A traumatic tale of two cities: does EMS level of care and transportation model affect survival in patients with trauma at level 1 trauma centres in two neighbouring Canadian provinces?

BACKGROUND: Two distinct Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems exist in Atlantic Canada. Nova Scotia operates an Advanced Emergency Medical System (AEMS) and New Brunswick operates a Basic Emergency Medical System (BEMS). We sought to determine if survival rates differed between the two systems. METHODS: This study examined patients with trauma who were transported directly to a level 1 trauma centre in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2013. Data were extracted from the respective provincial trauma registries; the lowest common Injury Severity Score (ISS) collected by both registries was ISS≥13. Survival to hospital and survival to discharge or 30 days were the primary endpoints. A separate analysis was performed on severely injured patients. Hypothesis testing was conducted using Fisher's exact test and the Student's t-test. RESULTS: 101 cases met inclusion criteria in New Brunswick and were compared with 251 cases in Nova Scotia. Overall mortality was low with 93% of patients surviving to hospital and 80% of patients surviving to discharge or 30 days. There was no difference in survival to hospital between the AEMS (232/251, 92%) and BEMS (97/101, 96%; OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.99; p=0.34) groups. Furthermore, when comparing patients with more severe injuries (ISS>24) there was no significant difference in survival (71/80, 89% vs 31/33, 94%; OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.40 to 9.63; p=0.50). CONCLUSION: Overall survival to hospital was the same between advanced and basic Canadian EMS systems. As numbers included are low, individual case benefit cannot be excluded.

Major traumatic brain injury: time to tertiary care and the impact of a clinical guideline.

BACKGROUND: To achieve timely access to neurosurgical care for adult brain-injured patients, a Head Injury Guideline was implemented to standardize the emergency department evaluation and management of these patients. The goals of this study were to document times to neurosurgical care for patients with major traumatic brain injury presenting to a Provincial emergency room and to evaluate the impact of the Guideline on timely access to definitive care. METHODS: Data collected prospectively and stored in the Nova Scotia Trauma Registry and the Emergency Health Services Communications and Dispatch Centre database were analyzed for patients with head abbreviated injury scale score (AIS)≥3. Several time intervals from admission to a referring hospital to access to tertiary care were determined and compared for the periods before Guideline implementation, the implementation phase, and after implementation. RESULTS: The time elapsed before calling the provincial Trauma Hotline was not statistically different after Guideline implementation for polytrauma patients with head AIS score≥3 (n=388) during the preimplementation (2:34±1:30; median time in hours:minutes±standard deviation), implementation (1:57±2:33) and postimplementation (2:31±4:06) periods. Subset group analysis of patients with isolated head injuries AIS score≥3 (n=99) also showed no statistical difference in preimplementation (1:51±1:42), implementation (2:49±2:57), and postimplementation (3:10±4:58) times. Examination of overall time to tertiary care revealed prolonged transfer times and that the Guideline had no influence on either the polytrauma patient group (preimplementation, 4:20±1:41; implementation, 5:01±2:55; and postimplementation 4:46±4:22) or those with isolated head injuries (preimplementation, 3:39±1:47; implementation, 6:06±4:00; and postimplementation, 5:13±4:59). CONCLUSIONS: Times to tertiary care are lengthy and have not been reduced by Guideline implementation. System changes beyond Guideline implementation are required to provide timely access to tertiary care for patients with major head injury.

A traumatic tale of two cities: a comparison of outcomes for adults with major trauma who present to differing trauma centres in neighbouring Canadian provinces.

OBJECTIVES: While the use of formal trauma teams is widely promoted, the literature is not clear that this structure provides improved outcomes over emergency physician delivered trauma care. The goal of this investigation was to examine if a trauma team model with a formalized, specialty-based trauma team, with specific activation criteria and staff composition, performs differently than an emergency physician delivered model. Our primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days. METHODS: An observational registry-based study using aggregate data from both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia trauma registries was performed with data from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013. Inclusion criteria included patients 16 years-old and older who had an Injury Severity Score greater than 12, who suffered a kinetic injury and arrived with signs of life to a level-1 trauma centre. RESULTS: 266 patients from the trauma team model and 111 from the emergency physician model were compared. No difference was found in the primary outcome of proportion of survival to discharge or 30 days between the two systems (0.88, n=266 vs. 0.89, n=111; p=0.8608). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to detect any difference in survival between a trauma team and an emergency physician delivered model.

Airway management in penetrating neck trauma at a Canadian tertiary trauma centre.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal approach to airway management in penetrating neck injuries (PNIs) remains controversial. The primary objective of this study was to review the method of endotracheal intubation in PNI at a Canadian tertiary trauma centre. Secondarily, we sought to determine the incidence of PNI in our trauma population and to describe the epidemiologic elements of this population. METHODS: We conducted a review of patients with PNIs who were enrolled in the Nova Scotia Trauma Registry database. We included all penetrating injuries of the neck in patients > or = 16 years of age from April 1, 1994 to March 31 2005 with an Injury severity Score (ISS) > or = 9 or who underwent Trauma Team activation at our Tertiary Trauma Centre (regardless of ISS) and/or who were identified upon admission as a "major" trauma case. The variables of interest were patient age and sex, injury mechanism, injury location, place of intubation and method of intubation. RESULTS: There were 19 people who met inclusion criteria and they were enrolled in our study. The injury mechanisms involved knife (n = 13) or gunshot (n = 5) wounds (one patient's injuries were categorized as "other"). Three patients (15.8%) were not intubated. The remaining 16 patients were intubated during prehospital care (n = 5), in the emergency department (n = 6) or in the operating room (n = 5). Of these, 8 patients (42.1%) underwent awake intubation and 8 (42.1%) underwent rapid sequence intubation. CONCLUSION: There is clear variability of airway management in PNI. We believe that such patients represent a heterogeneous group where the attending physician must have a conservative yet varied approach to airway management based on the individual clinical scenario.

Air versus ground transport of major trauma patients to a tertiary trauma centre: a province-wide comparison using TRISS analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of adult (aged > 15 yr) blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) = 12 who were transported to a single tertiary trauma centre (TTC) by helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) versus those transported by ground ambulance. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all adult (aged > 15 yr) trauma patients between March 27, 1998 and March 28, 2002 with an ISS score = 12, as identified through the provincial trauma registry. We used the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology to determine a difference in outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We identified 823 patients; of these, we excluded 32 (3.9%) penetrating trauma patients. Of the blunt trauma cases (n = 791) 237 (30%) patients were transported by air and 554 were transported by ground (70%). A total of 770 (97.3%) patients were eligible for TRISS analysis. Using the TRISS methodology, the air group had a Z statistic of 2.77, yielding a W score of 6.40. This compared with the ground transport group, whose Z statistic was 1.97 and W score was 2.39. CONCLUSION: The transport of trauma patients with an ISS = 12 by a provincially dedicated rotor wing air medical service was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes than those transported by standard ground ambulance. This is the first large Canadian study to specifically compare the outcome of patients transported by ground with those transported by air.