULTS: There were 51 035 admissions, including 20 165 for major trauma during the study period. After accounting for changes in patient case mix and secular trend in studied outcomes, we globally did not observe an association between accreditation and patient outcomes. However, associations were heterogeneous across centres. For example, in a level II centre with worsening preaccreditation outcomes, accreditation led to -9.08 (95% CI -13.29 to -4.87) and -9.60 (95% CI -15.77 to -3.43) percentage point reductions in mortality and complications, respectively. CONCLUSION: Accreditation seemed to be beneficial for centres that were experiencing a decrease in performance preceding accreditation.

Value of repeat CT for nonoperative management of patients with blunt liver and spleen injury: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of routine repeat computed tomography (CT) for nonoperative management (NOM) of adults with blunt liver and/or spleen injury. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental and observational studies of repeat CT in adult patients with blunt abdominal injury. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from their inception to October 2020 using Cochrane guidelines. Primary outcomes were change in clinical management (e.g., emergency surgery, embolization, blood transfusion, clinical surveillance), mortality, and complications. Secondary outcomes were hospital readmission and length of stay. RESULTS: Search results yielded 1611 studies of which 28 studies including 2646 patients met our inclusion criteria. The majority reported on liver (n = 9) or spleen injury (n = 16) or both (n = 3). No RCTs were identified. Meta-analyses were not possible because no study performed direct comparisons of study outcomes across intervention groups. Only seven of the twenty-eight studies reported whether repeat CT was routine or prompted by clinical indication. In these 7 studies, among the 254 repeat CT performed, 188 (74%) were routine and 8 (4%) of these led to a change in clinical management. Of the 66 (26%) repeated CT prompted by clinical indication, 31 (47%) led to a change in management. We found no data allowing comparison of any other outcomes across intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Routine repeat CT without clinical indication is not useful in the management of patients with liver and/or spleen injury. However, effect estimates were imprecise and included studies were of low methodological quality. Given the risks of unnecessary radiation and costs associated with repeat CT, future research should aim to estimate the frequency of such practices and assess practice variation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Level II.

Improved characterization of combat injury.

BACKGROUND: Combat injury patterns differ from civilian trauma in that the former are largely explosion-related, comprising multiple mechanistic and fragment injuries and high-kinetic-energy bullets. Further, unlike civilians, U.S. armed forces combatants are usually heavily protected with helmets and Kevlar body armor with ceramic plate inserts. Searchable databases providing actionable, statistically valid knowledge of body surface entry wounds and resulting organ injury severity are essential to understanding combat trauma. METHODS: Two tools were developed to address these unique aspects of combat injury: (1) the Surface Wound Mapping (SWM) database and Surface Wound Analysis Tool (SWAT) software that were developed to generate 3D density maps of point-of-surface wound entry and resultant anatomic injury severity; and (2) the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005-Military that was developed by a panel of military trauma surgeons to account for multiple injury etiology from explosions and other high-kinetic- energy weapons. Combined data from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry, Navy/Marine Combat Trauma Registry, and the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System Mortality Trauma Registry were coded in AIS 2005-Military, entered into the SWM database, and analyzed for entrance site and wounding path. RESULTS: When data on 1,151 patients, who had a total of 3,500 surface wounds and 12,889 injuries, were entered into SWM, surface wounds averaged 3.0 per casualty and injuries averaged 11.2 per casualty. Of the 3,500 surface wounds, 2,496 (71%) were entrance wounds with 6,631 (51%) associated internal injuries, with 2.2 entrance wounds and 5.8 associated injuries per casualty (some details cannot be given because of operational security). Crude deaths rates were calculated using Maximum AIS-Military. CONCLUSION: These new tools have been successfully implemented to describe combat injury, mortality, and distribution of wounds and associated injuries. AIS 2005-Military is a more precise assignment of severity to military injuries. SWM has brought data from all three combat registries together into one analyzable database. SWM and SWAT allow visualization of wounds and associated injuries by region on a 3D model of the body.

