Trauma resource pit stop: increasing efficiency in the evaluation of lower severity trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Overtriage of trauma patients is unavoidable and requires effective use of hospital resources. A 'pit stop' (PS) was added to our lowest tier trauma resource (TR) triage protocol where the patient stops in the trauma bay for immediate evaluation by the emergency department (ED) physician and trauma nursing. We hypothesized this would allow for faster diagnostic testing and disposition while decreasing cost. METHODS: We performed a before/after retrospective comparison after PS implementation. Patients not meeting trauma activation (TA) criteria but requiring trauma center evaluation were assigned as a TR for an expedited PS evaluation. A board-certified ED physician and trauma/ED nurse performed an immediate assessment in the trauma bay followed by performance of diagnostic studies. Trauma surgeons were readily available in case of upgrade to TA. We compared patient demographics, Injury Severity Score, time to physician evaluation, time to CT scan, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Comparisons were made using 95% CI for variance and SD and unpaired t-tests for two-tailed p values, with statistical difference, p<0.05. RESULTS: There were 994 TAs and 474 TRs in the first 9 months after implementation. TR's preanalysis versus postanalysis of the TR group shows similar mean door to physician evaluation times (6.9 vs. 8.6 minutes, p=0.1084). Mean door to CT time significantly decreased (67.7 vs. 50 minutes, p<0.001). 346 (73%) TR patients were discharged from ED; 2 (0.4%) were upgraded on arrival. When admitted, TR patients were older (61.4 vs. 47.2 years, p<0.0001) and more often involved in a same-level fall (59.5% vs. 20.1%, p<0.0001). Undertriage was calculated using the Cribari matrix at 3.2%. DISCUSSION: PS implementation allowed for faster door to CT time for trauma patients not meeting activation criteria without mobilizing trauma team resources. This approach is safe, feasible, and simultaneously decreases hospital cost while improving allocation of trauma team resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic/decision therapeutic/care management study.

Factors associated with receipt of intracranial pressure monitoring in older adults with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) include intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPM), yet very little is known about ICPM in older adults. Our objectives were to characterize the utilization of ICPM in older adults and identify factors associated with ICPM in those who met the BTF guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed data from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric TBI Study, a registry study conducted among individuals with isolated, CT-confirmed TBI across 45 trauma centers. The analysis was restricted to those aged ≥60. Independent factors associated with ICPM for those who did and did not meet the BTF guidelines were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Our sample was composed of 2303 patients, of whom 66 (2.9%) underwent ICPM. Relative to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 15, GCS score of 9 to 12 (OR 10.2; 95% CI 4.3 to 24.4) and GCS score of <9 (OR 15.0; 95% CI 7.2 to 31.1), intraventricular hemorrhage (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.83), skull fractures (OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.0 to 6.6), CT worsening (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.8 to 5.9), and neurosurgical interventions (OR 3.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 7.0) were significantly associated with ICPM. Restricting to those who met the BTF guidelines, only 43 of 240 (18%) underwent ICPM. Factors independently associated with ICPM included intraparenchymal hemorrhage (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.0 to 4.7), skull fractures (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.9 to 8.2), and neurosurgical interventions (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.2). DISCUSSION: Worsening GCS, intraparenchymal/intraventricular hemorrhage, and skull fractures were associated with ICPM among older adults with TBI, yet utilization of ICPM remains low, especially among those meeting the BTF guidelines, and potential benefits remain unclear. This study highlights the need for better understanding of factors that influence compliance with BTF guidelines and the risks versus benefits of ICPM in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Disparities in triage and management of the homeless and the elderly trauma patient.

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems are designed to provide specialized treatment for the most severely injured. As populations change, it is imperative for trauma centers to remain dynamic to provide the best care to all members of the community. METHODS: A retrospective review of all trauma patients treated at one Level II trauma center in Southern CA over 5 years. Three cohorts of patients were studied: geriatric (> 65 years), the homeless, and all other trauma patients. Triage, hospitalization, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 8431 patients treated, 30% were geriatric, 3% homeless and 67% comprised all other patients. Trauma activation criteria was met for 84% of all other trauma patients, yet only 61% of homeless and geriatric patients combined. Injury mechanism for homeless included falls (38%), pedestrian/bicycle related (27%) and assaults (24%), often while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Average length of hospital stay (LOS) was greater for homeless and geriatric patients and frequently attributed to discharge planning challenges. Both the homeless and geriatric groups demonstrated increased complications, comorbidities, and death rates. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless trauma patients reflect similar challenges in care as with the elderly, requiring additional resources and more complex case management. It is prudent to identify and understand the issues surrounding patients transported to our trauma center requiring a higher level of care yet are under-triaged upon arrival to the Emergency Department. Although a monthly review is done for all under-triaged patients, and geriatric patients are acknowledged to be a cohort continually having delays, the homeless cohort continues to be under-triaged. The admitted homeless trauma patient has similar complex case management issues as the elderly related to pre-existing health issues and challenges with discharge planning, both which can add to longer lengths of hospital stay as compared to other trauma patients. Given the lack of social support that is endemic to both populations, these cohorts represent a unique challenge to trauma centers. Further research into specialized care is required to determine best practices to address disparities evident in the homeless and elderly, and to promote health equity in marginalized populations.