Impact of trauma centre capacity and volume on the mortality risk of incoming new admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma centre capacity and surge volume may affect decisions on where to transport a critically injured patient and whether to bypass the closest facility. Our hypothesis was that overcrowding and high patient acuity would contribute to increase the mortality risk for incoming admissions. METHODS: For a 6-year period, we merged and cross-correlated our institutional trauma registry with a database on Trauma Resuscitation Unit (TRU) patient admissions, movement and discharges, with average capacity of 12 trauma bays. The outcomes of overall hospital and 24 hours mortality for new trauma admissions (NEW) were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 42 003 (mean=7000/year) admissions having complete data sets, with 36 354 (87%) patients who were primary trauma admissions, age ≥18 and survival ≥15 min. In the logistic regression model for the entire cohort, NEW admission hospital mortality was only associated with NEW admission age and prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Shock Index (SI) (all p<0.05). When TRU occupancy reached ≥16 patients, the factors associated with increased NEW admission hospital mortality were existing patients (TRU >1 hour) with SI ≥0.9, recent admissions (TRU ≤1 hour) with age ≥65, NEW admission age and prehospital GCS and SI (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The mortality of incoming patients is not impacted by routine trauma centre overcapacity. In conditions of severe overcrowding, the number of admitted patients with shock physiology and a recent surge of elderly/debilitated patients may influence the mortality risk of a new trauma admission.

Recommended medical and non-medical factors to assess military preventable deaths: subject matter experts provide valuable insights.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, there has been variability in the methods for determining preventable death within the US Department of Defense. Differences in methodologies partially explain variable preventable death rates ranging from 3% to 51%. The lack of standard review process likely misses opportunities for improvement in combat casualty care. This project identified recommended medical and non-medical factors necessary to (1) establish a comprehensive preventable death review process and (2) identify opportunities for improvement throughout the entire continuum of care. METHODS: This qualitative study used a modified rapid assessment process that includes the following steps: (1) identification and recruitment of US government subject matter experts (SMEs); (2) multiple cycles of data collection via key informant interviews and focus groups; (3) consolidation of information collected in these interviews; and (4) iterative analysis of data collected from interviews into common themes. Common themes identified from SME feedback were grouped into the following subject areas: (1) prehospital, (2) in-hospital and (3) forensic pathology. RESULTS: Medical recommendations for military preventable death reviews included the development, training, documentation, collection, analysis and reporting of the implementation of the Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines, Joint Trauma System Clinical Practice Guidelines and National Association of Medical Examiners autopsy standards. Non-medical recommendations included training, improved documentation, data collection and analysis of non-medical factors needed to understand how these factors impact optimal medical care. CONCLUSIONS: In the operational environment, medical care must be considered in the context of non-medical factors. For a comprehensive preventable death review process to be sustainable in the military health system, the process must be based on an appropriate conceptual framework implemented consistently across all military services.