Search

Abstract: The National Trauma Research Action Plan project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research, the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness has been associated with lower mortality for injured children but has historically been suboptimal in non-pediatric trauma centers. Over the past decade, the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) has invested resources in improving ED pediatric readiness. This study aimed to quantify current trauma center pediatric readiness and identify associations with center-level characteristics to target further efforts to guide improvement., Methods: The study cohort included all centers that responded to the 2021 NPRP national assessment and contributed data to the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) the same calendar year. Center characteristics and pediatric (0-15y) volume from the NTDB were linked to weighted pediatric readiness scores (wPRS) obtained from the NPRP assessment. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to determine associations between wPRS and trauma center type as well as center-level facility characteristics., Results: The wPRS was reported for 77% (749/973) of centers that contributed to the NTDB. ED Pediatric Readiness was highest in ACS level one pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), but wPRS in the highest quartile was seen among all adult and pediatric trauma center types. Independent predictors of high wPRS included ACS level one PTC verification, pediatric trauma volume, and the presence of a PICU. Higher-level adult trauma centers and pediatric trauma centers were more likely to have pediatric-specific physician requirements, pediatric emergency care coordinators, and pediatric quality improvement initiatives., Conclusion: ED pediatric readiness in trauma centers remains variable and is predictably lower in centers that lack inpatient resources. There is, however, no aspect of ED pediatric readiness that is constrained to high-level pediatric facilities, and a highest quartile wPRS was achieved in all types of adult centers in our study. Ongoing efforts to improve pediatric readiness for initial stabilization at non-pediatric centers are needed, particularly in centers that routinely transfer children out., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic, Level III., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None of the authors have any personal or financial conflicts to disclose. JTACS Disclosure forms have been supplied and are provided as supplemental digital content (http://links.lww.com/TA/D837)., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Undertriage of injured older adults to tertiary trauma centers (TTCs) has been demonstrated by many studies. In predominantly rural regions, a majority of trauma patients are initially transported to nontertiary trauma centers (NTCs). Current interfacility triage guidelines do not highlight the hierarchical importance of risk factors nor do they allow for individual risk prediction. We sought to develop a transfer risk score that may simplify secondary triage of injured older adults to TTCs., Methods: This was a retrospective prognostic study of injured adults 55 years or older initially transported to an NTC from the scene of injury. The study used data reported to the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2009 and 2019. The outcome of interest was either mortality or serious injury (Injury Severity Score, ≥16) requiring an interventional procedure at the receiving facility. In developing the model, machine-learning techniques including random forests were used to reduce the number of candidate variables recorded at the initial facility., Results: Of the 5,913 injured older adults initially transported to an NTC before subsequent transfer to a TTC, 32.7% (1,696) had the outcome of interest at the TTC. The final prognostic model (area under the curve, 75.4%; 95% confidence interval, 74-76%) included the following top four predictors and weighted scores: airway intervention (10), traffic-related femur fracture (6), spinal cord injury (5), emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤13 (5), and hemodynamic support (4). Bias-corrected and sample validation areas under the curve were 74% and 72%, respectively. A risk score of 7 yields a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 56%., Conclusion: Secondary triage of injured older adults to TTCs could be enhanced by use of a risk score. Our study is the first to develop a risk stratification tool for injured older adults requiring transfer to a higher level of care., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiolgical; Level III., (Copyright © 2022 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Background: Injured children initially treated at trauma centers with high emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness have improved survival. Centers with limited resources may not be able to address all pediatric readiness deficiencies, and there currently is no evidence-based guidance for prioritizing different components of readiness. The objective of this study was to identify individual components of ED pediatric readiness associated with better-than-expected survival in US trauma centers to aid in the allocation of resources targeted at improving pediatric readiness., Methods: This cohort study of US trauma centers used the National Trauma Data Bank (2012-2017) matched to the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment. Adult and pediatric centers treating at least 50 injured children (younger than 18 years) and recording at least one death during the 6-year study period were included. Using a standardized risk-adjustment model for trauma, we calculated the observed-to-expected mortality ratio for each trauma center. We used bivariate analyses and multivariable linear regression to assess for associations between individual components of ED pediatric readiness and better-than-expected survival., Results: Among 555 trauma centers, the observed-to-expected mortality ratios ranged from 0.07 to 4.17 (interquartile range, 0.93-1.14). Unadjusted analyses of 23 components of ED pediatric readiness showed that trauma centers with better-than-expected survival were more likely to have a validated pediatric triage tool, comprehensive quality improvement processes, a pediatric-specific disaster plan, and critical airway and resuscitation equipment (all p < 0.03). The multivariable analysis demonstrated that trauma centers with both a physician and a nurse pediatric emergency care coordinator had better-than-expected survival, but this association weakened after accounting for trauma center level. Child maltreatment policies were associated with lower-than-expected survival, particularly in Levels III to V trauma centers., Conclusion: Specific components of ED pediatric readiness were associated with pediatric survival among US trauma centers., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 trauma system report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, 11 expert panels completed a Delphi survey process to create a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on prehospital and mass casualty trauma care., Methods: We recruited interdisciplinary national experts to identify gaps in the prehospital and mass casualty trauma evidence base and generate prioritized research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We included military and civilian representatives. Panelists were encouraged to use the Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome format to generate research questions. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the questions on a 9-point Likert scale to low-, medium-, and high-priority items. We defined consensus as ≥60% agreement on the priority category and coded research questions using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts in 9 categories., Results: Thirty-one interdisciplinary subject matter experts generated 490 research questions, of which 433 (88%) reached consensus on priority. The rankings of the 433 questions were as follows: 81 (19%) high priority, 339 (78%) medium priority, and 13 (3%) low priority. Among the 81 high-priority questions, there were 46 taxonomy concepts, including health systems of care (36 questions), interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness (32 questions), mortality as an outcome (30 questions), prehospital time/transport mode/level of responder (24 questions), system benchmarks (17 questions), and fluid/blood product resuscitation (17 questions)., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of prehospital and mass casualty care identified 81 high-priority research questions to guide investigators and funding agencies for future trauma research., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comorbid conditions and anticoagulants have been considered as field triage criteria to raise the sensitivity for identifying seriously injured older adults, but research is sparse. We evaluated the utility of comorbidities, anticoagulant use, and geriatric-specific physiologic measures to improve the sensitivity of the field triage guidelines for high-risk older adults in the out-of-hospital setting., Methods: This was a cohort study of injured adults 65 years or older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in seven Oregon and Washington counties from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011. Out-of-hospital predictors included current field triage criteria, 13 comorbidities, preinjury anticoagulant use, and previously developed geriatric specific physiologic measures. The primary outcome (high-risk patients) was Injury Severity Score of 16 or greater or need for major nonorthopedic surgical intervention. We used binary recursive partitioning to develop a clinical decision rule with a target sensitivity of 95% or greater., Results: There were 5,021 older adults, of which 320 (6.4%) had Injury Severity Score of 16 or greater or required major nonorthopedic surgery. Of the 2,639 patients with preinjury medication history available, 400 (15.2%) were taking an anticoagulant. Current field triage practices were 36.6% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.2%-42.0%) and 90.1% specific (95% CI, 89.2%-91.0%) for high-risk patients. Recursive partitioning identified (in order): any current field triage criteria, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or less, geriatric-specific vital signs, and comorbidity count of 2 or more. Anticoagulant use was not identified as a predictor variable. The new criteria were 90.3% sensitive (95% CI, 86.8%-93.7%) and 17.0% specific (95% CI, 15.8%-18.1%)., Conclusions: The current field triage guidelines have poor sensitivity for high-risk older adults. Adding comorbidity information and geriatric-specific physiologic measures improved sensitivity, with a decrement in specificity., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level II.

