Hemorrhage Control Training: Preparing Adolescents to Act at Home, at School, or in Public.

OBJECTIVES: Uncontrolled bleeding is the leading cause of preventable death after a traumatic event, and early intervention to control bleeding improves opportunities for survival. It is imperative to prepare for local and national disasters by increasing public knowledge on how to control bleeding, and this preparation should extend to both adults and children. The purpose of this study is to describe a training effort to teach basic hemorrhage control techniques to early adolescent children. METHODS: The trauma and emergency departments at a combined level I adult and level II pediatric trauma center piloted a training initiative with early adolescents (grades 6-8) focused on 2 skills: packing a wound and holding direct pressure, and applying a Combat Application Tourniquet. Students were evaluated on each skill and completed presurveys and postsurveys indicating their likelihood to use the skills. RESULTS: Of the 194 adolescents who participated in the trainings, 97% of the students could successfully pack a wound and hold pressure, and 97% of the students could apply a tourniquet. Before the training, 71% of the adolescents indicated that they would take action to assist a bleeding victim; this increased to 96% after the training. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that basic hemorrhage control skills can be effectively taught to adolescents as young as 6th grade (ages 11-12 years) in a small setting with age-appropriate content and hands-on opportunities to practice the skills and such training increases students' perceived willingness to take action to assist a bleeding victim.

Trauma Response for Elderly Anticoagulated Patients: An Initiative to Reduce Trauma Resource Utilization in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers are challenged to have appropriate criteria to identify injured patients needing a trauma activation; one population that is difficult to triage is injured elderly patients taking anticoagulation or antiplatelet (ACAP) medications with suspected head injury. OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to evaluate a hospital initiative to improve the trauma triage response for this population. METHODS: A retrospective study at a Level I trauma center evaluated revised trauma response criteria. In Phase 1 (June 2017 to April 2018; n = 91), a limited activation occurred in the trauma bay for injured patients 55 years and older, taking ACAP medications with evidence of head injury. In Phase 2 (June 2018 to April 2019; n = 142), patients taking ACAP medications with evidence of head injury received a rapid emergency department (ED) response. Primary outcomes were timeliness of ED interventions and hospital admission rates. Differences between phases were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: An ED rapid response significantly reduced trauma team involvement (100%-13%, p < .001). Compared with Phase 1, patients in Phase 2 were more frequently discharged from the ED (48% vs. 68%, p = .003), and ED disposition decision was made more quickly (147 vs. 120 min, p = .01). In Phase 2, time to ED disposition decision was longer for patients who required hospital admission (108 vs. 179 min, p < .001); however, there were no significant differences between phases in reversal intervention (6% vs. 11%, p = .39) or timeliness of reversal intervention (49 vs. 118 min, p = .51). CONCLUSION: The ED rapid response delivered safe, timely evaluation to injured elderly patients without overutilizing trauma team activations.

Effect of Pain Management Electronic Order Sets on Opioid Use in Adult Rib Fracture Patients.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient pain management order sets are an important and necessary tool for standardizing and enhancing pain management for patients with traumatic injury. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of revised inpatient pain management electronic order sets on opioid usage for patients with significant chest wall trauma. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post study was conducted for adult patients with 3 or more rib fractures admitted to the hospital at a Level 1 trauma center. Two periods were compared: 1 year prior to the order set changes and the period immediately after the revisions were implemented. Differences between medians were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test by ranks, and differences between nominal variables were assessed with χ test. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were analyzed for each period. There was no significant change between periods in the total amount of opioid received per day. There was a significant reduction in intravenous (IV) opioid use on the general inpatient floor (61% vs. 24%, p = .01), as well as in the percentage of patients who received IV opioid within 24 hr of discharge (40% vs. 4%, p = .002). CONCLUSION: Revised inpatient pain management order sets did not reduce overall opioid usage in a population of patients with 3 or more rib fractures. However, significant improvements were noted in decreased IV opioid usage on the general inpatient floors and within 24 hr of patient discharge from the hospital.

Anticoagulated Trauma Patients: A Level I Trauma Center's Response to a Growing Geriatric Population.

BACKGROUND: Injured older adults often receive delayed care in the emergency department (ED) because they do not meet criteria for trauma team activation (TTA). This is particularly dangerous for the increasing number of patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet (AC/AP) medication at the time of injury. OBJECTIVES: The present study examined improvements in processes of care and triage accuracy when TTA criteria include an escalated response for older anticoagulated patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed at a Level I trauma center. The study population (referred to as A55) included patients aged 55 years or older who were taking an AC/AP medication at the time of injury. Study periods included 11 months prior to the criteria change (Phase 1: July 2013-May 2014; n = 107) and 11 months after the change (Phase 2: July 2014-May 2015; n = 211). Differences were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: More A55 patients received a full or limited TTA after criteria were revised (70% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). Undertriage was reduced from 13% to 2% (p < 0.001). The trauma center significantly decreased time to first laboratory result, time to first computed tomography scan, and total time in ED prior to admission for A55 patients arriving from the scene of injury or by private vehicle. CONCLUSION: Criteria that escalated the trauma response for A55 patients led to reductions in undertriage for anticoagulated older adults, as well as more timely mobilization of important clinical resources.

Is pain really undertreated? Challenges of addressing pain in trauma patients during prehospital transport and trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has documented the inadequacy of pain management for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED), with rates of pain assessment and opioid administration averaging about 50%. Such rates, however, may be misleading and do not adequately capture the complexity of pain management practices in a trauma population. The goal of the study was to determine if pain was undertreated at the study hospital or if patient acuity explained the timing and occurrence of pain treatment in the prehospital setting and the ED. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed at a Level 1 adult trauma centre in the Midwest. The trauma registry was used to identify patients who received a trauma activation during the study period (June-November 2012; N=313). Using the first set of patient vitals and ISS, patients were grouped into three categories: physiologically stable with low injury severity (n=132); physiologically stable with moderate to severe injury (n=122); and physiologically unstable with severe injury (n=56). Differences were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Patients who were physiologically unstable were the least likely to receive a standardised pain assessment and the least likely to receive an opioid in the ED. Patients who were physiologically stable at entry to the ED but sustained a severe injury were the most likely to receive an opioid. Time to first pain assessment and time to first opioid did not differ by patient acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that patient acuity greatly affects the ability to effectively and appropriately manage pain in the initial hours after injury. This study contributes to the literature by noting areas for improvement but also in explaining why delaying pain treatment may be appropriate in certain patient populations.