A Consensus-Based Criterion Standard for the Requirement of a Trauma Team.

BACKGROUND: Trauma team activation (TTA) represents a considerable expenditure of trauma centre resources. It is mainly triggered by field triage criteria. The overall quality of the criteria may be evaluated based on the rate of over- and undertriage. However, there is no gold standard that defines which adult patients truly require a trauma team. The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based criteria defining the necessity for a trauma team. METHODS: A consensus group was formed by trauma specialists experienced in emergency and trauma care with a specific interest in field triage and having previously participated in guideline development. A literature search was conducted to identify criteria that have already been used or suggested. The initial list of criteria was discussed in two Delphi round and two consensus conferences. The entire process of discussion and voting was highly standardized and extensively documented, resulting in a final list of criteria. RESULTS: Initially 95 criteria were identified. This was subsequently reduced to 20 final criteria to appropriately indicate the requirement for attendance of a trauma team. The criteria address aspects related to injury severity, admission to an intensive care unit, death within 24 h, need for specified invasive procedures, need for surgical and/or interventional radiological procedures, and abnormal vital signs within a defined time period. CONCLUSIONS: The selected criteria may be applied as a tool for research and quality control concerning TTA. However, future studies are necessary to further evaluate for possible redundancy in criteria that may allow for further reduction in criteria.

Evaluation of Prehospital Undertriage in Relation to Trauma Team Activation-Results from a Prospective Study in 12 Level one German Trauma Centers.

Background/Objective: This prospective, multicenter observational cohort study was carried out in 12 trauma centers in Germany and Switzerland. Its purpose was to evaluate the rate of undertriage, as well as potential consequences, and relate these with different Trauma Team Activation Protocols (TTA-Protocols), as this has not been done before in Germany. Methods: Each trauma center collected the data during a three-month period between December 2019 and February 2021. All 12 participating hospitals are certified as supra-regional trauma centers. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of undertriaged patients. Those included in the study were all consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with acute trauma admitted to the emergency department of one of the participating hospitals by the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) within 6 h after trauma. The data contained information on age, sex, trauma mechanism, pre- and in-hospital physiology, emergency interventions, emergency surgical interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death within 48 h. Trauma team activation (TTA) was initiated by the emergency medical services. This should follow the national guidelines for severe trauma using established field triage criteria. We used various denominators, such as ISS, and criteria for the appropriateness of TTA to evaluate the undertriage in four groups. Results: This study included a total of 3754 patients. The average injury severity score was 5.1 points, and 7.0% of cases (n = 261) presented with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16+. TTA was initiated for a total of 974 (26%) patients. In group 1, we evaluated how successful the actual practice in the EMS was in identifying patients with ISS 16+. The undertriage rate was 15.3%, but mortality was lower in the undertriage cohort compared to those with a TTA (5% vs. 10%). In group 2, we evaluated the actual practice of EMS in terms of identifying patients meeting the appropriateness of TTA criteria; this showed a higher undertriage rate of 35.9%, but as seen in group 1, the mortality was lower (5.9% vs. 3.3%). In group 3, we showed that, if the EMS were to strictly follow guideline criteria, the rate of undertriage would be even higher (26.2%) regarding ISS 16+. Using the appropriateness of TTA criteria to define the gold standard for TTA (group 4), 764 cases (20.4%) fulfilled at least one condition for retrospective definition of TTA requirement. Conclusions: Regarding ISS 16+, the rate of undertriage in actual practice was 15.3%, but those patients did not have a higher mortality.

Mortality Risk Factors of Severely Injured Polytrauma Patients (Prehospital Mortality Prediction Score).

The aim of this study was to analyze the mortality of polytrauma patients and identify prediction parameters. A further aim was to create from the results a score for the prehospital predictive evaluation of 30-day survival. The study was conducted with a retrospective, observational design and was carried out unicentrically at a Level 1 Trauma Center. During the 4-year investigation period, patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 were examined and their demographic basic data, laboratory values, and vital parameters were recorded. The mortality data analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier Analysis and Log-Rank tests. Cox regressions were carried out to determine influencing factors and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to establish limit values for potential influencing factors. All statistical tests were conducted at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), age at admission, sex, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) had a significant impact on the survival of polytrauma patients. The identified prediction parameters were combined with the shock index (SI). The generated score showed a sensitivity of 93.1% and a specificity of 73.3% in predicting the mortality risk. The study was able to identify significant influencing prehospital risk factors on 30-day survival after polytrauma. A score created from these parameters showed higher specificity and sensitivity than other prediction scores. Further studies with a larger number of participants and the inclusion of slightly injured patients could verify these findings.