Background: Trauma registries are used to evaluate and improve trauma care, yet potentially miss certain trauma deaths and high-risk patients. We estimated the number of missed deaths and high-risk trauma patients using commonly available sources of trauma data and resulting bias in quality metrics for field trauma triage., Methods: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a population-based prospective cohort of injured patients transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 28 hospitals in seven Northwest counties from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 and followed through hospitalization. We used a stratified probability sampling design for 17,633 patients, weighted to represent all 53,487 injured patients transported by emergency medical services. We compared patients meeting National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) criteria (weighted n = 5,883), all injured patients presenting to major trauma centers (weighted n = 16,859), and all admitted patients (weighted n = 18,433), to the full sample. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or higher, and critical resource use within 24 hours., Results: Among 53,487 injured patients, there were 520 emergency department and in-hospital deaths, 1,745 with ISS of 16 or higher, and 923 requiring early critical resources. Compared to the full cohort, the NTDB cohort missed 62.1% of deaths, 39.2% of patients with ISS of 16 or higher, and 23.8% requiring early critical resources, especially older adults injured by falls and admitted to nontrauma hospitals. The admission cohort missed the fewest patients-23.3% of deaths, 10.5% with an ISS of 16 or higher, and 13.1% requiring early resources. Compared to triage sensitivity in the full cohort (66.2%), sensitivity estimates ranged from 63.6% (all admissions) to 93.4% (NTDB). Compared to triage specificity in the full cohort (87.8%), estimates ranged from 36.4% (NTDB) to 77.3% (all admissions)., Conclusion: Common sources of trauma data miss substantial numbers of trauma deaths and high-risk trauma patients and can generate biased estimates for trauma system quality metrics., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic, level III.

