Escaping the Silos: Utilization of a Pediatric Trauma Escape Room to Promote Interprofessional Education and Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Millions of children are treated annually for trauma-related injuries but comprise a smaller proportion of emergency department visits than adults. As a result, emergency department teams may not have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to care for pediatric patients, and specialty teams may not interact enough as an interprofessional team to provide high-quality patient care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to describe a novel interprofessional simulation-based education initiative to assist pediatric trauma team readiness. METHODS: An escape room was designed to provide an interactive educational environment focused on pediatric trauma education. Using an interprofessional dyad of a trauma nursing specialist and a pediatric nursing expert, the escape room was designed as a series of clues to improve pediatric skills and interprofessional collaboration between specialty teams. The escape room training was conducted (from February to March, 2023) in a large Southeastern U.S. Level II adult trauma center. RESULTS: Twenty-one registered nurses from different specialty teams participated in the simulation exercises with overwhelmingly positive feedback. Colleagues reported this was a unique way to deliver education that resulted in innovative team building and enriched collegiality between the specialty teams. CONCLUSIONS: The escape room educational format was positively received, and future events are planned across disciplines and various topics. Trauma centers with lower pediatric volumes seeking to provide engaging team-based education may use this format as a unique and innovative way to develop teams for clinical success.

Trauma Prevalence and Resource Utilization During 4 COVID-19 "Surges": A National Analysis of Trauma Patients From 92 Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographics & outcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019. RESULTS: The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

What Makes a Trauma Patient "Pediatric"? Survey of Providers' Admission Decision Making for Pediatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Only a fraction of pediatric trauma patients are treated in pediatric-specific facilities, leaving the remaining to be seen in centers that must decide to admit the patient to a pediatric or adult unit. Thus, there may be inconsistencies in pediatric trauma admission practices among trauma centers. OBJECTIVE: Describe current practices in admission decision making for pediatric patients. METHODS: An email survey was distributed to members of three professional organizations: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Society of Trauma Nurses, and Pediatric Trauma Society. The survey contained questions regarding pediatric age cutoffs, institutional placement decisions, and scenario-based assessments to determine mitigating placement factors. RESULTS: There were 313 survey responses representing freestanding children's hospitals (114, 36.4%); children's hospitals within general hospitals (107, 34.2%), and adult centers (not a children's hospital; 90, 28.8%). The mean age cutoff for pediatric admission was 16.6 years. The most reported cutoff ages were 18 years (77, 25.6%) and 15 years (76, 25.2%). The most common rationales for the age cutoffs were "institutional experience/tradition" (139, 44.4%) and "physician preference" (89, 28.4%). CONCLUSION: There was no single widely accepted age cutoff that distinguished pediatric from adult trauma patients for admission placement. There was significant variability between and within the types of facilities, with noted ambiguity in the definition of a "pediatric" patient. Thresholds appear to be based primarily on subjective criteria such as traditions or preferences rather than scientific data. Institutions should strive for objective, evidence-based policies for determining the appropriate placement of pediatric patients.

The Building Blocks to a Highly Effective Trauma Program.

BACKGROUND: Well-developed trauma programs take years of planning, dedication, and commitment to the trauma population to achieve the desired outcomes and, even more, resilience and persistence to maintain a high-quality standard of care. Despite widespread trauma care systems across the nation and their link to improved outcomes for the trauma patient, there is a paucity of literature outlining the foundational elements required to evolve and grow a successful trauma program. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to outline the key elements for developing and maintaining a successful trauma program that yields high-quality patient outcomes. METHODS: Developing a program requires intense focus and continued efforts. Multiple foundational building blocks can facilitate program success and foster program growth. RESULTS: Foundational elements include leadership structure and support, building the right team, clinical expertise, trauma registry, program data, research, outreach and education, injury prevention, and ensuring adequate survey readiness. Building on these foundational elements, engagement of stakeholders at all levels throughout the program and organization can help drive program growth. Using these strategies, a program has been able to grow from 7.6 full-time equivalents to 24.4 in just a few short years while achieving, exceeding, and sustaining top metrics across state and national benchmarks. CONCLUSION: A program can achieve sustainable, high-quality outcomes for the trauma patient by following a structured team approach to program development. Using the outlined building blocks for program development and sustainability, a successful trauma program can lead to improved patient and program outcomes.

The Impact of Nursing on Trauma Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of HCAHPS From 112,283 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I-IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018-2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. RESULTS: Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p < .001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution-larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p < .001) or "medical" (58.4%; p < .001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience.

Improving Access to Stroke Care in the Rural Setting: The Journey to Acute Stroke Ready Designation.

Stroke is the fifth highest cause of death and the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States. North Carolina has one of the highest death rates from stroke in the nation. Access to acute stroke care in rural western North Carolina is limited, with only one primary stroke center within an 18-county region. Angel Medical Center, located in rural western North Carolina, sought to pursue The Joint Commission's disease-specific certification as an Acute Stroke Ready Hospital in an effort to improve stroke care and outcomes across the region. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of ED clinicians, hospital leadership, and community participants was formed to develop a structured care algorithm and intensive process improvement initiatives to guide the Acute Stroke Ready Hospital application process. RESULTS: In the 7 months since implementation, door-to-laboratory results have improved by an average of 12 minutes, door-to-computed tomography interpretation has improved by 3 minutes, time to intravenous thrombolytics has improved to less than 60 minutes, and patient transfer within 2 hours of arrival has also improved. ED provider average response time has been reduced by 5 minutes, and time to neurology via telemedicine has been reduced by almost 10 minutes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: By driving best practices in the delivery of stroke care, Angel Medical Center enhanced stroke care in a rural community, allowing patients and families to receive evaluation and treatment in a timely and efficient manner close to home.

Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age. RESULTS: Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.