Undertriage Despite Use of Geriatric-Specific Trauma Team Activation Guidelines : Who Are We Missing?

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients are at risk for undertriage, resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of geriatric-specific trauma team activation (TTA) protocols appropriately identified severely-injured elderly patients. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study evaluated all severely injured (injury severity score [ISS] >15), geriatric (≥65 years) patients admitted to our Level 1 tertiary-care hospital between January 2014 and September 2017. Undertriage was defined as the lack of TTA despite presence of severe injuries. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were mortality within 48 hours of admission and urgent hemorrhage control. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of appropriate triage in this study. RESULTS: Out of 1039 severely injured geriatric patients, 628 (61%) did not undergo TTA. Undertriaged patients were significantly older and had more comorbidities. In-hospital mortality was 5% and 31% in the undertriaged and appropriately triaged groups, respectively (P < .0001). One percent of undertriaged patients needed urgent hemorrhage control, compared to 6% of the appropriately triaged group (P < .0001). One percent of undertriaged patients died within 48 hours compared to 19% in the appropriately triaged group (P < .0001). Predictors of appropriate triage include GCS, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, lactic acid, ISS, shock, and absence of dementia, stroke, or alcoholism. DISCUSSION: Geriatric-specific TTA guidelines continue to undertriage elderly trauma patients when using ISS as a metric to measure undertriage. However, undertriaged patients have much lower morbidity and mortality, suggesting the geriatric-specific TTA guidelines identify those patients at highest risk for poor outcomes.

Right Patient, Right Place, Right Time : Field Triage and Transfer to Level I Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to compare outcomes of trauma patients taken directly from the field to a Level I trauma center (direct) versus patients that were first brought to a Level III trauma center prior to being transferred to a Level I (transfer) within our inclusive Delaware trauma system. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Level I center's trauma registry was performed using data from 2013 to 2017 for patients brought to a single Level I trauma center from 2 surrounding counties. The direct cohort consisted of 362 patients, while the transfer cohort contained 204 patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate hospital length of stay (LOS), while logistic regression was used for mortality, complications, and craniotomy. Covariates included age, gender, county, and injury severity score (ISS). Propensity score weighting was also performed between the direct and transfer cohorts. RESULTS: When adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and county, transferred patients demonstrated worse outcomes compared with direct patients in both the regression and propensity score analyses. Transferred patients were at increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, CI 1.10-4.37, P = .027) and craniotomy (OR 3.92, CI 1.87-8.72, P < .001). Age was predictive of mortality (P < .001). ISS was predictive of increased risk of mortality (P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), and craniotomy (P < .001). Older age, Sussex County, and higher ISS were predictive of patients being transferred (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Delays in the presentation to our Level I trauma center resulted in worse outcomes. Patients that meet criteria should be considered for transport directly to the highest level trauma center in the system to avoid delays in care.

Right Patient, Right Place, Right Time: Field Triage and Transfer to Level I Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to compare the outcomes of trauma patients taken directly from the field to a level I trauma center (direct) versus patients that were first brought to a level III trauma center prior to being transferred to a level I (transfer) within our inclusive Delaware trauma system. METHODS: A retrospective review of the level I center's trauma registry was performed using data from 2013 to 2017 for patients brought to a single level I trauma center from two surrounding counties. The direct cohort consisted of 362 patients, while the transfer cohort contained 204 patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate hospital length of stay (LOS), while logistic regression was used for mortality, complications, and craniotomy. Covariates included age, gender, county, and injury severity score (ISS). Propensity score weighting was also performed between the direct and transfer cohorts. RESULTS: When adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and county, transferred patients demonstrated worse outcomes compared to direct patients in both the regression and propensity score analyses. Transferred patients were at increased risk of mortality (OR 2.17, CI 1.10-4.37, P = .027) and craniotomy (OR 3.92, CI 1.87-8.72, P < .001). Age was predictive of mortality (P < .001). ISS was predictive of increased risk of mortality (P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), and craniotomy (P < .001). Older age, Sussex County, and higher ISS were predictive of patients being transferred (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Delays in presentation to our level I trauma center resulted in worse outcomes. Patients that meet criteria should be considered for transport directly to the highest level trauma center in the system to avoid delays in care.