Background: Optimal resuscitation of hypotensive trauma patients has not been defined. This trial was performed to assess the feasibility and safety of controlled resuscitation (CR) versus standard resuscitation (SR) in hypotensive trauma patients., Methods: Patients were enrolled and randomized in the out-of-hospital setting. Nineteen emergency medical services (EMS) systems in the Resuscitation Outcome Consortium participated. Eligible patients had an out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 90 mm Hg or lower. CR patients received 250 mL of fluid if they had no radial pulse or an SBP lower than 70 mm Hg and additional 250-mL boluses to maintain a radial pulse or an SBP of 70 mm Hg or greater. The SR group patients received 2 L initially and additional fluid as needed to maintain an SBP of 110 mm Hg or greater. The crystalloid protocol was maintained until hemorrhage control or 2 hours after hospital arrival., Results: A total of 192 patients were randomized (97 CR and 95 SR). The CR and SR groups were similar at baseline. The mean (SD) crystalloid volume administered during the study period was 1.0 L (1.5) in the CR group and 2.0 L (1.4) in the SR group, a difference of 1.0 L (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.4). Intensive care unit-free days, ventilator-free days, renal injury, and renal failure did not differ between the groups. At 24 hours after admission, there were 5 deaths (5%) in the CR group and 14 (15%) in the SR group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.12-1.26). Among patients with blunt trauma, 24-hour mortality was 3% (CR) and 18% (SR) with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.17 (0.03-0.92). There was no difference among patients with penetrating trauma (9% vs. 9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.19-19.17)., Conclusion: CR is achievable in out-of-hospital and hospital settings and may offer an early survival advantage in blunt trauma. A large-scale, Phase III trial to examine its effects on survival and other clinical outcomes is warranted., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level I.

Background: Among trauma patients with out-of-hospital hypotension, we evaluated the predictive value of systolic blood pressure (SBP) with and without other physiologic compromise for identifying trauma patients requiring early critical resources., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of injured patients 13 years or older with out-of-hospital hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg) who were transported by 114 emergency medical service agencies to 56 Level I and II trauma centers in 11 regions of the United States and Canada from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. The primary outcome was early critical resource use, defined as blood transfusion of 6 U or greater, major nonorthopedic surgery, interventional radiology, or death within 24 hours., Results: Of 3,337 injured patients with out-of-hospital hypotension, 1,094 (33%) required early critical resources and 1,334 (40%) had serious injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16). Patients with isolated hypotension required less early critical resources (14% vs. 52%), had less serious injury (20% vs. 61%), and had lower mortality (24 hours, 1% vs. 26%; in-hospital, 3% vs. 34%). The standardized probability of requiring early critical resources was lowest among patients with blunt injury and isolated moderate hypotension (0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.15) and steadily increased with additional physiologic compromise, more severe hypotension, and penetrating injury (0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.98)., Conclusion: A minority of trauma patients with isolated out-of-hospital hypotension require early critical resuscitation resources. However, hypotension accompanied by additional physiologic compromise or penetrating injury markedly increases the probability of requiring time-sensitive interventions., Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, level II.

