Search

Background Worldwide, injuries account for approximately five million mortalities annually, with 90% occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although guidelines characterizing data for blood product transfusion in injury resuscitation have been established for high-income countries (HICs), no such information on use of blood products in LMICs exists. This systematic review evaluated the available literature on the use and associated outcomes of blood product transfusion therapies in LMICs for acute care of patients with injuries. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, CINAHL and Cochrane databases through November 2018 was performed by a health sciences medical librarian. Prospective and cross-sectional reports of injured patients from LMICs involving data on blood product transfusion therapies were included. Two reviewers identified eligible records (κ=0.92); quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Report elements, patient characteristics, injury information, blood transfusion therapies provided and mortality outcomes were extracted and analyzed. Results Of 3411 records, 150 full-text reports were reviewed and 17 met inclusion criteria. Identified reports came from the World Health Organization regions of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asia. A total of 6535 patients were studied, with the majority from exclusively inpatient hospital settings (52.9%). Data on transfusion therapies demonstrated that packed red blood cells were given to 27.0% of patients, fresh frozen plasma to 13.8%, and unspecified product types to 50.1%. Among patients with blunt and penetrating injuries, 5.8% and 15.7% were treated with blood product transfusions, respectively. Four reports provided data on comparative mortality outcomes, of which two found higher mortality in blood transfusion-treated patients than in untreated patients at 17.4% and 30.4%. The overall quality of evidence was either low (52.9%) or very low (41.2%), with one report of moderate quality by GRADE criteria. Conclusion There is a paucity of high-quality data to inform appropriate use of blood transfusion therapies in LMIC injury care. Studies were geographically limited and did not include sufficient data on types of therapies and specific injury patterns treated. Future research in more diverse LMIC settings with improved data collection methods is needed to inform injury care globally.

The 80h work week has raised concerns that complications may increase due to multiple sign-outs or poor communication. Trauma Surgery manages complex trauma and acute care surgical patients with rapidly changing physiology, clinical demands and a large volume of data that must be communicated to render safe, effective patient care. Trauma Morning Report format may offer the ideal situation to study and teach sign-outs and resident communication.Surgery Residents were assessed on a 1-5 scale for their ability to communicate to their fellow residents. This consisted of 10 critical points of the presentation, treatment and workup from the previous night's trauma admissions. Scores were grouped into three areas. Each area was scored out of 15. Area 1 consisted of Initial patient presentation. Area 2 consisted of events in the trauma bay. Area 3 assessed clarity of language and ability to communicate to their fellow residents. The residents were assessed for inclusion of pertinent positive and negative findings, as well as overall clarity of communication. In phase 1, residents were unaware of the evaluation process. Phase 2 followed a series of resident education session about effective communication, sign-out techniques and delineation of evaluation criteria. Phase 3 was a resident-blinded phase which evaluated the sustainability of the improvements in resident communication.50 patient presentations in phase 1, 200 in phase 2, and 50 presentations in phase 3 were evaluated. Comparisons were made between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluations. Area 1 (initial events) improved from 6.18 to 12.4 out of 15 (p0.0001). Area 2 (events in the trauma bay) improved from 9.78 to 16.53 (p0.0077). Area 3 (communication and language) improved from 8.36 to 12.22 out of 15 (P0.001). Phase 2 to Phase 3 evaluations were similar, showing no deterioration of skills.Trauma Surgery manages complex surgical patients, with rapidly changing physiologic and clinical demands. Trauma Morning Report, with diverse attendance including surgical attendings and residents in various training years, is the ideal venue for real-time teaching and evaluation of sign-outs and reinforcing good communication skills in residents.