An Evaluation of Pediatric Secondary Overtriage in the Pennsylvania Trauma System.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the secondary overtriage rate of pediatric trauma patients admitted to pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that pediatric secondary overtriage (POT) would constitute a large percentage of admissions to PTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for pediatric (age ≤ 18 y) trauma patients transferred to accredited pediatric trauma centers in Pennsylvania (n = 6). Patients were stratified based on discharge within (early) and beyond (late) 24 h following admission. POT was defined as patients transferred to a PTC with an early discharge. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model controlling for demographic and injury severity covariates were utilized to determine the adjusted impact of injury patterns on early discharge. RESULTS: A total of 37,653 patients met inclusion criteria. For transfers, POT compromised 18,752 (49.8%) patients. Compared to POT, non-POT were more severely injured (ISS: 10 versus 6;P < 0.001) and spent less time in the ED (Min: 181 versus 207;P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, concussion, closed skull vault fractures, supracondylar humerus fractures, and consults to neurosurgery were associated with increased odds of POT. Overall, femur fracture, child abuse evaluation, and consults to plastic surgery, orthopedics, and ophthalmology were all associated with a decreased risk of being POT. CONCLUSIONS: POT comprises 49.8% of PTC transfer admissions in Pennsylvania's trauma system. Improving community resources for management of pediatric concussion and mild TBI could result in decreased rates of POT to PTCs. Developing better inter-facility transfer guidelines and increased education of adult TC and nontrauma center hospitals is needed to decrease POT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Location of Injury and Other Factors Associated With Increased Survival Among Severely Injured Geriatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) < .5 are termed "unexpected survivors." There is scarce information published on this subset of geriatric patients whose survival is an anomaly. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study examining all geriatric patients (age ≥65) not expected to survive (TRISS<.5) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. We selected 10 clinically important variables for logistic regression analysis as possible factors that may improve survival. RESULTS: 1336 patients were included, 395 (29.6%) were unexpected survivors. Factors that improved survival odds are the following: Place of injury: street/highway (AOR:0.51; 95% CI: .36-.73, P < .001) and residential institution (AOR:0.46; 95% CI: .21-.98, P = .043); and presence of Benzodiazepines (AOR:0.49; 95% CI: .31-.77, P = .002) or ethanol (AOR:0.57; 95% CI: .34-.97, P = .040). Factors that decreased survival odds are the following: Hypotension (AOR: 8.59; 95% CI: 4.33-17.01, P < .001) and hypothermia (AOR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10-2.28, P = .014). Gender, race/ethnicity, blood transfusion in first 24 hours, shift of presentation to Emergency Department, place of injury (farm, industrial, recreational, or public building), use of Tetrahydrocannabinol, amphetamines or opioids, and level of trauma activation did not impact survival. DISCUSSION: Location of injury (street/highway and residential institution) and ethanol or benzodiazepine use led to a significant increased survival in severely injured geriatric patients. Hypotension and hypothermia led to decreased survival. Future studies should determine possible reasons these factors lead to survival (and identify additional factors) to focus efforts in these areas to improve outcomes in geriatric trauma.

Geriatric Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

BACKGROUND: Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013. RESULTS: 112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% (P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182). DISCUSSION: Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.

An analysis of overtriage and undertriage by advanced life support transport in a mature trauma system.

BACKGROUND: While issues regarding triage of severely injured trauma patients are well publicized, little information exists concerning the difference between triage rates for patients transported by advanced life support (ALS) and basic life support (BLS). We sought to analyze statewide trends in undertriage (UT) and overtriage (OT) to address this question, hypothesizing that there would be a difference between the UT and OT rates for ALS compared with BLS over a 13-year period. METHODS: All patients submitted to Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study database from 2003 to 2015 were analyzed. Undertriage was defined as not calling a trauma alert for patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater. Overtriage was defined as calling a trauma alert for patients with an ISS of 9 or less. A logistic regression was used to assess mortality between triage groups in ALS and BLS. A multinomial logistic regression assessed the adjusted impact of ALS versus BLS transport on UT and OT versus normal triage while controlling for age, sex, Glasgow Coma Scale, systolic blood pressure (SBP), pulse, Shock Index and injury year. RESULTS: A total of 462,830 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 115,825 had an ISS of 16 or greater and 257,855 had an ISS of 9 or less. Both ALS and BLS had significantly increased mortality when patients were undertriaged compared with the reference group. Multivariate analysis in the form of a multinomial logistic regression revealed that patients transported by ALS had a decreased adjusted rate of undertriage (relative risk ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.97; p = 0.003) and an increased adjusted rate of OT (relative risk ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.64; p < 0.001) compared with patients transported by BLS. CONCLUSION: Compared with their BLS counterparts, while UT is significantly lower, OT is substantially higher in ALS-further increasing the high levels of resource (over)utilization in trauma patients. Undertriage in both ALS and BLS are associated with increased mortality rates. Additional education, especially in the BLS provider, on identifying the major trauma victim may be warranted based on the results of this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, Level III.