Avoiding Cribari gridlock 2: The standardized triage assessment tool outperforms the Cribari matrix method in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric US trauma centers submitted data for 97,282 encounters. Mixed models estimated the effects of overtriage and undertriage versus appropriate triage on the odds of complication, odds of discharge to a continuing care facility, and differences in length of stay for both CMM and STAT. Significance was assessed at p <0.005. RESULTS: Overtriage (53.49% vs. 30.79%) and undertriage (17.19% vs. 3.55%) rates were notably lower with STAT than with CMM. CMM and STAT had significant associations with all outcomes, with overtriages demonstrating lower injury burdens and undertriages showing higher injury burdens than appropriately triaged patients. STAT indicated significantly stronger associations with outcomes than CMM, except in odds of discharge to continuing care facility among patients who received a full trauma team activation where STAT and CMM were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study strongly indicates STAT safely and accurately flags fewer cases for triage reviews, thereby reducing the subjectivity introduced by manual triage determinations. This may enable better refinement of activation criteria and reduced workload.

Using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Metrics Data to Enhance Clinical Practice.

The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) provides trauma centers with hospital-specific performance data and the ability to compare their performance data with that of similar hospitals nationwide. Utilizing the TQIP data and drill down feature can lead to changes in clinical practice and improved care. The purpose of this article is to provide a guide that demonstrates how using the TQIP hospital-specific data can improve outcomes. We recommend 4 separate categories by which data and reports should be evaluated: processes of care, quality of care, data coding, and data mapping. We discuss these categories using 4 targeted examples. Utilizing our guidelines, trauma programs participating in the TQIP should be able to (1) identify trends and focus on outliers in their institutional data, (2) create processes and implement practice improvements, and (3) evaluate the results of their corrective action plan. This topic may be of special interest to those involved in the management of programs or systems-level policies as reduction in costs and improving quality are program drivers.

Rethinking the definition of major trauma: The need for trauma intervention outperforms Injury Severity Score and Revised Trauma Score in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Patients' trauma burdens are a combination of anatomic damage, physiologic derangement, and the resultant depletion of reserve. Typically, Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 defines major anatomic injury and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) <7.84 defines major physiologic derangement, but there is no standard definition for reserve. The Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) identifies severely depleted reserves (NFTI+) with emergent interventions and/or early mortality. We hypothesized NFTI would have stronger associations with outcomes and better model fit than ISS and RTS. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric U.S. trauma centers submitted data for 88,488 encounters. Mixed models tested ISS greater than 15, RTS less than 7.84, and NFTI's associations with complications, survivors' discharge to continuing care, and survivors' length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The NFTI had stronger associations with complications and LOS than ISS and RTS (odds ratios [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 9.44 [8.46-10.53]; ISS = 5.94 [5.36-6.60], RTS = 4.79 [4.29-5.34]; LOS incidence rate ratios (99.5% confidence interval): NFTI = 3.15 [3.08-3.22], ISS = 2.87 [2.80-2.94], RTS = 2.37 [2.30-2.45]). NFTI was more strongly associated with continuing care discharge but not significantly more than ISS (relative risk [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 2.59 [2.52-2.66], ISS = 2.51 [2.44-2.59], RTS = 2.37 [2.28-2.46]). Cross-validation revealed that in all cases NFTI's model provided a much better fit than ISS greater than 15 or RTS less than 7.84. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, NFTI had better model fit and stronger associations with the outcomes than ISS and RTS. By determining depletion of reserve via resource consumption, NFTI+ may be a better definition of major trauma than the standard definitions of ISS greater than 15 and RTS less than 7.84. Using NFTI may improve retrospective triage monitoring and statistical risk adjustments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level IV.

Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Nurse-Driven Rapid Reversal Protocol for Patients With Traumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage in the Presence of Preinjury Warfarin.

Warfarin-related traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is often fatal, yet timely evaluation and treatment can improve outcomes. Our study describes the process of developing and implementing a protocol to guide the care of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) on preinjury warfarin developed by nurses across several service lines at our Level I trauma center over a 6-month period. Further, we evaluated its efficacy by examining records of adult patients with TBI on preinjury warfarin admitted 1 year before and after protocol implementation. Efficacy was defined as activation rates, receipt and time to head computed tomography (CT) scan and international normalization ratio (INR), and receipt and time to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) administration in patients with ICH with an INR more than 1.5, as per protocol. A subset analysis examined patients with and without an ICH. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses. One hundred seventy-eight patients were included in the study; 90 (50.6%) were admitted before and 88 (49.4%) after implementation. After implementation, there were improvements in activation rates (34.4% vs. 65.9%; p < .001), the frequency of head CT scans (55.6% vs. 83.0%; p < .001), time to INR (24.0 min vs. 15.0 min; p < .05), and, for patients with ICH with an INR 1.5 or more, decreased time to FFP (157.0 vs. 90.5; p < .05). In conclusion, our protocol led to a more efficient process of care for patients with TBI on warfarin. We believe the implementation process, managed by a dedicated group of nurses across several service lines, substantially contributed to the success of the protocol.