Do patient outcomes differ when the trauma team leader is a surgeon or non-surgeon? A multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Trauma team leaders (TTLs) have traditionally been general surgeons; however, some trauma centres use a mixed model of care where both surgeons and non-surgeons (primarily emergency physicians) perform this role. The objective of this multicentre study was to provide a well-powered study to determine if TTL specialty is associated with mortality among major trauma patients. METHODS: Data were collected from provincial trauma registries at six level 1 trauma centres across Canada over a 10-year period. We included adult trauma patients (age ≥ 18 yrs) who triggered the highest-level trauma activation. The primary outcome was the difference in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality for trauma patients receiving initial care from a surgeon versus a non-surgeon TTL. RESULTS: Overall, 12,961 major trauma patients were included in the analysis. Initial treatment was provided by a surgeon TTL in 57.8% (n = 7513) of cases, while 42.2% (n = 5448) of patients were treated by a non-surgeon TTL. Unadjusted mortality occurred in 11.6% of patients in the surgeon TTL group and 12.7% of patients in the non-surgeon TTL group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.98, p = 0.02). Risk-adjusted mortality was not significantly different between patients cared for by surgeon and non-surgeon TTLs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.06, p = 0.23). Furthermore, we did not observe differences in risk-adjusted mortality for any of the subgroups evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: After risk adjustment, there was no difference in mortality between trauma patients treated by surgeon or non-surgeon TTLs. Our study supports emergency physicians performing the role of TTL at level 1 trauma centres.

ABSTRAIT: OBJECTIF: Les chefs d'équipe de traumatologie (CET) sont traditionnellement des chirurgiens généralistes; cependant, certains centres de traumatologie utilisent un modèle mixte de soins où des chirurgiens et des non-chirurgiens (principalement des médecins d'urgence) qui jouent ce rôle. L'objectif de cette étude multicentrique était de fournir une étude bien menée pour déterminer si la spécialité CET est associée à la mortalité chez les patients traumatisés majeurs. MéTHODES: Les données ont été recueillies à partir des registres provinciaux de 6 niveau 1 centres de traumatologie au Canada sur une période de 10 ans. Nous avons inclus des patients adultes traumatisés (âge ≥ 18 ans) qui ont provoqué l'activation traumatique de niveau le plus haut. Le primaire résultat était la différence de mortalité hospitalière ajustée en fonction du risque pour les patients traumatisés qui ont reçu des soins primaires d'un chirurgien par rapport à un CET non chirurgien. RéSULTATS: En totale, 12 961 patients traumatisés majeurs ont été la partie de cette analyse. Le soin primaire a été assuré par un chirurgien CET dans 57,8 % (n=7 513) des cas, alors que 42,2 % (n=5 448) des patients ont été traités par un CET non chirurgien. Une mortalité non ajustée s'est produit chez 11,6 % des patients du groupe de chirurgien CET et 12,7 % des patients du groupe de non chirurgien CET (OR 0,87, IC à 95 % 0,78 à 0,98, p = 0,02). La mortalité ajustée en fonction du risque n'était pas significativement différente entre les patients pris en charge par des CET chirurgiens et non-chirurgiens (RC 0,92, IC à 95 % 0,80 à 1,06, p = 0,23). De plus, nous ne pouvons pas observer de différences de mortalité ajustée au risque pour aucun des sous-groupes évalués. CONCLUSIONS: Après avoir ajusté du risque, il n'y avait pas de différence de mortalité entre les patients traumatisés traités par des chirurgiens ou non chirurgiens CET. Notre étude soutient les médecins d'urgences jouent le rôle de CET dans les centres de traumatologie de niveau 1.

Continuing Trauma Care After Discharge, the Experience of Outpatient Trauma Clinics in British Columbia.

