Search

Importance: High emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness is associated with improved survival, but the impact of changes to ED readiness is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the association of changes in ED pediatric readiness at US trauma centers between 2013 and 2021 with pediatric mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2021, at EDs of trauma centers in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Participants included injured children younger than 18 years with admission or injury-related death at a participating trauma center, including transfers to other trauma centers. Data analysis was performed from May 2023 to January 2024., Exposure: Change in ED pediatric readiness, measured using the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS, range 0-100, with higher scores denoting greater readiness) from national assessments in 2013 and 2021. Change groups included high-high (wPRS ≥93 on both assessments), low-high (wPRS <93 in 2013 and wPRS ≥93 in 2021), high-low (wPRS ≥93 in 2013 and wPRS <93 in 2021), and low-low (wPRS <93 on both assessments)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was lives saved vs lost, according to ED and in-hospital mortality. The risk-adjusted association between changes in ED readiness and mortality was evaluated using a hierarchical, mixed-effects logistic regression model based on a standardized risk-adjustment model for trauma, with a random slope-random intercept to account for clustering by the initial ED., Results: The primary sample included 467 932 children (300 024 boys [64.1%]; median [IQR] age, 10 [4 to 15] years; median [IQR] Injury Severity Score, 4 [4 to 15]) at 417 trauma centers. Observed mortality by ED readiness change group was 3838 deaths of 144 136 children (2.7%) in the low-low ED group, 1804 deaths of 103 767 children (1.7%) in the high-low ED group, 1288 deaths of 64 544 children (2.0%) in the low-high ED group, and 2614 deaths of 155 485 children (1.7%) in the high-high ED group. After risk adjustment, high-readiness EDs (persistent or change to) had 643 additional lives saved (95% CI, -328 to 1599 additional lives saved). Low-readiness EDs (persistent or change to) had 729 additional preventable deaths (95% CI, -373 to 1831 preventable deaths). Secondary analysis suggested that a threshold of wPRS 90 or higher may optimize the number of lives saved. Among 716 trauma centers that took both assessments, the median (IQR) wPRS decreased from 81 (63 to 94) in 2013 to 77 (64 to 93) in 2021 because of reductions in care coordination and quality improvement., Conclusions and Relevance: Although the findings of this study of injured children in US trauma centers were not statistically significant, they suggest that trauma centers should increase their level of ED pediatric readiness to reduce mortality and increase the number of pediatric lives saved after injury.

Background: The ageing of the population is leading to an increase in the number of traumatic injuries and represents a major challenge for the future. Falls represent the leading cause of Emergency department admission in older people, with injuries ranging from minor to severe multiple injuries. Older injured patients are more likely to be undertriaged than younger patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of undertriage in older patients with particular emphasis on access to trauma centres and resuscitation rooms., Methods: Retrospective observational cross-sectional study based on data prospectively collected from prehospital electronic records including all patients ≥ 18 years for whom an ambulance or helicopter was dispatched between 1 January 2018 and 31 April 2023 due to a trauma. The primary outcome, admission to the resuscitation room of the regional trauma centre with trauma team activation, was assessed by age. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for known confounders and to test for plausible effect modifiers., Results: Emergency Medical Services treated 37,906 injured patients. Older patients ≥ 75 years represented 17,719 patients (47%). Admission to trauma centre with trauma team activation was lower in older patients, N = 121 (1%) compared to N = 599 (5%) in younger patients, p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio: 0.33 (0.24-0.45); p < 0.001. Undertriage increased by twofold with age ≥ 75; OR: 1.81 (1.04-3.15); p value < 0.001. Undertriaged patients were older, more likely to be female, to have low energy trauma and to be located farther from the regional trauma centre., Conclusion: Older injured patients were at increased risk of undertriage and non-trauma team activation admission, especially if they were older, female, had head injury without altered consciousness and greater distance to regional trauma centre., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Emergency departments (EDs) with high pediatric readiness (coordination, personnel, quality improvement, safety, policies, and equipment) are associated with lower mortality among children with critical illness and those admitted to trauma centers, but the benefit among children with more diverse clinical conditions is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the association between ED pediatric readiness, in-hospital mortality, and 1-year mortality among injured and medically ill children receiving emergency care in 11 states., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study of children receiving emergency care at 983 EDs in 11 states from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, with follow-up for a subset of children through December 31, 2018. Participants included children younger than 18 years admitted, transferred to another hospital, or dying in the ED, stratified by injury vs medical conditions. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022., Exposure: ED pediatric readiness of the initial ED, measured through the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS; range, 0-100) from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with a secondary outcome of time to death to 1 year among children in 6 states., Results: There were 796 937 children, including 90 963 (11.4%) in the injury cohort (mean [SD] age, 9.3 [5.8] years; median [IQR] age, 10 [4-15] years; 33 516 [36.8%] female; 1820 [2.0%] deaths) and 705 974 (88.6%) in the medical cohort (mean [SD] age, 5.8 [6.1] years; median [IQR] age, 3 [0-12] years; 329 829 [46.7%] female, 7688 [1.1%] deaths). Among the 983 EDs, the median (IQR) wPRS was 73 (59-87). Compared with EDs in the lowest quartile of ED readiness (quartile 1, wPRS of 0-58), initial care in a quartile 4 ED (wPRS of 88-100) was associated with 60% lower in-hospital mortality among injured children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60) and 76% lower mortality among medical children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.34). Among 545 921 children followed to 1 year, the adjusted hazard ratio of death in quartile 4 EDs was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.84) for injured children and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.45) for medical children. If all EDs were in the highest quartile of pediatric readiness, an estimated 288 injury deaths (95% CI, 281-297 injury deaths) and 1154 medical deaths (95% CI, 1150-1159 medical deaths) may have been prevented., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that children with injuries and medical conditions treated in EDs with high pediatric readiness had lower mortality during hospitalization and to 1 year.

Background: Trauma is a major cause of mortality, disability, and health care costs worldwide. The establishment of a trauma system is known to solve these problems, but few studies have objectively evaluated the impact of a trauma system on outcomes. Since 2012, South Korea has established a national trauma system based on the implementation of 17 regional trauma centers nationwide and the improvement of the prehospital transfer system. This study aimed to measure the changes in performance and outcome according to the established national trauma system., Material and Methods: In this national cohort-based, retrospective follow-up observational study, the authors calculated the preventable trauma death rate (PTDR) by conducting a multipanel review of patients who died in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Furthermore, the authors constructed a risk-adjusted mortality prediction model of 4 767 876 patients between 2015 and 2019 using the extended-International Classification of Disease Injury Severity Scores to compare outcomes., Results: The PTDR was lower in 2019 than in 2015 (15.7 vs. 30.5, P <0.001) and 2017 (15.7 vs. 19.9%, P <0.001) representing 1247 additional lives saved in 2019 compared to that in 2015. In the risk-adjusted model, total trauma mortality was highest in 2015 at 0.56%, followed by that in 2016 and 2017 (0.50%), 2018 (0.51%), and 2019 (0.48%), revealing a significant decrease in mortality over the years ( P <0.001 for trend), representing nearly 800 additional lives saved. The number of deaths for more severe patients with a probability of survival less than 0.25 significantly decreased from 81.50% in 2015 to 66.17% in 2019 ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: The authors observed a significant reduction in the PTDR and risk-adjusted trauma mortality in the 5-year follow-up since 2015 when the national trauma system was established. These findings could serve as a model for low-income and middle-income countries, where trauma systems are not yet established., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: Reasons for undertriage (transporting seriously injured patients to nontrauma centers) and the apparent lack of benefit of trauma centers among older adults remain unclear; understanding emergency medical services (EMS) provider reasons for selecting certain hospitals in trauma systems may provide insight to these issues. In this study, the authors evaluated reasons cited by EMS providers for selecting specific hospital destinations for injured patients, stratified by age, injury severity, field triage status, and prognosis., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 61 EMS agencies to 93 hospitals (trauma and nontrauma centers) in five regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Hospital records were probabilistically linked to EMS records using trauma registries, state discharge data, and emergency department data. The seven standardized reasons cited by EMS providers for selecting hospital destinations included closest facility, ambulance diversion, physician choice, law enforcement choice, patient or family choice, specialty resource center, and other. "Serious injury" was defined as an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16, and unadjusted in-hospital mortality was considered as a marker of prognosis. All analyses were stratified by age in 10-year increments, and descriptive statistics were used to characterize the findings., Results: A total of 176,981 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS over the 3-year period, of whom 5,752 (3.3%) had ISS ≥ 16 and 2,773 (1.6%) died. Patient or family choice (50.6%), closest facility (20.7%), and specialty resource center (15.2%) were the most common reasons indicated by EMS providers for selecting destination hospitals; these frequencies varied substantially by patient age. The frequency of patient or family choice increased with increasing age, from 36.4% among 21- to 30-year-olds to 75.8% among those older than 90 years. This trend paralleled undertriage rates and persisted when restricted to patients with serious injuries. Older patients with the worst prognoses were preferentially transported to major trauma centers, a finding that was not explained by field triage protocols., Conclusions: Emergency medical services transport patterns among injured patients are not random, even after accounting for field triage protocols. The selection of hospitals appears to be heavily influenced by patient or family choice, which increases with patient age and involves inherent differences in patient prognosis., (© 2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: To determine whether head-injured patients transferred to level I trauma centers have reduced mortality relative to transfers to level II trauma centers., Data Source/study Setting: Retrospective cohort study of 542 patients with head injury who initially presented to 1 of 31 rural trauma centers in Oregon and Washington, and were transferred from the emergency department to 1 of 15 level I or level II trauma centers, between 1991 and 1994., Study Design: A bivariate probit, instrumental variables model was used to estimate the effect of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers on 30-day postdischarge mortality. Independent variables included age, gender, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), other indicators of injury severity, and a dichotomous variable indicating transfer to a level I trauma center. The differential distance between the nearest level I and level II trauma centers was used as an instrument., Principal Findings: Patients transferred to level I trauma centers differ in unmeasured ways from patients transferred to level II trauma centers, biasing estimates based on standard statistical methods. Transfer to a level I trauma center reduced absolute mortality risk by 10.1% (95% confidence interval 0.3%, 22.2%) compared with transfer to level II trauma centers., Conclusions: Patients with severe head injuries transferred from rural trauma centers to level I centers are likely to have improved survival relative to transfer to level II centers.