Background: In civilian trauma care, field triage is the process applied by prehospital care providers to identify patients who are likely to have severe injuries and immediately need the resources of a trauma center. Studies of the efficacy of field triage have used various measures to define trauma center need because no "criterion standard" exists, making cross-study comparisons difficult. This study aimed to develop a consensus-based functional criterion standard definition of trauma center need., Methods: Local and national experts were recruited for participation. Blinded key informant interviews were conducted in order of availability until no new themes emerged. Themes identified during the interviews were used to develop a Modified Delphi survey, which was electronically delivered via Survey Monkey. The trauma center need criteria were refined iteratively based on participant responses. Participants completed additional surveys until there was at least 80% agreement for each criterion., Results: Fourteen experts were recruited. Five participated in key informant interviews. A Modified Delphi survey was administered five times (four modifications based on the expert's responses). After the fifth round, there was at least 82% agreement on each criterion. The final definition included 10 time-specific indicators: major surgery, advanced airway, blood products, admission for spinal cord injury, thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, cesarean delivery, intracranial pressure monitoring, interventional radiology, and in-hospital death., Conclusion: We developed a consensus-based functional criterion standard definition of needing the resources of a trauma center, which may help to standardize field triage research and quality assurance in trauma systems as well as allow for cross study comparisons.

Background: This study aimed to characterize initial clinical presentations of patients served by emergency medical services (EMS) who die following injury, with particular attention to patients with occult ("talk-and-die") presentations., Methods: This was a population-based, multiregion, mixed-methods retrospective cohort study of fatally injured children and adults evaluated by 94 EMS agencies transporting to 122 hospitals in seven Western US regions from 2006 to 2008. Fatalities were divided into two main groups: occult injuries (talk-and-die; Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score ≥ 13, no cardiopulmonary arrest, and no intubation) versus overt injuries (all other patients). These groups were further subdivided by timing of death: early (<48 hours) versus late (>48 hours). We then compared demographic, physiologic, procedural, and injury patterns using descriptive statistics. We also used qualitative methods to analyze available EMS chart narratives for contextual information from the out-of-hospital encounter., Results: During the 3-year study period, 3,358 persons served by 9-1-1 EMS providers died, with 1,225 (37.1%) in the field, 1,016 (30.8%) early in the hospital, and 1,060 (32.1%) late in the hospital. Of the 2,133 patients transported to a hospital, there were 612 (28.7%) talk-and-die patients, of whom 114 (18.6%) died early. Talk-and-die patients were older (median age, 81 years; interquartile range, 67-87 years), normotensive (median systolic blood pressure, 138 mm Hg; interquartile range, 116-160 mm Hg), commonly injured by falls (71.3%), and frequently (52.4%) died in nontrauma hospitals. Compared with overtly injured patients, talk-and-die patients had relatively fewer serious head injuries (13.7%) but more frequent extremity injuries (20.3% vs. 10.6%) and orthopedic interventions (25.3% vs. 5.0%). EMS personnel often found talk-and-die patients lying on the ground with hip pain or extremity injuries., Conclusion: Patients served by EMS who "talk-and-die" are typically older adults with falls, transported to nontrauma hospitals, with subtle clinical indications of the severity of their injuries. Improving recognition of talk-and-die patients may avoid fatal outcomes in a portion of these patients., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Background: Trauma centers (TCs) have been shown to decrease mortality in adults, but this has not been demonstrated at a population level in all children. We hypothesized that seriously injured children would have increased survival in a TC versus nontrauma center (nTC), but there would be no increased benefit from pediatric-designated versus adult TC care., Methods: This was a retrospective study of the unmasked California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Department patient discharge database (1999-2011). DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. (ICD-9) diagnostic codes indicating trauma were identified for children (0-18 years), and injury severity was calculated from ICD-9 codes using validated algorithms. To adjust for hospital case mix, we selected patients with ICD-9 codes that were capable of causing death and which appeared at both TCs and nTCs. Instrumental variable (IV) analysis using differential distance between the child's residence to a TC and to the nearest hospital was applied to further adjust for unobservable differences in TC and nTC populations. Instrumental variable regression models analyzed the association between mortality and TC versus nTC care as well as for pediatric versus adult TC designations, adjusting for demographic and clinical variables., Results: Unadjusted mortality for the entire population of children with nontrivial trauma (n = 445,236) was 1.2%. In the final study population (n = 77,874), mortality was 5.3%, 3.8% in nTCs and 6.1% in TCs. IV regression analysis demonstrated a 0.79 percentage point (95% confidence interval, -0.80 to -0.30; p = 0.044) decrease in mortality for children cared for in TC versus nTC. No decrease in mortality was demonstrated for children cared for in pediatric versus adult TCs., Conclusion: Our IV TC outcome models use improved injury severity and case mix adjustment to demonstrate decreased mortality for seriously injured California children treated in TCs. These results can be used to take evidence-based steps to decrease disparities in pediatric access to, and subsequent outcomes for, trauma care., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/care management, level III.

