The Immo Traffic Light System as a Decision-Making Tool for Prehospital Spinal Immobilization­A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Spinal injuries are difficult injuries to assess yet can be associated with significant neurological damage. To avoid secondary damage, immobilization is considered state of the art trauma care. The indication for spinal immobilization must be assessed, however, for potential complications as well as its advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: This systematic review addressing the question of the correct indication for spinal immobilization in trauma patients was compiled on the basis of our previously published analysis of possible predictors from the Trauma Registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. A Delphi procedure was then used to develop suggestions for action regarding immobilization based on the results of this review. RESULTS: The search of the literature yielded 576 publications. The 24 publications included in the qualitative analysis report of 2 228 076 patients. A decision tool for spinal immobilization in prehospital trauma care was developed (Immo traffic light system) based on the results of the Delphi procedure. According to this system, severely injured patients with blunt trauma, severe traumatic brain injury, peripheral neurological symptoms, or spinal pain requiring treatment should be immobilized. Patients with a statistically increased risk of spinal injury as a result of the four cardinal features (fall >3m, severe trunk injury, supra clavicular injury, seniority [age >65 years]) should only have their spinal motion restricted after weighing up the pros and cons. Isolated penetrating trunk injuries should not be immobilized. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies demonstrating the benefit of prehospital spinal immobilization are still lacking. Decision tools such as the Immo traffic light system can help weigh up the pros and cons of immobilization.

Epidemiology and predictors of traumatic spine injury in severely injured patients: implications for emergency procedures.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of spinal injuries that are suitable for immobilization. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study drawing from the multi-center database of the TraumaRegister DGU®, spinal injury patients ≥ 16 years of age who scored ≥ 3 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) between 2009 and 2016 were enrolled. RESULTS: The mean age of the 145,833 patients enrolled was 52.7 ± 21.1 years. The hospital mortality rate was 13.9%, and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 21.8 ± 11.8. Seventy percent of patients had no spine injury, 25.9% scored 2-3 on the AIS, and 4.1% scored 4-6 on the AIS. Among patients with isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), 26.8% had spinal injuries with an AIS score of 4-6. Among patients with multi-system trauma and TBI, 44.7% had spinal injuries that scored 4-6 on the AIS. Regression analysis predicted a serious spine injury (SI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 10.6% and cervical spine injury (CSI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 5.1%. Blunt trauma was a predictor for SI and CSI (OR 4.066 and OR 3.640, respectively; both p < 0.001) and fall > 3 m for SI (OR 2.243; p < 0.001) but not CSI (OR 0.636; p < 0.001). Pre-hospital shock was predictive for SI and CSI (OR 1.87 and OR 2.342, respectively; both p < 0.001), and diminished or absent motor response was also predictive for SI (OR 3.171) and CSI (OR 7.462; both p < 0.001). Patients over 65 years of age were more frequently affected by CSI. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the clinical symptoms of pain, we identify '4S' [spill (fall) > 3 m, seniority (age > 65 years), seriously injured, skull/traumatic brain injury] as an indication for increased attention for CSIs or indication for spinal motion restriction.

Optimizing Emergency Medical Service Structures Using a Rule-Based Discrete Event Simulation-A Practitioner's Point of View.

Many studies in research deal with optimizing emergency medical services (EMS) on both the operational and the strategic level. It is the purpose of this method-oriented article to explain the major features of "rule-based discrete event simulation" (rule-based DES), which we developed independently in Germany and Switzerland. Our rule-based DES addresses questions concerning the location and relocation of ambulances, dispatching and routing policies, and EMS interplay with other players in prehospital care. We highlight three typical use cases from a practitioner's perspective and go into different countries' peculiarities. We show how research results are applied to EMS and healthcare organizations to simulate and optimize specific regions in Germany and Switzerland with their strong federal structures. The rule-based DES serves as basis for decision support to improve regional emergency services' efficiency without increasing cost. Finally, all simulation-based methods suggest normative solutions and optimize EMS' performance within given healthcare system structures. We argue that interactions between EMS, emergency departments, and public healthcare agencies are crucial to further improving effectiveness, efficiency, and quality.

Development of an Adapted Model for Decision-Making to Improve Reasoning and Risk Assessment in an Emergency Team: A Prospective Simulation Study.

: Background and Objectives: Medical staff is rarely trained in structured decision-making, relying instead on intuition without due consideration for the associated pros and cons. Materials and Methods: We adopted a model for decision-making to improve reasoning and risk assessment and carried out a prospective simulation study using paramedic students in a three-year training program. We conducted a training session in which participants were lectured on decision-making using the FAR-BEK model (German abbreviation for facts, alternatives, risks, competence, decision, control), physiological processes in decision-making under stress, as well as medico-legal aspects for the comprehension and justification of medical decisions. We analyzed pre- and post-training scenarios to elucidate the influence of training on decision-making. Results: Twenty paramedic students, with a mean age of 22.0 ± 1.7 years, took part in the study. The question of whether decision aids can be applied, initially affirmed by 40% of participants, rose to 71.4% (p = 0.011) following our training. Confidence in decision-making increased on a 7-point Likert scale from 4.5 to 4.8 points (p < 0.394). The reasoning behind the decisions rose from 5.3 to 5.6 points (p < 0.081). Indication, options, and risks rose significantly, from 5.4 to 6.1 points (p = 0.045). Overall, our simulation training significantly increased the points of decision support taken into account (57.8% vs. 88.9%, p < 0.001). Viewed individually, the largest increase of 180% was seen in risk assessment (33.3% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.002). The second largest increase of 150% was seen in the question of one's own permissions (26.7% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.066). Also, the control increased (40.0% vs. 86.7%, p < 0.021). Conclusions: With a brief training course, both the awareness and the implementation of a structured decision-making model in paramedic students can be significantly increased. Nevertheless, no definitive conclusions can be made with respect to the implementation of real patient care. The application of structured, standardized decision-making tools may need to be further consolidated in routine medical use.