Background: During a pandemic, it is paramount to understand volume changes in Level I trauma so that with appropriate planning and reallocation of resources, these facilities can maintain and even improve life-saving capabilities. Evaluating nonaccidental and accidental trauma can highlight potential areas of improvement in societal behavior and hospital preparedness. These critical questions were proposed to better understand how healthcare leaders might adjust surgeon and team coverage of trauma services as well as prepare from a system standpoint what resources will be needed during a pandemic or similar crisis to maintain services., Questions/purposes: (1) How did the total observed number of trauma activations, defined as patients who meet mechanism of injury requirements which trigger the notification and aggregation of the trauma team upon entering the emergency department, change during a pandemic and stay-at-home order? (2) How did the proportion of major mechanisms of traumatic injury change during this time period? (3) How did the proportion and absolute numbers of accidental versus nonaccidental traumatic injury in children and adults change during this time period?, Methods: This was a retrospective study of trauma activations at a Level I trauma center in New Orleans, LA, USA, using trauma registry data of all patients presenting to the trauma center from 2017 to 2020. The number of trauma activations during a government mandated coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) stay-at-home order (from March 20, 2020 to May 14, 2020) was compared with the expected number of activations for the same time period from 2017 to 2019, called "predicted period". The expected number (predicted period) was assumed based on the linear trend of trauma activations seen in the prior 3 years (2017 to 2019) for the same date range (March 20, 2020 to May 14, 2020). To define the total number of traumatic injuries, account for proportion changes, and evaluate fluctuation in accidental verses nonaccidental trauma, variables including type of traumatic injury (blunt, penetrating, and thermal), and mechanism of injury (gunshot wound, fall, knife wound, motor vehicle collision, assault, burns) were collected for each patient., Results: There were fewer total trauma activations during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (372 versus 532 [95% CI 77 to 122]; p = 0.016). The proportion of penetrating trauma among total activations was greater during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (35% [129 of 372] versus 26% [141 of 532]; p = 0.01), while the proportion of blunt trauma was lower during the stay-at-home period than during the predicted period (63 % [236 of 372] versus 71% [376 of 532]; p = 0.02). The proportion of gunshot wounds in relation to total activations was greater during the stay-at-home period than expected (26% [97 of 372] versus 18% [96 of 532]; p = 0.004). There were fewer motor vehicle collisions in relation to total activations during the stay-at-home period than expected (42% [156 of 372] versus 49% [263 of 532]; p = 0.03). Among total trauma activations, the stay-at-home period had a lower proportion of accidental injuries than the predicted period (55% [203 of 372] versus 61% [326 of 532]; p = 0.05), and there was a greater proportion of nonaccidental injuries than the predicted period (37% [137 of 372] versus 27% [143 of 532]; p < 0.001). In adults, the stay-at-home period had a greater proportion of nonaccidental injuries than the predicted period (38% [123 of 328] versus 26% [123 of 466]; p < 0.001). There was no difference between the stay-at-home period and predicted period in nonaccidental and accidental injuries among children., Conclusion: Data from the trauma registry at our region's only Level I trauma center indicate that a stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 70% reduction in the number of traumatic injuries, and the types of injuries shifted from more accidental blunt trauma to more nonaccidental penetrating trauma. Non-accidental trauma, including gunshot wounds, increased during this period, which suggest community awareness, crisis de-escalation strategies, and programs need to be created to address violence in the community. Understanding these changes allows for adjustments in staffing schedules. Surgeons and trauma teams could allow for longer shifts between changeover, decreasing viral exposure because the volume of work would be lower. Understanding the shift in injury could also lead to a change in specialists covering call. With the often limited availability of orthopaedic trauma-trained surgeons who can perform life-saving pelvis and acetabular surgery, this data may be used to mitigate exposure of these surgeons during pandemic situations., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that neither he nor she, nor any members of his or her immeidate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Trauma remains a significant public health challenge in Korea, with preventable trauma-related death rate declining from 45% in 1999 to 13.9% in 2021 following advancements such as the establishment of regional trauma centers in 2012. This preventable trauma-related death rate in South Korea remains higher than that in advanced nations, highlighting the need for further refinement of trauma care. This article reviews the recent advancements and updated guidelines for prehospital emergency care and in-hospital trauma management, emphasizing evidence-based, patient-centered approaches. Current Concepts: In the prehospital phase, early and aggressive hemorrhage control is prioritized, with techniques such as tourniquet application, wound packing, and permissive hypotension becoming standard. Innovations, such as intraosseous vascular access and tranexamic acid administration, have improved outcomes. The emphasis on structured assessments, including the circulation, airway, and breathing (CAB) assessment, reflects the importance of controlling life-threatening hemorrhages. In the in-hospital phase, bleeding control is the central focus, with protocols established to emphasize the cautious use of fluids to avoid over-resuscitation and worsening coagulopathy. Efficient transfusion strategies are prioritized to address hypovolemia while maintaining balanced ratios of blood products. Additionally, streamlined interfacility transfer systems and improved communication tools, such as the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation (SBAR) tool, help to optimize patient care and minimize delays in receiving definitive treatment. Discussion and Conclusion: This review underscores the need to adopt advanced strategies that align with international standards and further reduce preventable trauma-related deaths. Enhanced education and resource allocation for prehospital and hospital-based trauma care are crucial for achieving these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Injuries are a leading cause of death in the United States. Trauma systems aim to ensure all injured patients receive appropriate care. Hospitals that participate in a trauma system, trauma centers (TCs), are designated with different levels according to guidelines that dictate access to medical and research resources but not specific surgical care. This study aimed to identify patterns of injury care that distinguish different TCs and hospitals without trauma designation, non-trauma centers (non-TCs). Study design: We extracted hospital-level features from the state inpatient hospital discharge data in Washington state, including all TCs and non-TCs, in 2016. We provided summary statistics and tested the differences of each feature across the TC/non-TC levels. We then conducted 3 sets of unsupervised clustering analyses using the Partition Around Medoids method to determine which hospitals had similar features. Set 1 and 2 included hospital surgical care (volume or distribution) features and other features (e.g., the average age of patients, payer mix, etc.). Set 3 explored surgical care without additional features. Results: The clusters only partially aligned with the TC designations. Set 1 found the volume and variation of surgical care distinguished the hospitals, while in Set 2 orthopedic procedures and other features such as age, social vulnerability indices, and payer types drove the clusters. Set 3 results showed that procedure volume rather than the relative proportions of procedures aligned more, though not completely, with TC designation. Conclusion: Unsupervised machine learning identified surgical care delivery patterns that explained variation beyond level designation. This research provides insights into how systems leaders could optimize the level allocation for TCs/non-TCs in a mature trauma system by better understanding the distribution of care in the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Injurious falls represent a significant public health burden. Research and policies have primarily focused on falls occurring indoors despite evidence that outdoor falls account for 47–58% of all falls requiring some medical attention. This study described the clinical trauma severity of indoor versus outdoor injurious falls requiring Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response. Methods: Using the 2019 National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) dataset, we identified the location of patients injured from falls that required EMS response. We classified injury severity using (1) the Revised Trauma Score for Triage (T-RTS): ≤ 11 indicated the need for transport to a Trauma Center; (2) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): ≤ 8 and 9–12 indicated severe and moderate neurologic injury; and (3) patient clinical acuity by EMS: Dead, Critical, Emergent, Low. Results: Of 1,854,909 encounters for patients with injurious falls, the vast majority occurred indoors (n = 1,596,860) compared to outdoors (n = 152,994). For patients who fell indoors vs outdoors on streets or sidewalks, the proportions were comparable for moderate or severe GCS scores (3.0% vs 3.9%), T-RTS scores indicating need for transport to a Trauma Center (5.2% vs 5.9%) and EMS acuity rated as Emergent or Critical (27.7% vs 27.1%). Injurious falls were more severe among male patients compared to females and males injured by