Trauma scoring.

Severity scales to characterize the nature and extent of injury are important adjuncts to trauma care systems, trauma research and many of the elements of a complete public health approach to injury. This article provides a brief overview of severity scale development over the past 30 years during which the science to support such initiatives has matured substantially. Anatomical, physiological, intensive care, composite and complex scales and models now abound and are being applied to a variety of tasks with increasing precision. Trauma registries enable the meaningful aggregation of data for the development and testing of models. Future challenges are identified as are potentially fruitful avenues of research.

An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations.

OBJECTIVE: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. METHODS: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. RESULTS: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2. 4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5. 1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, beside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.

Comparison of alternative methods for assessing injury severity based on anatomic descriptors.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting confusion as to which anatomic scoring systems can be used to adequately control for trauma case mix when predicting patient survival. METHODS: Several Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and International Classification of Disease Clinical (ICD-9CM)-based methods of scoring severity were compared by using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study. By using a design dataset, the probability of survival was modeled as a function of each score or profile. Resulting coefficients were used to derive expected probabilities in a test dataset; expected and observed probabilities were then compared by using standard measures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: The modified Anatomic Profile, Anatomic Profile, and New Injury Severity Score outperformed the International Classification of Disease-based Injury Severity Score. This finding remains true when AIS values are obtained by means of a conversion from International Classification of Disease to AIS. CONCLUSION: Results support the integrity of the AIS and argue for its continued use in research and evaluation. The modified Anatomic Profile, Anatomic Profile, and New Injury Severity Score, however, should be used in preference to the Injury Severity Score as an overall measure of severity.

Early fracture fixation may be "just fine" after head injury: no difference in central nervous system outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that early fracture fixation worsens central nervous system (CNS) outcomes. We compared discharge Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores, CNS complications, and mortality of severely injured adults with head injuries and pelvic/lower extremity fractures treated with early versus delayed fixation. METHODS: Using trauma registry data, records meeting preselected inclusion criteria from the years 1991 to 1995 were examined. We identified 171 patients aged 14 to 65 years (mean age, 32.7 years) with head injuries and fractures who underwent early fixation (< or = 24 hours after admission) (n = 147) versus delayed fixation (> 24 hours after admission) (n = 24). RESULTS: Patients were severely injured, with a mean admission GCS score of 9.1, Revised Trauma Score of 6.2, Injury Severity Score of 38, median intensive care unit length of stay of 16.5 days, and hospital length of stay of 23 days. No differences between groups were found by age, admission GCS score, Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, shock, vasopressors, major nonorthopedic operative procedures, total intravenous fluids or blood products, or mortality rates. In survivors, no differences in discharge GCS scores or CNS complications were found. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to suggest that early fracture fixation negatively influences CNS outcomes or mortality.

Emerging technology for vehicular safety and emergency response to roadway crashes.

Emerging technology for vehicular safety and emergency response to roadway crashes is the topic of this article. Reduction in emergency medical services system notification time, improvements in vehicular safety, crash avoidance and protection, post-crash injury control, triage, national automatic crash notification systems, and technologic improvements in emergency diagnostics and treatment during the past year are discussed.

Improved predictions from a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOT) over Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): results of an independent evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: In 1986, data from 25,000 major trauma outcome study patients were used to relate Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) values to survival probability. The resulting norms have been widely used. Motivated by TRISS limitations, A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT) was introduced in 1990. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare TRISS and ASCOT probability predictions using carefully collected and independently reviewed data not used in the development of those norms. DESIGN: This was a prospective data collection for consecutive admissions to four level I trauma centers participating in a major trauma outcome study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 14,296 patients admitted to the four study sites between October 1987 through 1989 were used. The indices were evaluated using measures of discrimination (disparity, sensitivity, specificity, misclassification rate, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve) and calibration [Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic (H-L)]. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For blunt-injured adults, ASCOT has higher sensitivity than TRISS (69.3 vs. 64.3) and meets the criterion for model calibration (H-L statistic < 15.5) needed for accurate z and W scores. The TRISS does not meet the calibration criterion (H-L = 30.7). For adults with penetrating injury, ASCOT has a substantially lower H-L value than TRISS (20.3 vs. 138.4), but neither meets the criterion. Areas under TRISS and ASCOT ROC curves are not significantly different and exceed 0.91 for blunt-injured adults and 0.95 for adults with penetrating injury. For pediatric patients, TRISS and ASCOT sensitivities (near 77%) and areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves (both exceed 0.96) are comparable, and both models satisfy the H-L criterion. CONCLUSIONS: In this age of health care decisions influenced by outcome evaluations, ASCOT's more precise description of anatomic injury and its improved calibration with actual outcomes argue for its adoption as the standard method for outcome prediction.

The evaluation of a two-tier trauma response system at a major trauma center: is it cost effective and safe?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of a two-tier trauma response, using prehospital criteria for matching trauma center assets with severity of injury. DESIGN: A prospective iterative study on a consecutive sample of patients to test the hypothesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Criteria were developed whereby in-hospital response was determined by information provided by prehospital personnel. Two modifications of these criteria were introduced at 6 and 9 months. Triage and response accuracy were evaluated using outcome variables. Cost savings were estimated using differences between the full and modified teams. Chi-squared analysis was used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,479 patients evaluated over a 9-month period, 682 (46%) received a full trauma team response, and a modified trauma team responded to 794 (54%). When compared with final designation by outcome variables, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were significantly improved after the first modification of criteria. After the second modification, there was no significant improvement; however, the number of undertriaged patients increased significantly. Estimated cost savings were about $178,000 over the 9-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of a two-tier response to trauma patients is effective, safe, and results in substantial cost savings.

A prospective study of surgeon-performed ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment.

Ultrasound diagnostic imaging, having been used in Germany in the trauma setting for more than 15 years, has unique qualities that give it distinct advantages over other tests (DPL, CT), and is gradually gaining acceptance by surgeons in the United States. In this prospective study, experienced surgeon sonographers successfully used ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality to detect hemoperitoneum and pericardial effusion in injured patients. The ultrasound evaluations of 371 patients demonstrated that in 65 patients with significant injuries, ultrasound detected 53, that is, had an 81.5% sensitivity and 99.7% specificity. They conclude that ultrasound should be the primary adjuvant instrument for the evaluation of injured patients because it is rapid, accurate, and is potentially cost-effective.