Background: National benchmarks for trauma triage sensitivity (≥95%) and specificity (≥50%) have not been rigorously evaluated across broad populations of injured patients. We evaluated the impact of different field triage schemes for identifying seriously injured patients across a range of sensitivity values. Impact metrics included specificity and number of undertriaged and overtriaged patients compared with current triage practices., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies to 105 hospitals in 6 regions of the Western United States from 2006 through 2008. Hospital outcomes were probabilistically linked to EMS records through trauma registries, state discharge databases, and state emergency department databases. The primary outcome was an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater. We evaluated 40 field predictor variables, including 31 current field triage criteria, using classification and regression tree analysis and cross-validation to generate estimates for sensitivity and specificity., Results: A total of 89,261 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS providers during the 3-year period, of whom 5,711 (6.4%) had ISS of 16 or greater. As the 95% sensitivity target for triage was approached (from the current value of 87.5%), decision tree complexity increased, specificity decreased (from 62.8% to 18.7%), and the number of triage-positive patients without serious injury doubled (67,927 vs. 31,104). Analyses restricted to children and older adults were similar. The most consistent modification to the current triage algorithm to increase sensitivity without a major decrease in specificity was altering the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score cutoff point from 13 or less to 14 or less (sensitivity increase to 90.4%)., Conclusion: Reaching the field triage sensitivity benchmark of 95% would require a large decrease in specificity (increase in overtriage). A 90% sensitivity target seems more realistic and may be obtainable by modest changes to the current triage algorithm.

Background: This study proposes a definition of futile care and quantifies its cost in injured elders., Methods: This was a retrospective study of Medicare patients with an International Classification of Diseases-9 injury diagnosis admitted to 171 Oregon and Washington facilities from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2002, who died within 6 months of admission. Futile care was defined as death within 7 days of discharge from a hospitalization of at least 14 days. We compared health care costs in the last 6 months of life with those who did and did not meet our definition of futility. To simulate predicting and preventing futility early in the hospital course, we examined the effect of reducing spending on the futile care cohort to the level of those who survived 7 to 10 days after injury., Results: There were 6,832 elders who died within 6 months of injury, of whom 230 (3.4%) met our definition of futility. The median cost of care in the last 6 months of life was $33,373 for those not meeting our definition of futility and $87,391 for the futile care group (p < 0.001). The 3.4% receiving futile care incurred 8.9% of total costs. Reducing expenditures in the futile care group to the level of those who died from 7 to 10 days after injury (median, $25,633) would result in an overall cost savings of 6.5%., Conclusion: End-of-life health care costs were significantly higher for those who received futile care. However, even aggressive reductions in futile care would result in small savings overall., Level of Evidence: Economic analysis, level III.

Background: "Emergency medical services (EMS) provider judgment" was recently added as a field triage criterion to the national guidelines, yet its predictive value and real world application remain unclear. We examine the use and independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment in identifying seriously injured persons., Methods: We analyzed a population-based retrospective cohort, supplemented by qualitative analysis, of injured children and adults evaluated and transported by 47 EMS agencies to 94 hospitals in five regions across the Western United States from 2006 to 2008. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment for Injury Severity Score ≥ 16. EMS narratives were analyzed using qualitative methods to assess and compare common themes for each step in the triage algorithm, plus EMS provider judgment., Results: 213,869 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS over the 3-year period, of whom 41,191 (19.3%) met at least one of the field triage criteria. EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used triage criterion (40.0% of all triage-positive patients; sole criterion in 21.4%). After accounting for other triage criteria and confounders, the adjusted odds ratio of Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 for EMS provider judgment was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.47), although there was variability in predictive value across sites. Patients meeting EMS provider judgment had concerning clinical presentations qualitatively similar to those meeting mechanistic and other special considerations criteria., Conclusions: Among this multisite cohort of trauma patients, EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used field trauma triage criterion, independently associated with serious injury, and useful in identifying high-risk patients missed by other criteria. However, there was variability in predictive value between sites.