falling on streets or sidewalks had higher percentages for moderate or severe GCS scores (5.2% vs 1.9%) and T-RTS scores indicating the need for transport to a Trauma Center (7.3% vs 3.9%) compared to falling indoors. Young and middle-aged patients who fell on streets or sidewalks had higher proportions for a T-RTS score indicating the need for Trauma Center care compared to those in this subgroup who fell indoors. Yet older patients injured by falling indoors were more likely to have a T-RTS score indicating the need for transport to a Trauma Center than older patients who fell on streets or sidewalks. Conclusions: There was a similar proportion of patients with severe injurious falls that occurred indoors and outdoors on streets or sidewalks. These findings suggest the need to determine outdoor environmental risks for outdoor falls to support location-specific interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare level 1 and 2 trauma centers with similarly sized non‐trauma centers on survival after major trauma among older adults. Data Sources and Study Setting: We used claims of 100% of 2012–2017 Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries who received hospital care after major trauma. Study Design: Survival differences were estimated after applying propensity‐score‐based overlap weights. Subgroup analyses were performed for ambulance‐transported patients and by external cause. We assessed the roles of prehospital care, hospital quality, and volume. Data Collection: Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Principal Findings: Thirty‐day mortality was higher overall at level 1 versus non‐trauma centers by 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 2.6) percentage points (pp). Thirty‐day mortality was higher at level 1 versus non‐trauma centers by 2.3 (95% CI: 1.9, 2.8) pp for falls and 2.3 (95% CI: 0.2, 4.4) pp for motor vehicle crashes. Differences persisted at 1 year. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers had similar outcomes. Hospital quality and volume did not explain these differences. In the ambulance‐transported subgroup, after adjusting for prehospital variables, no statistically significant differences remained. Conclusions: Trauma centers may not provide longer survival than similarly sized non‐trauma hospitals for severely injured older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trauma care is a vital part of the US healthcare system, given that it is the leading cause of death for non-elderly individuals. The need for improved systems of trauma care--particularly in rural areas--has been acknowledged over recent years. Arkansas was one of several states to build a trauma system in the 2000s and demonstrated its economic and health benefits through research after implementation. In this article, we briefly review the history of rural trauma care in the United States leading up to the creation of the Arkansas Trauma System (ATS), discuss the development and components of the ATS, and focus on future directions and needs. The lessons learned from the system developed in Arkansas and the work yet to be done are generalizable to other states with large rural populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To study the epidemiology and pattern of trauma-related deaths of hospitalized patients in Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates, in order to improve trauma management and injury prevention. Methods: The Abu Dhabi Trauma Registry prospectively collects data of all hospitalized trauma patients from seven major trauma centres in Abu Dhabi Emirate. We studied all patients who died on arrival or after admission to these hospitals from January 2014 to December 2019. Results: There were 453 deaths constituting 13.5% of all trauma deaths in the Abu Dhabi Emirate. The median (IQR) age of the patients was 33 (25–45) years, and 82% were males. 85% of the deaths occurred in the emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit (ICU). Motor vehicle collision (63.8%) was the leading cause of death. 45.5% of the patients had head injury. Two of the seven hospitals admitted around 50% of all patients but accounted for only 25.8% of the total deaths (p < 0.001). Those who died in the ward (7%) were significantly older, median (IQR) age: of 65.5 (31.75–82.25) years, (p < 0.001), 34.4% of them were females (p = 0.09). The median (IQR) GCS of those who died in the ward was 15 (5.75–15) compared with 3 (3–3) for those who died in ED and ICU (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Death from trauma predominantly affects young males with motor traffic collision as the leading cause. Over 85% of in-hospital deaths occur in the ICU and ED, mainly from head injuries. Injury prevention of traffic collisions through enforcement of law and improved hospital care in the ED and ICU will reduce trauma death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gunshot injuries (GSIs), a serious public health problem, can affect the pediatric age group and adults. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the injuries that occurred in children aged 0-16 years who were brought to the emergency department (ED) of, Sehitkamil State hospital in Gaziantep, Turkey, due to GSIs. Methods: This descriptive-retrospective study was conducted in the ED of the child trauma center of Gaziantep. This study retrospectively reviewed the records of children aged 0 - 16 years admitted to the ED with GSIs from 01/01/2014 to 30/09/2020. Results: A total of 66 GSI cases were included in the study. The most common injury was in the abdominal region. Internal organ/vessel/bone injuries were detected in 59.1% of the cases (n = 39). Surgical treatment was applied to 60.6% of the cases (n = 40) within 7 days. The mortality rate was 12.1% (n = 8). The length of stay in the trauma unit was 4.34 ± 4.33 days. Conclusion: Most injuries are detected in the abdomen. GSI was more common in boys. The prognosis is worse in those with internal organ/vascular/bone injuries. These patients have higher mortality, longer hospital stay, and a higher rate of surgical operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Surgery is the property of CMA Impact Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Results: We reviewed 2418 abstracts and 315 full‐text publications and identified 42 relevant studies. The factors most predictive of serious injury across multiple studies were death in the same vehicle (LR+ 2.2–7.4), ejection (aOR 3.2–266.2), extrication (LR+ 1.1–6.6), lack of seat belt use (aOR 4.4–11.3), high speeds (aOR 2.0–2.9), concerning crash variables identified by vehicle telemetry systems (LR+ 4.7–22.2), falls from height (LR+ 2.4–5.9), and axial load or diving (aOR 2.5–17.6). Minor or inconsistent predictors of serious injury were vehicle intrusion (LR+ 0.8–7.2), cardiopulmonary or neurologic comorbidities (LR+ 0.8–3.1), older age (LR+ 0.6–6.8), or anticoagulant use (LR+ 1.1–1.8). Conclusions: Select mechanism and special consideration criteria contribute positively to appropriate field triage of potentially injured patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Risk-adjusted mortality (RAM) analysis and comparisons of clinically relevant subsets of trauma patients allow hospitals to assess performance in different processes of care. The aim of the study was to develop a RAM model and compare RAM ratio (RAMR) in subsets of severely injured adult patients treated in university hospitals (UHs) and emergency hospitals (EHs) in Sweden. Methods This was a retrospective study of the Swedish trauma registry data (2013 to 2017) comparing RAMR in patients (aged 15 years or older and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) of more than 15) in the total population (TP) and in multisystem blunt (MB), truncal penetrating (PEN), and severe traumatic brain injury (STBI) subsets treated in UHs and EHs. The RAM model included the variables age, NISS, ASA Physical Status Classification System Score, and physiology on arrival. Results In total, 6690 patients were included in the study (4485 from UHs and 2205 from EHs). The logistic regression model showed a good fit. RAMR was 4.0, 3.8, 7.4, and 8.5 percentage points lower in UH versus EH for TP (P  < 0.001), MB (P  < 0.001), PEN (P  = 0.096), and STBI (P  = 0.005), respectively. The TP and MB subsets were subgrouped in with (+) and without (−) traumatic brain injury (TBI). RAMR was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively, percentage points lower in UHs than in EHs in TP + TBI and MB + TBI (both P  < 0.001). In the TP–TBI (P  = 0.027) and MB–TBI (P  = 0.107) subsets the RAMR was 1.6 and 1.8 percentage points lower, respectively. Conclusion The lower RAMR in UHs versus EH were due to differences in TBI-related mortality. No evidence supported that Swedish EHs provide inferior quality of care for trauma patients without TBI or for patients with penetrating injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background in high-income countries trauma patients are becoming older, more likely to have comorbidities, and are being injured by low-energy mechanisms. This systematic review investigates the association between higher-level trauma centre care and outcomes of adult patients who were admitted to hospital due to injuries sustained following low-energy trauma. Methods a systematic review was conducted in January 2021. Studies were eligible if they reported outcomes in adults admitted to hospital due to low-energy trauma. In the presence of study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was pre-specified. Results three studies were included from 2,898 unique records. The studies' risk of bias was moderate-to-serious. All studies compared outcomes in trauma centres verified by the American College of Surgeons in the USA. The mean/median ages of patients in the studies were 73.4, 74.5 and 80 years. The studies reported divergent results. One demonstrated improved outcomes in level 3 or 4 trauma centres (Observed: Expected Mortality 0.973, 95% CI: 0.971–0.975), one demonstrated improved outcomes in level 1 trauma centres (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.91), and one demonstrated no difference between level 1 or 2 and level 3 or 4 trauma centre care (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80–1.04). Conclusions the few relevant studies identified provided discordant evidence for the value of major trauma centre care following low-energy trauma. The main implication of this review is the paucity of high-quality research into the optimum care of patients injured in low-energy trauma. Further studies into triage, interventions and research methodology are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers.Methods: We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit.Results: We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92-0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%).Conclusions: Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development. Method: A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69–0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10–1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37–1.55]; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019142842. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the factors affecting the prehospital time delay of the injured patients arriving at the Emergency Department of Beni-Suef University Hospital in Upper Egypt. Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, the following data were retrieved from the hospital records of 632 injured patients between 1/1/2018 and 31/3/2018: age, sex, residence, means of transportation to the hospital, prehospital time delay, consciousness level on admission, source of injury, and type of worst injury. Results: The prehospital time delay (>one hour) of the injured patients was positively associated with age >60 years and rural residence but inversely associated with consciousness level with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 5.14 (2.26–11.68), 3.49 (2.22–5.48), and 0.56 (0.32–0.96), respectively. Conclusion: The prehospital time delay of the injured patients arriving at the Emergency Department of Beni-Suef University Hospital in Egypt was associated with old age, rural residence, and consciousness level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear how the length of prehospital transport time affects outcome in paediatric trauma. This study evaluated the association of transport time from alarm to arrival at hospital with adverse outcome in paediatric trauma patients in Sweden. Methods: This was a retrospective study based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish trauma registry between 2012 and 2019 of children less than 18 years with major trauma (New Injury Severity Score (NISS) greater than 15). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were emergency interventions (e.g., chest tube or laparotomy) and low functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale 2–3). Primary exposure was transport time from alarm to arrival at hospital. Co-variables in multivariable regressions were gender, age, ASA score before injury, injury intention, dominant injury type, NISS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, prehospital competence and hospital level. Results: Among 597 patients, 30-day mortality was 9.8 per cent, emergency interventions were performed in 34.7 per cent and low functional outcome was registered in 15.9 per cent. Median transport time was 51 (i.q.r. 37–68) minutes. After adjustment for patient, injury and hospital characteristics, no association between longer transport time and 30-day mortality, frequency of emergency interventions or lower functional outcome could be found. Treatment at a university hospital was associated with a lower risk for 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.23 (95 per cent c.i. 0.08 to 0.68), P = 0.008). Conclusion: Longer transport time after major paediatric trauma was not associated with adverse outcome. Hence, it seems that longer transport distances should not be an obstacle against centralization of paediatric trauma care. Further studies should focus on the role of prehospital competence and other transport-associated parameters and their association with adverse outcome. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association of transport time with adverse outcome in pediatric trauma patients in Sweden, using a prospective trauma registry including children with major trauma. The median transport time from alarm to hospital was 51 minutes, and among 597 patients 30-day mortality was 10%, emergency interventions were performed in 35% and low functional outcome was registered in 16%. After adjustment for possible covariates, the results showed that longer transport time after major pediatric trauma was not associated with a higher 30-day mortality, a higher rate of emergency interventions or lower functional outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Major trauma is the leading cause of mortality in the world in patients younger than 40 years. However, the proportion of elderly people who suffer trauma has increased significantly. The purpose of this study is to assess the correlation of old age with mortality and other unfavorable outcomes. Methods: We assessed on one hand, anatomical criteria such as ISS values and the number of body regions affected, on the other hand, hemodynamic instability criteria, various shock indices, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Finally, we also evaluated biochemical parameters, such as lactate, BE, and pH values. We conducted a prospective and monocentric observational study of all the patients referred to the Emergency Department of the IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico S. Matteo in Pavia for major trauma in 13 consecutive months: January 1, 2018–January 30, 2019. We compared the elderly population (>75 years) and the younger population (≤75). Results: We included 501 patients, among which 10% were over the age of 75 years. The mortality rate was higher among the older patients than among the younger (4% vs. 1.33%; P = 0.050). Hemodynamic instability was more common in the older patients than in the younger (26% vs. 9%; P < 0.001). More older patients (44%) had an ISS >16, in comparison with 32% of younger patients (P = 0.01). Conclusions: The elderly showed worse outcomes in terms of mortality, hospitalization rate, hemodynamic instability criteria, and anatomical and biochemical parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous literature demonstrates increased mortality for traumatic brain injury (TBI) with transfer to a Level II versus Level I trauma center. Our objective was to determine the effect of the most recent American College of Surgeons–Committee on Trauma (ACS‐COT) "Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient" resources manual ("The Orange Book") on outcomes after severe TBI after interfacility transfer to Level I versus Level II center. Methods: Utilizing the Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons admission year 2017, we identified patients with isolated TBI undergoing interfacility transfer to either Level I or Level II trauma center. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations with mortality. Results: There were 10,268 (71.6%) transferred to a Level I center and 4,025 (28.4%) were transferred to a Level II center. They were mostly male (61.4%) with a mean ± SD age of 61 ± 20.8 years. Mean Injury Severity Score was 16.3 ± 6.3 and most were injured in a single‐level fall (51.5%). Patients transferred to a Level I center were less likely to be White (82.3% vs. 84.7%, 0.002) and more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (2.7% vs. 1.6%, <0.001). The incidence of severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] = 3–8) was similar (9.3% vs. 8.3%, 0.068). On logistic regression, severity of TBI predicted death; however, there was no difference in adjusted mortality outcome with admission to a Level II versus a Level I center (0.998 [0.836–1.192], 0.985). Conclusions: There is no mortality discrepancy in patients with isolated TBI transferred to a Level II versus Level I center despite previous contrary evidence and thus no reason to bypass a Level II in favor of a Level I. This relative improvement potentially relates to the new requirements as defined in the latest version of the ACS‐COT's resources manual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Surgery is the property of CMA Impact Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Improvements in life expectancy imply that an increase of geriatric trauma patients occurs. These patients require special attention due to their multiple comorbidity issues. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the implementation of geriatric comanagement (GC) on the allocation and clinical outcome of geriatric trauma patients. Methods: This observational cohort study aims to compare the demographic development and the clinical outcome in geriatric trauma patients (aged 70 years and older) before and after implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center (GC). Geriatric trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 were stratified to group pre-GC and admissions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 to Group post-GC. We excluded patients requiring end-of-life treatment and those who died within 24 h or due to severe traumatic brain injury. Outcome parameters included demographic changes, medical complexity (measured by American Society of Anaesthesiology Score (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalization. Results: This study includes 626 patients in Group pre-GC (mean age 80.3 ± 6.7 years) and 841 patients in Group post-GC (mean age 81.1 ± 7.3 years). Group pre-GC included 244 (39.0%) males, group post-GC included 361 (42.9%) males. The mean CCI was 4.7 (± 1.8) points in pre-GC and 5.1 (± 2.0) points in post-GC (p <0.001). In Group pre-GC, 100 patients (16.0%) were stratified as ASA 1 compared with 47 patients (5.6%) in Group post-GC (p <0.001). Group pre-GC had significantly less patients stratified as ASA 3 or higher (n = 235, 37.5%) compared with Group post-GC (n = 389, 46.3%, p <0.001). Length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly from 10.4 (± 20.3) days in Group pre-GC to 7.9 (±22.9) days in Group post-GC (p = 0.011). The 30-day mortality rate was comparable amongst these groups (pre-GC 8.8% vs. post-GC 8.9%). Conclusion: This study appears to support the implementation of a geriatric trauma center, as certain improvements in the patient care were