Evaluation of a standardized instrument for post hoc analysis of trauma-team-activation-criteria in 75,613 injured patients an analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the quality of criteria for trauma-team-activation it is necessary to identify patients who benefited from the treatment by a trauma team. Therefore, we evaluated a post hoc criteria catalogue for trauma-team-activation which was developed in a consensus process by an expert group and published recently. The objective was to examine whether the catalogue can identify patients that died after admission to the hospital and therefore can benefit from a specialized trauma team mostly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The catalogue was applied to the data of 75,613 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® between the 01/2007 and 12/2016 with a maximum abbreviated injury score (AIS) severity ≥ 2. The endpoint was hospital mortality, which was defined as death before discharge from acute care. RESULTS: The TraumaRegister DGU® dataset contains 18 of the 20 proposed criteria within the catalogue which identified 99.6% of the patients who were admitted to the trauma room following an accident and who died during their hospital stay. Moreover, our analysis showed that at least one criterion was fulfilled in 59,785 cases (79.1%). The average ISS in this group was 21.2 points (SD 9.9). None of the examined criteria applied to 15,828 cases (average ISS 8.6; SD 5). The number of consensus-based criteria correlated with the severity of injury and mortality. Of all deceased patients (8,451), only 31 (0.37%) could not be identified on the basis of the 18 examined criteria. Where only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was 1.7%; with 2 or more criteria, mortality was at least 4.6%. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based criteria identified nearly all patients who died as a result of their injuries. If only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was relatively low. However, it increased to almost 5% if two criteria were fulfilled. Further studies are necessary to analyse and examine the relative weighting of the various criteria. Our instrument is capable to identify severely injured patients with increased in-hospital mortality and injury severity. However, a minimum of two criteria needs to be fulfilled. Based on these findings, we conclude that the criteria list is useful for post hoc analysis of the quality of field triage in patients with severe injury.

Accelerating the Front End of Medicine: Three Digital Use Cases and HCI Implications.

Digital applications in health care are a concurrent research and management question, where implementation experiences are a core field of information systems research. It also contributes to fighting pandemic crises like COVID-19 because contactless information flow and speed of diagnostics are improved. This paper presents three digital application case studies from emergency medicine, administration management, and cancer diagnosis with AI support from the University Medical Centers of Münster and Göttingen in Germany. All cases highlight the potential of digitalization to increase speed and efficiency within the front end of medicine as the crucial phase before patient treatment starts. General challenges for health care project implementations and human-computer interaction (HCI) concepts in health care are derived and discussed, including the importance of specific processes together with user analysis and adaption. A derived concept for HCI includes the criteria speed, accuracy, modularity, and individuality to achieve sustainable improvements within the front end of medicine.

Diagnostic accuracy of different clinical screening criteria for blunt cerebrovascular injuries compared with liberal state of the art computed tomography angiography in major trauma.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) can significantly impact morbidity and mortality if undetected and, therefore, untreated. Two diagnostic concepts are standard practice in major trauma management: Application of clinical screening criteria (CSC) does or does not recommend consecutive computed tomography angiography (CTA) of head and neck. In contrast, liberal CTA usage integrates into diagnostic protocols for suspected major trauma. First, this study's objective is to assess diagnostic accuracy of different CSC for BCVI in a population of patients diagnosed with BCVI after the use of liberal CTA. Second, anatomical locations and grades of BCVI in CSC false negatives are analyzed. METHODS: The hospital database at University Hospital Münster was retrospectively searched for BCVI diagnosed in patients with suspicion of major trauma 2008 to 2015. All patients underwent a diagnostic protocol including CTA. No BCVI risk stratification or CSC had been applied beforehand. Three sets of CSC were drawn from current BCVI practice management guidelines and retrospectively applied to the study population. Primary outcome was false-negative recommendation for CTA according to CSC. Secondary outcome measures were stroke, mortality, mechanism of injury, multivessel BCVI, location and grade of BCVI. RESULTS: From 4,104 patients with suspicion of major trauma, 91 (2.2%) were diagnosed with 126 BCVI through liberal usage of CTA. Sensitivities of different CSC ranged from 57% to 84%. Applying the set of CSC with the highest sensitivity, false-negative BCVIs were found more often in the petrous segment of the carotid artery (p = 0.01) and more false negatives presenting with pseudoaneurysmatic injury were found in the vertebral artery (p = <0.01). CONCLUSION: This study provides further insight into the common debate of correct assessment of BCVI in trauma patients. Despite following current practice management guidelines, a large number of patients with BCVI would have been missed without liberal CTA usage. Larger-scale observational studies are needed to confirm these results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level III.