Aggressive traffic enforcement: a simple and effective injury prevention program.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether an aggressive traffic violation enforcement program could reduce motor vehicle crashes (MVCs), injury collisions, fatalities, and fatalities related to speed, and decrease injury severity in crash victims treated at the trauma center. METHODS: A vigorous enforcement program was established within Fresno, Calif, city boundaries using increased traffic patrol officers. Data on citations, collisions, fatal collisions, and fatalities related to speed, as well as injury severity from the trauma registry, were collected for the year before program onset (2002), during the first year (2003), and after full implementation (2004). U.S. Census Bureau information was used for population. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and independent samples t test with significance attributed to p < 0.05. RESULTS: There were significant increases in citations issued, with marked decreases in motor vehicle crashes, injury collisions, fatalities, and fatalities related to speed. There was a decrease in admissions from MVCs, a significant decrease in the number of patients with moderate injury severity (Injury Severity Score of 10-16; p < 0.01), a decrease in hospital length of stay for all MVC victims, and a decrease in hospital charges for MVC patients. These changes were not seen in the area of Fresno County outside the area of increased enforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive traffic enforcement decreased MVCs, crash fatalities, and fatalities related to speed, and it decreased injury severity. This is a simple, easily implemented injury prevention program with immediate benefit.

Are automated blood pressure measurements accurate in trauma patients?

BACKGROUND: Automated blood pressure (BP) determinations by oscillometry are reported to be as accurate as invasive monitoring for systolic pressures as low as 80 mm Hg. Automated BP devices are widely used by prehospital providers and in hospital operating rooms, emergency departments, and intensive care units, although the accuracy of automated BP has not been demonstrated in trauma patients. We hypothesized that automated BP is less accurate than manual BP in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of automated BP versus manual BP in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who met trauma activation criteria admitted to a Level I trauma center over a 30-month period was conducted. Patients were included if both manual BP and automated BP were measured within 5 minutes of admission. Additional data collected included Injury Severity Score, base deficit, and emergency department resuscitation volume. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t test, chi2, and linear regression analysis. Significance was attributed to a value of p < 0.05. RESULTS: From January 2000 through June 2002, 388 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were grouped by manual BP levels: group 1, BP < or = 90 mm Hg (n = 92); group 2, BP 91-110 mm Hg (n = 119); and group 3, BP > or = 110 mm Hg (n = 177). The mean automated BP measurements were significantly higher than the manual measurements in groups 1 and 2 (26 and 16 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.001). Of the 92 patients with manual BP < or = 90, 45 (49%) had automated BP > or = 100. The base deficit (-5, -3, and -2 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.01), Injury Severity Score (30, 25, and 18; p < 0.01), and volume of resuscitative fluid and blood (p < 0.001) all decreased with higher BP group. CONCLUSION: Injury severity, degree of acidosis, and resuscitation volume were more accurately reflected by manual BP. Automated BP determinations were consistently higher than manual BP, particularly in hypotensive patients. Automated BP devices should not be used for field or hospital triage decisions. Manual BP determinations should be used until systolic blood pressure is consistently > or = 110 mm Hg.

Victims of domestic violence on the trauma service: unrecognized and underreported.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence (DV) has received increased recognition as a significant mechanism of injury. To improve awareness about DV at our institution, an educational program was presented to the departments of surgery and emergency medicine. Pre and posttests were given and improvement in knowledge was demonstrated. In addition, a screening question for DV was added to the trauma history and physical (H & P) form. This study was done to determine the long-term efficacy of these efforts in increasing recognition of DV and referral to social services in patients admitted to the trauma service. Recognition of DV and appropriate referral should be increased after education and change in H & P form. METHODS: All patients admitted to the trauma service at a Level I trauma center over a 10 month period with the mechanism of injury "assault" were reviewed. DV was determined to be present, likely, unknown, or absent based on information from the prehospital report and medical records. The DV screen question was reviewed for use and accuracy. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,550 patients were admitted to the trauma service, with assault listed as the mechanism of injury for 217 (14%). DV was confirmed or likely in 27 patients (12.4% of the assaults). Of patients with confirmed or likely DV, only 7 received appropriate referrals, with 2 generated by the nursing staff. Of the confirmed and likely DV patients, 17 (63%) were sent home without investigation of safety and only 21% of all assault victims had any social services evaluation (usually to investigate funding or placement). The DV screen was used in only 12 patients. Reasons given for failure to complete the DV screen on the H & P included examiner discomfort in asking the question, and an environment judged to be inappropriate (resuscitation area in the emergency department). CONCLUSION: DV is unrecognized and underreported. Efforts to improve recognition and reporting of DV events need to be ongoing. Screening for DV is not effectively done as part of the initial evaluation. Assessment for DV may be more appropriate as part of the tertiary survey.

Placement of intracranial pressure monitors: are "normal" coagulation parameters necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with head injuries frequently have abnormal coagulation studies. Monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in head injured patients is common practice, but no best practice guidelines exist for coagulation parameters for ICP monitor placement. PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that hemorrhagic complication rates from ICP monitor placement are low and that the use of FFP to correct coagulation parameters to "normal" is not indicated. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients admitted to a Level I trauma center over a 3 year period, who underwent fiberoptic intraparenchymal ICP monitoring was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were coagulation studies (prothrombin time (PT), partial thromboplastin time (PTT), international normalized ratio (INR), platelet count) before ICP monitor placement and head CT scans to assess for hemorrhage before and after monitor placement. Data collected included age, Glasgow coma score (GCS), head region abbreviated injury score (H_AIS), time to ICP monitor placement, complications and outcomes. RESULTS: From 8/1/00 through 7/31/03, 5163 trauma patients were admitted, and 157 met inclusion criteria. Patients were stratified by INR, at the time of ICP placement as normal (0.8-1.2, 103 patients), borderline (1.3-1.6, 42 patients) and increased (>/=1.7, 12 patients). There was no difference between the groups in age, gender or H_AIS. Twenty two patients had component therapy to correct coagulopathy before ICP insertion, but 10 had INRs in the borderline group and 12 remained with INRs >/=1.7. Eleven patients had platelet counts 50,000-100,000 at ICP monitor placement, despite platelet transfusions. Time from admission to ICP monitor placement was significantly longer in patients who received component therapy (19.2 +/- 19.7 hours versus 8.8 +/- 13.9 hours, p < 0.002). Three patients had clinically insignificant, petechial hemorrhages (1.9%); one in each group, with INRs of 1.2, 1.3, and 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with INR