found: Despite a higher CCI and a higher number of patients with higher ASA classifications, Hospital LOS, complication rates and mortality did were not increased after implementation of the CG. The increase in the case numbers supports the fact that a higher degree of specialization leads to a response by admitting physicians, as it exceeded the expectable trend of demographic ageing. We feel that a larger data base, hopefully in a multi center set up should be undertaken to verify these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decisions to limit use of life-sustaining treatment occur frequently during hospitalizations, and portable medical orders (also known as Portable Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST)) can ensure that patient preferences regarding resuscitation are followed after discharge. Objective: To determine the frequency and predictors of completion of POLST orders for adults with change during hospitalization in resuscitation status to Do Not Resuscitate. Design: Retrospective observational study at level 1 trauma and academic hospital in Minneapolis, MN, USA Participants: All adults (18 years or older) hospitalized between June 2017 and June 2018, inclusive, with code status changed from Full Code to DNR. For patients with more than one hospitalization during this study interval, only the first hospitalization when DNR was ordered was included in this analysis. Main Measures: Completion of POLST orders by time of discharge. Key Results: From 2017 to 2018, 160 adults had a change from Full Code to DNR status during index hospitalization and survived to discharge, most (156 patients) to a nursing care facility. Of these, only 50 (31.2%) had POLST orders provided at discharge. Documentation of informed refusal of intubation in addition to DNR status was a significant predictor (OR 4.1, 99% CI 1.5–11.0) of POLST orders on discharge, as was admission to a medical service compared with non-medical service (OR 3.2, 99% CI 1.1–12.2). Palliative care consultants, rather than primary providers on the hospital services, completed most POLST orders. Conclusions: Despite primary hospital providers engaging in conversations regarding resuscitation and entering DNR orders during hospitalization, the majority of patients in our study discharged to other care facilities without POLST orders. POLST orders are a simple palliative care tool available to primary hospital providers to help ensure continuity of plan of care at discharge for patients who wish to avoid invasive life-sustaining treatments and/or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complication rates may be indicative of trauma center (TC) performance. The complication rates between Level 1 and 2 TCs at the national level are unknown. Our study aimed to determine the relationship between American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified and state-designated TCs and complications. Study Design and Methods: This was a cohort review of the National Sample Program (NSP) from the National Trauma Data Bank, the world's largest validated trauma database. TCs were categorized by ACS or state Level 1 or 2. TCs not categorized as Level 1 or 2 were excluded. All 22 complications provided by the NSP were analyzed. Chi-squared analysis was used with statistical significance defined asP < 0.05.Results: Of the 94 TCs in the NSP, 67 had ACS and 80 had state designations of Level 1 or 2. There were 38 ACS Level 1 TCs treating 87,340 patients and 29 ACS Level 2 TCs treating 35,763. There were 45 state Level 1 TCs treating 106,640 and 35 state Level 2 TCs treating 43,290. ACS Level 1 TCs had significantly higher complications compared to ACS Level 2 TCs (13.5% [11,776/87,340] vs. 10.1% [3,606/35,763],P < 0.0001). In addition, state Level 1 TCs had significantly more complications compared to state Level 2 TCs (4.4% [4,681/106,640] vs. 1.6% [673/43,290],P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Both ACS and state Level 2 TCs had significantly lower complication rates than ACS and state Level 1 TCs. Further investigations should look for the source and impact of this difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine sociodemographic predictors of trauma center (TC) transport of severely injured older adults.Data Sources: The data source was the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, New York Inpatient Database (2014).Study Design: This study was a secondary analysis of injured older adults. Key sociodemographic variables were age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, and primary payer. Confounding variables were injury severity, geographic location, number of chronic conditions, and injury mechanism. The outcome variable was TC transport.Data Collection/extraction Methods: The database was filtered on the following criteria: age =/> 55 years, primary diagnosis of injury (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM], 800.0-957.9, excluding poisoning, late effects, and interfacility transfers), admitted to an acute care hospital in New York.Principal Findings: Records of 33 696 patients were included. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that all variables were statistically significant predictors of TC transport except primary payer. Predictors of TC transport were as follows: higher injury severity (OR 2.1, CI 1.79-2.46; 3.39, CI 2.85-4.05); Asian/Pacific and Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR 2.51, CI 1.92-3.27; OR 1.1, CI 0.86-1.42), highest median household income (OR 1.24, CI 1.01-1.52), high population density (OR 1.32, CI 1.12-1.55; OR 3.2, CI 2.68-2.83), and vehicle crashes (OR 3.39, CI 2.79-4.11). Predictors of non-TC transport were as follows: older age groups (OR 0.92, CI 0.76-1.11; OR 0.79, CI 0.64-0.96; OR 0.77, CI 0.63-0.95), females (OR 0.65, CI 0.57-0.74), Black and "other" race (OR 0.75, CI 0.0.56-1.0; OR 0.96, CI 0.77-1.20), lower median household income (OR 0.76, CI 0.62-0.93; OR 0.86, CI 0.71-1.05), low population density (OR 0.96, CI 0.67-1.36; OR 0.89, CI 0.53-1.51), and number of chronic conditions (OR 0.89, CI 0.87-0.91).Conclusions: Sociodemographic factors are a source of disparity for access to TCs. Further research is needed to confirm bias and test bias reduction strategies. Comprehensive education and policies are needed to reduce disparities in access to trauma care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, road traffic injuries (RTIs) are a leading cause of disability and trauma-related deaths. We aimed to describe the clinical and epidemiological characteristics and outcomes of RTIs in our environment to provide the evidence for effective control measures. Methods: This was a 1-year retrospective study of all patients with RTIs treated at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Ituku-Ozalla, Enugu, Nigeria. Results: Four hundred and twenty-one patients with 484 injuries were studied. The mean age of the patients was 34.4 ± 14.6 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 3.3:1. Most of the injuries occurred on intercity roads/highways (48.7%) and involved motorcycle crashes (31%). Soft-tissue injuries (27.7%) and fractures (21.9%) were the most common types of injuries. The lower extremities were the most common sites of injury. The mean injury-arrival interval was 23.2 ± 2.4 h. The injury severity score (ISS) ranged from 1 to 50, with a mean of 9.2 ± 2.9. The 1-year mortality rate was 10.7%. Traumatic brain injury, open vehicular injuries, and increased ISS were the potential risk factors for mortality. Conclusion: Soft-tissue injuries and fractures were the most common types of injuries. The majority of the injuries occurred on the inter-city roads and highways and involved head-on-collisions with motorcycles. The young male adults were the most commonly affected age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine (Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd) is the property of Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Helicopters play an important role in trauma; however, this service comes with safety risks, high transport costs, and downstream care charges. Objective: Our objective was to determine the characteristics of early discharged trauma patients (<24 h length of stay) in order to reduce overtriage. Methodology: Data were obtained from the trauma registries at one of two Level 1 trauma centers. Eligible patients included all scene trauma patients transported by helicopter to the Level 1 trauma centers from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, who had a length of stay of 24 h or less. Patient factors such as age, gender, scene location, loaded miles, and transportation costs were collected. Trauma type, mechanism of injury, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, and prehospital vital signs were documented. Driving distances between the accident scene to local hospital, home of record to local hospital, and home of record to the Level I trauma center were also calculated for patients transported to Level 1 trauma center. Results: Two hundred and twenty-six of 1042 total patients (21.7%) were discharged within 24 h of helicopter transport from the accident scene to trauma center. Less than 2% of patients were in the age group of 70 years or older. Only 2 (0.88%) patients discharged within 24 h had a prehospital systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg. For patients transported to Level 1 trauma center, the average loaded miles were 50.51 ± 14.99, with average transport charges being $27,921.19± $3536.61. Twenty-one percent of Level 1 trauma center patients were self-pay, and families typically drove 71.7 ± 123.23 miles to Level 1 trauma center versus 28.74 ± 40.62 to their local emergency department. Conclusions: A significant number of patients transported from the scene are discharged within 24 h of admission to a trauma center. These patients rarely have prehospital hypotension, do not receive significant volumes of crystalloid resuscitation, and are infrequently over 70 years of age. One in five patients has no third-party coverage and assumes $27,921.19 in average transport charges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transporting a severely injured patient directly to a trauma center (TC) is consensually considered optimal. Nevertheless, disagreement persists regarding the association between secondary transfer status and outcome. The aim of the study was to compare adjusted mortality between road traffic trauma patients directly or secondarily transported to a level 1 trauma center (TC) in an exclusive French trauma system with a physician staffed prehospital emergency medical system (EMS). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using 2015–2017 data from a regional trauma registry (Traumabase®), an administrative database on road-traffic accidents and prehospital-EMS records. Multivariate logistic regression models were computed to determine the role of the modality of admission on mortality and to identify factors associated with secondary transfer. The primary outcome was day-30 mortality. Results: During the study period, 121.955 victims of road-traffic accident were recorded among which 4412 trauma patients were admitted in the level 1 regional TCs, 4031 directly and 381 secondarily transferred from lower levels facilities. No significant association between all-cause 30-day mortality and the type of transport was observed (Odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.3–1.9]) when adjusted for potential confounders. Patients secondarily transferred were older, with low-energy mechanism and presented higher head and abdominal injury scores. Among all 947 death, 43 (4.5%) occurred in lower-level facilities. The population-based undertriage leading to death was 0.15%, 95%CI [0.12–0.19]. Conclusion: In an exclusive trauma system with physician staffed prehospital care, road-traffic victims secondarily transferred to a TC do not have an increased mortality when compared to directly transported patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective was to identify factors associated with transport of injured older adults meeting statewide geriatric trauma triage criteria to a trauma center. Methods: An observational retrospective cohort study using the 2009 to 2011 Ohio Trauma Registry. Subjects were adults ≥ 70 years old who met Ohio's geriatric triage criteria for trauma center transport by emergency medical services. We created multivariable logistic regression models to identify predictors of initial and ultimate (e.g., interfacility transfer) transport to a Level I or II trauma center and to a Level I, II, or III center. Results: Of 10,411 subjects, 47% were initially and 59% were ultimately transported to a Level I or II trauma center with rates of 66 and 74%, respectively, for transport to a Level I, II, or III center. For initial transport to a Level I or II center, age 80 to 89 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89), age ≥ 90 (OR = 0.76), and either only a Level 3 (OR = 0.3) or no trauma center (OR = 0.11) in county of residence had decreased odds of transport, while male sex (OR = 1.38), black race (OR = 2.07), Injury Severity Score (ISS) 10–15 (OR = 1.99), ISS > 15 (OR = 2.85), and Glasgow Coma Scale score < 9 (OR = 2.11) had increased odds. Results were similar for ultimate transport to a Level I or II center. Analyzing transport to a Level I, II, or III center demonstrated similar results except a Level III trauma center in county of residence was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.00 for initial and 2.21 for ultimate) of transport to a Level I, II, or III center. Conclusions: We identified factors independently associated with failure to transport injured older adults to trauma centers in statewide data collected after adoption of geriatric triage criteria. Lack of a trauma center in the county of residence remained a factor even in analyses that included ultimate transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Trauma systems vary in performance during different time periods and may affect the patient outcomes, especially in resource-limited settings. The present study was undertaken to study the pattern, epidemiological profile, processes of care variations of trauma victims presenting during-hours and after-hours in a level 1 trauma Center of a lower middle-income country. Methodology: Retrospective analyses of prospectively collected data registry at a single tertiary care center. Data collected from 2013 to 2015 were analyzed. Patients with a history of trauma and admission to the center or death between arrival and admission were included. Isolated limb injury and patients dead on arrival were excluded. Results: Of 4692, 1789 (38.1%) patients arrived and were admitted during-hours and 2903 (61.9%) after-hours. The overall in-hospital mortality was 14.9% in the cohort. Moreover, it was 16.10% during after-hours in comparison to 13.0% during-hours. The Revised Trauma Score was statistically different during-hours and after-hours suggesting patients with greater physiological derangement after-hours. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for 7 days were comparable in two groups with the log-rank test of 078. The proportion of initial radiological investigations (chest X-ray, focused assessment sonography in trauma [FAST], and computerized tomography [CT] scans) was ranged from 84.9% for CT scans in the cohort to 99.3% for FAST. Conclusions: Processes of care do not differ significantly for the patients admitted at a level 1 trauma center irrespective of time of the day. Although survival probability for the initial 7 days of follow-up is comparable between two groups; however, for 30 and 90 days of follow-up they are significantly different between during-hours and after-hours, likely due to injury severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Surgery is the property of CMA Impact Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Thousands of physicians attend scientific conferences each year. While recent data indicate that variation in staffing during such meetings impacts survival of non-surgical patients, the association between treatment during conferences and outcomes of a surgical population remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine mortality resulting from traumatic injuries and the influence of hospital admission during national surgery meetings. Study design: Retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality using data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2011). Identified patients admitted during four annual meetings and compared their mortality with that of patients admitted during non-conference periods. Analysis included 155 hospitals with 12,256 patients admitted on 42 conference days and 82,399 patients admitted on 270 non-conference days. Multivariate analysis performed separately for hospitals with different levels of trauma center verification by state and American College of Surgeons (ACS) criteria. Results: Patient characteristics were similar between meeting and non-meeting dates. At ACS level I and level II trauma centers during conference versus non-conference dates, adjusted mortality was not significantly different. However, adjusted mortality increased significantly for patients admitted to trauma centers that lacked ACS trauma verification during conferences versus non-conference days (OR 1.2, p = 0.008), particularly for patients with penetrating injuries, whose mortality rose from 11.6% to 15.9% (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Trauma mortality increased during surgery conferences compared to non-conference dates for patients admitted to hospitals that lacked ACS trauma level verification. The mortality difference at those hospitals was greatest for patients who presented with penetrating injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous studies examining access to trauma care use patient residence as a proxy for location and need for services, which could result in a flawed understanding of access to trauma centers. The objective of this study was to examine the geographic access of the U.S. population to trauma centers based on trauma incident locations. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study using 9‐1‐1 emergency medical services activations associated with traumatic injury from the 2014 National Emergency Medical Services Information System and trauma centers participating in the 2014 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. The measures included the percentage of trauma incidents that could reach a trauma center within 60 minutes by ground ambulance, capacity‐to‐demand ratio for each trauma center, and overall trauma care accessibility ratio for each U.S. zip code. Results: A total of 92.9% of all trauma incidents could be transported to an existing trauma center within 60 minutes by ground ambulance, and 85.3% could be transported to a Level I or II trauma center within this time frame in the 32 study states. While 94.7% of trauma incidents in the Northeast area could be transported to a Level I or II trauma center within a 60‐minute driving time, the capacity‐to‐demand ratios of trauma centers in this region were low, indicating high utilization of those trauma center resources. By using the accessibility measure, we found that some Midwestern and Southern states had higher amounts of accessible trauma center resources relative to the number of injuries than Northeastern states. Conclusions: These findings suggest that greater access to trauma care and significant variations can be observed throughout the 32 study states when using trauma incident location rather than patient residence to calculate access to trauma care. The proposed capacity‐to‐demand ratio and accessibility ratio can be applied to many other needs assessments in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective was to determine whether children surviving to hospital discharge after firearm assault (FA) and nonfirearm assault (NFA) are at increased risk of mortality relative to survivors of unintentional trauma (UT). Secondarily, the objective was to elucidate the factors associated with long‐term mortality after pediatric trauma. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients aged 0 to 16 years who presented to the three trauma centers in San Francisco and Alameda counties, California, between January 2000 and December 2009 after 1) FA, 2) NFA, and 3) UT. The Social Security Death Master File and the California Department of Public Health Vital Statistics (2000–2014) were queried through December 31, 2014, to identify those who died after surviving their initial hospitalization and to delineate cause of death. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to determine associations between exposure to assault and long‐term mortality. Results: We analyzed 413 FA, 405 NFA, and 7,062 UT patients who survived their index hospital visit. A total of 75 deaths occurred, including 3.9, 3.2, and 0.7% of each cohort, respectively. Two‐thirds of all long‐term deaths were due to homicide. After multivariate adjustment, adolescent age, male sex, black race/ethnicity, and public insurance were independent risk factors for long‐term mortality. FA (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82–4.0) and NFA (AHR = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.93–3.9) did not convey a statistically significant difference in risk of long‐term mortality compared to UT. Being assaulted by any means (with or without a firearm), however, was an independent risk factor for long‐term mortality in the full study population (AHR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.01–3.4) and among adolescents (AHR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.01–3.6). Conclusion: Children and adolescents who survive assault, including by firearm, have increased long‐term mortality compared to those who survive unintentional, nonviolent trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Pediatric out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest survival outcomes are dismal (<10%). Care that is provided in adherence to established guidelines has been associated with improved survival. Lower mortality rates have been reported in higher‐volume hospitals, teaching hospitals, and trauma centers. The primary objective of this article was to explore the relationship of hospital characteristics, such as annual pediatric patient volume, to adherence to pediatric cardiac arrest guidelines during an in situ simulation. Secondary objectives included comparing adherence to other team, provider, and system factors. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational study evaluated interprofessional teams in their native emergency department (ED) resuscitation bays caring for a simulated 5‐year‐old child presenting in cardiac arrest. The primary outcome, adherence to the American Heart Association pediatric guidelines, was assessed using a 14‐item tool including three component domains: basic life support (BLS), pulseless electrical activity (PEA), and ventricular fibrillation (VF). Provider, team, and hospital‐level data were collected as independent data. EDs were evaluated in four pediatric volume groups (low < 1,800/year; medium 1,800–4,999; medium‐high 5,000–9,999; high > 10,000). Cardiac arrest adherence and domains were evaluated by pediatric patient volume and other team and hospital‐level characteristics, and path analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of patient volume, systems readiness, and teamwork on BLS, PEA, and VF adherence. Results: A total of 101 teams from a spectrum of 50 EDs participated including nine low pediatric volume (<1,800/year), 36 medium volume (1,800–4,999/year), 24 medium‐high (5,000–9,999/year), and 32 high volume (≥10000/year). The median total adherence score was 57.1 (interquartile range = 50.0–78.6). This was not significantly different across the four volume groups. The highest level of adherence for BLS and PEA domains was noted in the medium‐high–volume sites, while no difference was noted for the VF domain. The lowest level of BLS adherence was noted in the lowest‐volume EDs. Improved adherence was not directly associated with higher pediatric readiness survey (PRS) score provider experience, simulation teamwork performance, or more providers with Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) training. EDs in teaching hospitals with a trauma center designation that served only children demonstrated higher adherence compared to nonteaching hospitals (64.3 vs 57.1), nontrauma centers (64.3 vs. 57.1), and mixed pediatric and adult departments (67.9 vs. 57.1), respectively. The overall effect sizes for total cardiac adherence score are ED type γ = 0.47 and pediatric volume (low and medium vs. medium‐high and high) γ = 0.41. A series of path analyses models was conducted that indicated that overall pediatric ED volume predicted significantly better guideline adherence, but the effect of volume on performance was only mediated by the PRS for the VF domain. Conclusions: This study demonstrated variable adherence to pediatric cardiac arrest guidelines across a spectrum of EDs. Overall adherence was not associated with ED pediatric volume. Medium‐high–volume EDs demonstrated the highest levels of adherence for BLS and PEA. Lower‐volume EDs were noted to have lower adherence to BLS guidelines. Improved adherence was not directly associated with higher PRS score provider experience, simulation teamwork performance, or more providers with PALS training. This study demonstrates that current approaches optimizing the care of children in cardiac arrest in the ED (provider training, teamwork training, environmental preparation) are insufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prehospital care is the first part of the trauma treatment and care system. Diagnostic and therapeutic measures taken before these patients arrive at the hospital plays significantly reduce mortality and improve their outcomes. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and clinical skill of emergency medical technicians in Tehran Emergency Center in trauma exposure. Methods: In this descriptive study, 213 participants were selected through stratified random sampling. Data were collected using a four-part questionnaire including demographic information, trauma knowledge questionnaire, trauma attitude questionnaire, and a clinical skill checklist. To compare the level of knowledge, attitude, and clinical skills on the one hand and demographic variables, on the other hand, independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were utilized. Then, to examine the normality of data distribution, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare mean scores on different levels of the variables in questionnaires. Data were analyzed in SPSS/17 using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Results showed that the majority of participants (81.1%) had an average knowledge of trauma. Examining their attitude regarding trauma revealed that the majority (88.3%) had a positive attitude toward trauma and taking care of trauma patients. Moreover, the skill of 62.4% of technicians regarding trauma was good. Based on Pearson's correlation, significant positive correlations existed between scores of knowledge and scores of attitude (r = 0.186, P < 0.05), scores of knowledge and scores of clinical skill (r = 0.333, P < 0.05), and scores of attitude and scores of clinical skill (r = 0.258, P < 0.05). Conclusion: According to the results, emergency medical technicians in Tehran had a good level of knowledge, attitude, and clinical skills in trauma exposure. However, to maintain and enhance the level of knowledge and skills, in-service training should be continued more vigorously and periodically evaluated in the clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Among emergency physicians, there is wide variation in admitting practices for patients who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) with an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of implementing a protocol in the emergency department (ED) observation unit for patients with mild TBI and ICH. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was approved by the institutional review board. Study subjects were patients ≥ 18 years of age with an International Classification of Diseases code corresponding to a traumatic ICH and admitted to an ED observation unit (EDOU) of an urban, academic Level I trauma center between February 1, 2015, and January 31, 2017. Patient data and discharge disposition were abstracted from the electronic health record, and imaging data, from the final neuroradiologist report. To measure kappa, two abstractors independently collected data for presence of neuro deficit from a 10% random sample of the medical charts. Using a multivariable logistic regression model with a propensity score of the probability of placement in the EDOU before and after protocol implementation as a covariate, we sought to determine the pre‐post effects of implementing a protocol on the composite outcome of admission to the floor, intensive care unit, or operating room from the EDOU and the proportion of patients with worsening findings on repeat computed tomography (CT) head scan in the EDOU. Results: A total of 379 patients were identified during the study period; 83 were excluded as they were found to have no ICH on chart review. Inter‐rater reliability kappa statistic was 0.63 for 30 charts. Among the 296 patients who remained eligible and comprised the study population, 143 were in the preprotocol period and 153 after protocol implementation. The EDOU protocol was associated with an independently statistically significant decreased odds ratio (OR) for admission or worsening ICH on repeat CT scan (OR = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25–0.82, p = 0.009) in the observation unit. After a stay in the EDOU, 26% (37/143) of patients required an inpatient admission before implementation of the protocol and 13% (20/153) of patients required an inpatient admission after protocol implementation. There was no statistically significant difference in log transformed EDOU length of stay (LOS) between the groups after adjusting for propensity score (p = 0.34). Conclusions: While there was no difference in EDOU LOS, implementing a low‐risk mild TBI and ICH protocol in the EDOU may decrease the rate of inpatient admissions from the EDOU. A protocol‐driven observation unit may help physicians by standardizing eligibility criteria and by providing guidance on management. As the propensity score method limits our ability to create a straightforward predictive model, a future larger study should validate the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Recent studies using advanced statistical methods to control for confounders have demonstrated an association between helicopter transport (HT) versus ground ambulance transport (GT) in terms of improved survival for adult trauma patients. The aim of this study was to apply a methodologically vigorous approach to determine if HT is associated with a survival benefit for when trauma patients are transported to a verified trauma center in a rural setting. Methods: The ascertainment of trauma patients age ≥ 15 years (n = 469 cases) by HT and (n = 580 cases) by GT between 1999 and 2012 was restricted to the scene of injury in a rural area of 10 to 35 miles from the trauma center. The propensity score (PS) was determined using data including demographics, prehospital physiology, intubation, total prehospital time, and injury severity. The PS matching was performed with different calipers to select a higher percentage of matches of HT compared to GT patients. The outcome of interest was survival to discharge from hospital. Identical logistic regression analysis was done taking into account for each matched design to select an appropriate effect estimate and confidence interval (CI) controlling for initial vital signs in the emergency department, the need for urgent surgery, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation. Results: Unadjusted mortalities for HT compared to GT were 7.7 and 5.3%, respectively (p > 0.05). The adjusted rates were 4.0% for HT and 7.6% for GT (p < 0.05). In a PS well‐matched data set, HT was associated with a 2.69‐fold increase in odds of survival compared to GT patients (adjusted odds ratio = 2.69; 95% CI = 1.21–5.97). Conclusions: In a rural setting, we demonstrated improved survival associated with HT compared to GT for scene transportation of adult trauma patients to a verified Level II trauma center using an advanced methodologic approach, which included adjustment for transport distance. The implication of survival benefit to rural population is discussed. We recommend larger studies with multiple trauma systems need to be repeated using similar study methodology to substantiate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary purpose of this narrative is to elucidate the numerous significant changes that occur at the intensive care unit (ICU) level as a medical center pursues becoming a Level I trauma center. Specifically, we will focus on the following important areas: (1) leadership and strategy issues behind the decision to move forward with becoming a trauma center; (2) preparation needed to take a highly functioning surgical ICU and align it for the inevitable changes that happen as trauma go-live occurs; (3) intensivist staffing changes; (4) roles for and training of advanced practice practitioners; (5) graduate medical education issues; (6) optimizing interactions with closely related services; (7) nursing, staffing, and training issues; (8) bed allocation issues; and (9) reconciling the advantages of a "unified adult critical care service" with the realities of the central relationship between trauma and surgical critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Road traffic injuries (RTIs) are the eighth leading cause of death worldwide, with an estimated 90% of RTIs occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Brazil. There has been minimal research in evaluation of delays in transport of RTI patients to trauma centers in LMICs. The objective of this study is to determine specific causes of delays in prehospital transport of road traffic injury patients to designated trauma centers in Maringá, Brazil.Methods: A qualitative method was used based on the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) approach. Eleven health care providers employed at prehospital or hospital settings were interviewed with questions specific to delays in care for RTI patients. A thematic analysis was conducted.Results: Responses to primary causes of delay in treatment to RTI patients fell into the following categories: 1) lack of public education, 2) traffic, 3) insufficient personnel/ambulances, 4) bureaucracy, and 5) poor location of stations. Suggestions for improvement in delays fell into the categories of 1) need for centralized station/avoid traffic, 2) improving public education, 3) Increase personnel, 4) increase ambulances, 5) proper extrication/rapid treatment.Conclusion: Our study found varied responses between hospital and SAMU providers regarding specific causes of delay for RTI patients; SAMU providers cited primarily traffic, bureaucracy, and poor location as primary factors while hospital employees focused more on public health aspects. These results mirror prehospital system challenges in other developing countries, but also provide solutions for improvement with better infrastructure and public health campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Subdural hematoma (SDH) is the most common form of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Severity of disease in patients with SDH varies widely. It was hypothesized that a decision rule could identify patients with SDH who are at very low risk for neurologic decline, neurosurgical intervention, or radiographic worsening. Methods: Retrospective chart review of consecutive patients age ≥ 16 with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≥ 13 and computed tomography (CT)-documented isolated SDH presenting to a university-affiliated, urban, 100,000-annual-visit ED from 2009 to 2015. Demographic, historical, and physical examination variables were collected. Primary outcome was a composite of neurosurgical intervention, worsening repeat CT, and neurologic decline. Univariate analysis was performed and statistically important variables were utilized to create a logistic regression model. Results: A total of 644 patients with isolated SDH were reviewed, 340 in the derivation group and 304 in the validation set. Mortality was 2.2%. A total 15.5% of patients required neurosurgery. A decision instrument was created: patients were low risk if they had none of the following factors—SDH thickness ≥ 5mm, warfarin use, clopidogrel use, GCS < 14, and presence of midline shift. This model had a sensitivity of 98.6% for the composite endpoint, specificity of 37.1%, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.037. In the validation cohort, sensitivity was 96.3%, specificity was 31.5%, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.127. Conclusion: Subdural hematomas are amenable to risk stratification analysis. With prospective validation, this decision instrument may aid in triaging these patients, including reducing the need for transfer to tertiary centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective In 2006, the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released field triage guidelines with special consideration for older adults. Additional considerations for direct transport to a Level I or II trauma center ( TC) were added in 2011, reflecting perceived undertriage to TCs for older adults. We examined whether age-based disparities in TC care for severe head injury decreased following introduction of the 2011 revisions. Methods A pre-post design analyzing the 2009 and 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases with multivariable logistic regressions considered changes in 1) the trauma designation of the emergency department where treatment was initiated and 2) transfer to a TC following initial treatment at a non- TC. Results Compared with adults aged 18 to 44 years, after multivariable adjustment, in both years TC care was less likely for adults aged 45 to 64 years (odds ratio [ OR] = 0.76 in 2009 and 0.74 in 2012), aged 65 to 84 years ( OR = 0.61 and 0.59), and aged 85+ years ( OR = 0.53 and 0.56). Between 2009 and 2012, the likelihood of TC care increased for all age groups, with the largest increase among those aged 85+ years ( OR = 1.18), which was statistically different (p = 0.02) from the increase among adults aged 18 to 44 years ( OR = 1.12). The analysis of transfers yielded similar results. Conclusions Although patterns of increased TC treatment for all groups with severe head trauma indicate improvements, age-based disparities persisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death in the United States, and rural populations are at increased risk of injury and death. Rural residents have limited access to trauma care, and telemedicine has been proposed as one strategy to improve the provision of trauma care locally. The objective of this study was to describe patient-level factors associated with telemedicine consultation in North Dakota critical-access hospital ( CAH) emergency departments ( EDs) and to measure the association between telemedicine consultation and interhospital transfer. Methods Observational cohort study of all adult (age ≥ 18 years) trauma patients treated in North Dakota CAH EDs with an active telemedicine subscription between 2008 and 2014. Trauma cases were identified from the North Dakota Trauma Registry, and telemedicine-enabled care was determined using a probabilistic linking algorithm with the call records of the predominant telemedicine network in North Dakota. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine consultation and to measure the association between telemedicine consultation and interhospital transfer, adjusting for patient, injury, and hospital factors. Results Of the 9,281 North Dakota trauma patients seen in CAHs, 2,837 were treated in an ED with an active telemedicine subscription. Telemedicine was consulted for 11% of all trauma patients in telemedicine-capable EDs. Factors associated with telemedicine consultation included higher Injury Severity Score, penetrating injuries, burns, hypotension, tachycardia, and ambulance transport. Adjusting for severity of illness, injury mechanism, and type of injury, telemedicine use was not associated with interhospital transfer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval = 0.94 to 1.75). Conclusion Emergency department-based telemedicine consultation is requested for the most severely injured rural trauma patients, especially with those with penetrating trauma, burns, and abnormal presenting vital signs. Telemedicine consultation was not independently associated with increased probability of transfer. Future work should evaluate how telemedicine impacts the timeliness of care and specific care interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]