Thromboembolic complications following trauma.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have reported an increased incidence of thromboembolic complications following trauma. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a literature review and queried the National Trauma Data Bank to more closely examine the incidence of a variety of thromboembolic complications following injury. RESULTS: Thromboembolic events are rare, but occur at a greater rate in more severely injured patients. It is unclear, however, whether the incidence of thromboembolic complications in trauma patients is on the rise overall. Differences in study populations, particularly injury severity scores, as well as different methods of screening, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment have led to extreme differences in reported rates. CONCLUSION: While recent research has added to the body of knowledge, continued efforts focusing on risk stratification, diagnosis, screening, prophylaxis, and treatment are necessary to rationally understand the spectrum of thrombotic complications.

Injuries from explosions: physics, biophysics, pathology, and required research focus.

BACKGROUND: Explosions cause more complex and multiple forms of damage than any other wounding agent, are the leading cause of death on the battlefield, and are often used by terrorists. Because explosion-related injuries are infrequently seen in civilian practice, a broader base of knowledge is needed in the medical community to address acute needs of patients with explosion-related injuries and to broaden mitigation-focused research efforts. The objective of this review is to provide insight into the complexities of explosion-related injury to help more precisely target research efforts to the most pressing areas of need in primary prevention, mitigation, and consequence management. METHODS: An understanding of the physics and biological consequences of explosions together with data on the nature or severity of contemporary combat injuries provide an empiric basis for a comprehensive and balanced portfolio of explosion-related research. Cited works were identified using MeSH terms as directed by subtopic. Uncited information was drawn from the authors' surgical experience in Iraq, analysis of current combat trauma databases, and explosion-related research. RESULTS: Data from Iraq and Afghanistan confirm that survivable injuries from explosions are dominated by penetrating fragment wounds, substantiating longstanding and well-known blast physics mechanisms. Keeping this factual basis in mind will allow for appropriate vectoring of funds to increase understanding of this military and public health problem; address specific research and training needs; and improve mitigation strategies, tactics, and techniques for vehicles and personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive approach to injury from explosions should include not only primary prevention, but also injury mitigation and consequence management. Recalibration of medical research focus will improve management of injuries from explosions, with profound implications in both civilian and military healthcare systems.

The importance of vehicle rollover as a field triage criterion.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this article was to review the importance of vehicle rollover as a field triage criterion. In 1987, field triage criteria were developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma that have been propagated repeatedly over the subsequent 20+ years. The field triage decision scheme is based on abnormal physiology, obvious abnormal anatomy, mechanism of injury likely to result in severe injury, and other factors (age, etc.) and was supported by available science at that time. In 2005, the triage scheme was revised by a committee, and vehicle rollover as a crash scene triage criterion was dropped in 2006. METHODS: The medical literature and data from the Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatal Accident Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling System were analyzed to determine the contribution of rollover to morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Vehicle rollovers represent a small but significant percentage of crashes; of the almost 12 million vehicle crashes reported by NHTSA in 2004, only 2.4% were rollovers, but these accounted for one-third of all crash-related occupant deaths and about 25,000 serious injuries every year. Rollovers are associated with the second highest number of vehicle occupant deaths by crash mode, three times the risk of injury when compared with other impact directions (p < 0.0001), specific types of injury such as head and spinal cord injuries, and a risk of death >15 times the risk in nonrollover crashes. CONCLUSION: The data and literature unequivocally show a strong and disproportionate association between vehicle rollover and injury severity and death. Because it is difficult to devise simple, accurate decision rules for point of wounding and vehicle crash scene triage, simple, powerful relationships should be used when possible. Thus, the exclusion of rollover as a triage criterion seems to be ill advised.

Effectiveness of trauma centers verification: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION: This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: A scoping review and expert consultation survey.

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of health care resources. Choosing Wisely and other organizations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a five-point Likert scale from clearly low value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low value by at least one level I, II, or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these, 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit, and 5 in orthopedics. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step toward the deimplementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Importance: Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. Objective: To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Results: Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

Injury severity and causes of death from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom: 2003-2004 versus 2006.

