Analysis of Trauma Characteristics Between the Older and Younger Adult Patient from the Pan Asian Trauma Outcome Study Registry (PATOS).

OBJECTIVE: Asia is experiencing a demographic shift toward an aging population at an unrivaled rate. This can influence the characteristics and outcomes of trauma. We aim to examine different characteristics of older adult trauma patients compared to younger adult trauma patients and describe factors that affect the outcomes in Asian countries. METHODS: This is a retrospective, international, multicenter study of trauma across participating centers in the Pan Asian Trauma Outcome Study (PATOS) registry, which included trauma cases aged ≥18 years, brought to the emergency department (ED) by emergency medical services (EMS) from October 2015 to November 2018. Data of older adults (≥65 years) and younger adults (<65 years) were analyzed and compared. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disability at discharge and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stays. RESULTS: Of 39,804 trauma patients, 10,770 (27.1%) were older adults. Trauma occurred more among older adult women (54.7% vs 33.2%, p < 0.001). Falls were more frequent in older adults (66.3% vs 24.9%, p < 0.001) who also had higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) compared to the younger adult trauma patient (5.4 ± 6.78 vs 4.76 ± 8.60, p < 0.001). Older adult trauma patients had a greater incidence of poor Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) (13.4% vs 4.1%, p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (1.5% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001) and longer median hospital length of stay (12.8 vs 9.8, p < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression revealed age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.06, 95%CI 1.02-1.04, p < 0.001), male sex (AOR 1.60, 95%CI 1.04-2.46, p = 0.032), head and face injuries (AOR 3.25, 95%CI 2.06-5.11, p < 0.001), abdominal and pelvic injuries (AOR 2.78, 95%CI 1.48-5.23, p = 0.002), cardiovascular (AOR 2.71, 95%CI 1.40-5.22, p = 0.003), pulmonary (AOR 3.13, 95%CI 1.30-7.53, p = 0.011) and cancer (AOR 2.03, 95%CI 1.02-4.06, p = 0.045) comorbidities, severe ISS (AOR 2.06, 95%CI 1.23-3.45, p = 0.006), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8 (AOR 12.50, 95%CI 6.95-22.48, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Older trauma patients in the Asian region have a higher mortality rate than their younger counterparts, with many significant predictors. These findings illustrate the different characteristics of older trauma patients and their potential to influence the outcome. Preventive measures for elderly trauma should be targeted based on these factors.

Comparison of trauma systems in Asian countries: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the demographic characteristics and trauma service structures and processes of hospitals in 15 countries across the Asia Pacific, and to provide baseline data for the integrated trauma database: the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS). METHODS: Medical directors and emergency physicians at PATOS-participating hospitals in countries across the Asia Pacific were surveyed through a standardized questionnaire. General information, trauma care system data, and trauma emergency department (ED) outcomes at each hospital were collected by email and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Survey data from 35 hospitals across 15 countries were collected from archived data between June 2014 and July 2015. Designated trauma centers were identified as the highest hospital level for trauma patients in 70% of surveyed countries. Half of the hospitals surveyed had special teams for trauma care, and almost all prepared activation protocol documents for these teams. Most hospitals offered specialized trauma education programs, and 72.7% of hospitals had a hospital-based trauma registry. The total number of trauma patients visiting the ED across 25 of the hospitals was 300,376. The overall survival-to-discharge rate was 97.2%; however, it varied greatly between 85.1% and 99.7%. The difference between survival-to-discharge rates of moderate and severe injury groups was highest in Taiwan (41.8%) and lowest in Thailand (18.6%). CONCLUSION: Trauma care systems and ED outcomes vary widely among surveyed hospitals and countries. This information is useful to build further detailed, systematic platforms for trauma surveillance and evidence-based trauma care policies.

Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS): Rationale and Methodology of an International and Multicenter Trauma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a major health burden and a time-dependent critical emergency condition among developing and developed countries. In Asia, trauma has become a rapidly expanding epidemic and has spread out to many underdeveloped and developing countries through rapid urbanization and industrialization. Most casualties of severe trauma, which results in significant mortality and disability are assessed and transported by prehospital providers including physicians, professional providers, and volunteer providers. Trauma registries have been developed in mostly developed countries and measure care quality, process, and outcomes. In general, existing registries tend to focus on inhospital care rather than prehospital care. METHODS: The Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) was proposed in 2013 and initiated in November, 2015 in order to establish a collaborative standardized study to measure the capabilities, processes and outcomes of trauma care throughout Asia. The PATOS is an international, multicenter, and observational research network to collect trauma cases transported by emergency medical services (EMS) providers. Data are collected from the participating hospital emergency departments in various countries in Asia which receive trauma patients from EMS. Data variables collected include 1) injury epidemiologic factors, 2) EMS factors, 3) emergency department care factors, 4) hospital care factors, and 5) trauma system factors. The authors expect to achieve a sample size of 67,230 cases over the next 2 years of data collection to analyze the association between potential risks and outcomes of trauma. CONCLUSION: The PATOS network is expected to provide comparison of the trauma EMS systems and to benchmark best practice with participating communities.

Comparison of Emergency Medical Services and Trauma Care Systems Among Pan-Asian Countries: An International, Multicenter, Population-Based Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge on the current trauma systems in Asian countries is limited. The objective of this study was to describe the emergency medical services (EMS) and trauma care systems among countries participating in the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) Clinical Research Network. METHODS: The PATOS network consists of 33 participating sites from 14 countries. Standardized data was collected from each site using an EMS survey form and included general information (population, population density, urbanization, EMS service fee, etc.), dispatcher system, trauma care practice, trauma education program, existence of a trauma registry, and data on EMS transfers. Data is described with simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All countries included urban sites. Nine countries included rural sites and only one country included wilderness site. Of the 33 sties, 18 sites had physician-based EMS systems. EMS services were free in 9 countries. Twelve sites had dispatch centers operated by government health departments. EMS dispatcher certification was required in 29 sites. Thirty-two sites had EMS documented protocols for trauma and 31 sites had field triage tools. Thirty sites had designated trauma centers. Twenty-one sites had helicopter EMS systems. Thirty-one sites require certification for trauma education programs. Only 23 sites maintained EMS-based trauma registries. In 20 sites, EMS medical directors reviewed and assured trauma registry quality. Of patients transported by EMS rate of injured patients ranged from 15% to 59%. CONCLUSION: Substantial variability exists in EMS systems in Asia, especially for injured patients. Futures studies are required to assess the impact of this variability on patient outcomes.

Epidemiology of trauma in an acute care hospital in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Trauma injury is the leading cause of mortality and hospitalization worldwide and the leading cause of potential years of productive life lost. Patients with multiple injuries are prevalent, increasing the complexity of trauma care and treatment. Better understanding of the nature of trauma risk and outcome could lead to more effective prevention and treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 1178 trauma patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9, who were admitted to the Acute and Emergency Care of an acute care hospital between January 2011 and December 2012. The statistical analysis included calculation of percentages and proportions and application of test of significance using Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1178 patients were evaluated, 815 (69.2%) males and 363 (30.8%) females. The mean age of patients was 52.08 ± 21.83 (range 5-100) years. Falls (604; 51.3%) and road traffic accidents (465; 39.5%) were the two most common mechanisms of injury. Based on the three most common mechanisms of injury, i.e. fall on the same level, fall from height, and road traffic accident, the head region (484; 45.40%) was the most commonly injured in the body, followed by lower limbs (377; 35.37%) and thorax (299; 28.05%). CONCLUSION: Fall was the leading cause of injury among the elderly population with road traffic injuries being the leading cause among the younger group. There is a need to address the issues of injury control and prevention in these areas.