The recovery process from traumatic injuries, and the potential for complications, extends beyond the time of hospital discharge. In 2014, the Fraser Health Trauma Network established outpatient clinics to provide follow-up care for trauma patients after discharge from hospital. The following research questions were asked: Which services were commonly performed by our trauma clinics and how satisfied were patients with the care they received at our clinics? A survey was distributed to patients after their clinic visit to assess overall satisfaction and areas for improvement. A retrospective medical record review was performed to illustrate and quantify the interventions provided during clinic visits. During the first 22 months of clinic operation, a total of 412 appointments were scheduled and the attendance rate was 88%. The provided services included obtaining additional imaging (41% of visits), providing wound and brace care (16%), and initiating referrals to specialists (12%). Seventy-seven patient satisfaction surveys were returned during the study period, 34 in 2014 and 43 in 2015. Seventy-four percent of respondents strongly agreed, and 21% agreed that they were satisfied with the care they received in the clinic. Ninety percent found their visit helpful, and only 10% reported having additional medical issues that were not addressed during the appointment. At trauma clinic follow-up, discharged patients have ongoing care requirements, including a need for further investigation, specialist referral, and wound or brace issues that are likely to benefit from specialist trauma care. Patients were satisfied with the care provided by a postdischarge trauma clinic.

Models of care for traumatically injured patients at trauma centres in British Columbia: variability and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Successful trauma systems employ a network of variably-resourced hospitals, staffed by experienced providers, to deliver optimal care for injured patients. The "model of care"-the manner by which inpatients are admitted and overseen, is an important determinant of patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe the models of inpatient trauma care at British Columbia's (BC's) ten adult trauma centres, their sustainability, and their compatibility with accreditation guidelines. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to the trauma medical directors at BC's ten Level I-III adult trauma centres. Follow-up semi-structured interviews clarified responses. RESULTS: Three different models of inpatient trauma care exist within BC. The "admitting trauma service" was a multidisciplinary team providing exclusive care for injured patients. The "on-call consultant" assisted with Emergency Department (ED) resuscitation before transferring patients to a non-trauma admitting service. The single "short-stay trauma unit" employed on-call consultants who also oversaw a 48-hour short-stay ward. Both level I trauma centres utilized the admitting trauma service model (2/2). All Level II sites employed an on-call consultant model (3/3), deviating from Level II trauma centre accreditation standards. Level III sites employed all three models in similar proportions. None of the on-call consultant sites believed their current care model was sustainable. Inadequate compensation, insufficient resources, and difficulty recruiting physicians were cited barriers to sustainability and accreditation compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Three distinct models of care are distributed inconsistently across BC's Level I-III trauma hospitals. Greater use of admitting trauma service and short-stay trauma unit models may improve the sustainability and accreditation compliance of our trauma system.

Minor Injury Crashes: Prevalence of Driver-Related Risk Factors and Outcome.

BACKGROUND: The majority of crashes cause "minor" injuries (i.e., treated and released from the emergency department [ED]). Minor injury crashes are poorly studied. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prevalence of driver-related risk factors and subsequent outcome in drivers involved in minor crashes. METHODS: We interviewed a convenience sample of injured drivers, aged over 17 years, who were treated and released from the ED. Follow-up interviews were conducted 6 months after the crash. RESULTS: We approached 123 injured drivers; baseline interviews were completed in 69 and follow-up interviews in 45. Prior to the index crash, 1.4% of drivers drank alcohol, 1.4% used illicit drugs, and 7.2% used sedating prescription medications. Nine drivers (13%) were distracted. In this sample, 5.8% met criteria for being aggressive drivers, 7.2% were risky drivers, and 11.6% drove while experiencing negative emotions. At 6-month follow-up, many drivers were still having health problems, 53.3% were not fully recovered, 46.7% had not returned to usual activities, and 28.9% were off work. Of the 42 participants who resumed driving, 16.7% had a near miss and 4.8% had another crash. Nine (21.4%) reported drinking and driving, and 9.5% reported driving after cannabis use. Cell phone use (16.7%) and use of other electronics while driving (23.8%) were also common. CONCLUSIONS: Driver-related risk factors are common in drivers involved in minor injury crashes, and drivers persist in taking risks after being involved in a crash. Despite their name, minor injury crashes are often associated with slow recovery and prolonged absenteeism from work.