BACKGROUND: The opinion that injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased in severity is widely held by clinicians who have deployed multiple times. To continuously improve combat casualty care, the Department of Defense has enacted numerous evidence-based policies and clinical practice guidelines. We hypothesized that the severity of wounds has increased over time. Furthermore, we examined cause of death looking for opportunities of improvement for research and training. METHODS: Autopsies of the earliest combat deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan and the latest deaths of 2006 were analyzed to assess changes in injury severity and causes of death. Fatalities were classified as nonsurvivable (NS) or potentially survivable (PS). PS deaths were then reviewed in depth to analyze mechanism and cause. RESULTS: There were 486 cases from March 2003 to April 2004 (group 1) and 496 from June 2006 to December 2006 (group 2) that met inclusion criteria. Of the PS fatalities (group 1: 93 and group 2: 139), the injury severity score was lower in the first group (27 +/- 14 vs. 37 +/- 16, p < 0.001), and had a lower number of abbreviated injury scores >or=4 (1.1 +/- 0.79 vs. 1.5 +/- 0.83 per person, p < 0.001). The main cause of death in the PS fatalities was truncal hemorrhage (51% vs. 49%, p = NS). Deaths per month between groups doubled (35 vs. 71), whereas the case fatality rates between the two time periods were equivalent (11.0 vs. 9.8, p = NS). DISCUSSION: In the time periods of the war studied, deaths per month has doubled, with increases in both injury severity and number of wounds per casualty. Truncal hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths. Arguably, the success of the medical improvements during this war has served to maintain the lowest case fatality rate on record.

Management of Suspected Tension Pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 17-02.

This change to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines that updates the recommendations for management of suspected tension pneumothorax for combat casualties in the prehospital setting does the following things: (1) Continues the aggressive approach to suspecting and treating tension pneumothorax based on mechanism of injury and respiratory distress that TCCC has advocated for in the past, as opposed to waiting until shock develops as a result of the tension pneumothorax before treating. The new wording does, however, emphasize that shock and cardiac arrest may ensue if the tension pneumothorax is not treated promptly. (2) Adds additional emphasis to the importance of the current TCCC recommendation to perform needle decompression (NDC) on both sides of the chest on a combat casualty with torso trauma who suffers a traumatic cardiac arrest before reaching a medical treatment facility. (3) Adds a 10-gauge, 3.25-in needle/ catheter unit as an alternative to the previously recommended 14-gauge, 3.25-in needle/catheter unit as recommended devices for needle decompression. (4) Designates the location at which NDC should be performed as either the lateral site (fifth intercostal space [ICS] at the anterior axillary line [AAL]) or the anterior site (second ICS at the midclavicular line [MCL]). For the reasons enumerated in the body of the change report, participants on the 14 December 2017 TCCC Working Group teleconference favored including both potential sites for NDC without specifying a preferred site. (5) Adds two key elements to the description of the NDC procedure: insert the needle/ catheter unit at a perpendicular angle to the chest wall all the way to the hub, then hold the needle/catheter unit in place for 5 to 10 seconds before removing the needle in order to allow for full decompression of the pleural space to occur. (6) Defines what constitutes a successful NDC, using specific metrics such as: an observed hiss of air escaping from the chest during the NDC procedure; a decrease in respiratory distress; an increase in hemoglobin oxygen saturation; and/or an improvement in signs of shock that may be present. (7) Recommends that only two needle decompressions be attempted before continuing on to the "Circulation" portion of the TCCC Guidelines. After two NDCs have been performed, the combat medical provider should proceed to the fourth element in the "MARCH" algorithm and evaluate/treat the casualty for shock as outlined in the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines. Eastridge's landmark 2012 report documented that noncompressible hemorrhage caused many more combat fatalities than tension pneumothorax.1 Since the manifestations of hemorrhagic shock and shock from tension pneumothorax may be similar, the TCCC Guidelines now recommend proceeding to treatment for hemorrhagic shock (when present) after two NDCs have been performed. (8) Adds a paragraph to the end of the Circulation section of the TCCC Guidelines that calls for consideration of untreated tension pneumothorax as a potential cause for shock that has not responded to fluid resuscitation. This is an important aspect of treating shock in combat casualties that was not presently addressed in the TCCC Guidelines. (9) Adds finger thoracostomy (simple thoracostomy) and chest tubes as additional treatment options to treat suspected tension pneumothorax when further treatment is deemed necessary after two unsuccessful NDC attempts-if the combat medical provider has the skills, experience, and authorizations to perform these advanced interventions and the casualty is in shock. These two more invasive procedures are recommended only when the casualty is in refractory shock, not as the initial treatment.