Search

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., (© 2017 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: The main function of a trauma registry is to assess quality assurance and performance improvement (QA/PI) in an individual institution. Nonvalidated registry data may produce unreliable reports and QA/PI information. This study examines the types of data entry errors in a trauma registry database; the effect of errors on time variable estimates, case ascertainment and statistical measurement; dynamics of error occurrence; and data validation (DV) scheme for a trauma registry., Methods: Query and cross-tabulation techniques were used to expose a variety of data entry errors. Conceptual aspect for each type of error in DV, especially with respect to QA/PI, is given., Results: Findings of different errors are provided: out-of-range time values; false positive and false negative errors; errors of commission and omission; duplication errors; errors in demographics; and errors because of inconsistent and incongruent coding. Error rates were less than 3% in commonly occurring data, such as scene time, demographics, hospital discharge and transportation, and greater in less commonly occurring but important data, such as thoracic aorta injury (9.5%) and audit filter for admit Glasgow Coma Scale in emergency department (55.6%). Dynamics of error occurrence that can prevent or minimize errors is described. The main features of a data validation scheme are displayed., Conclusions: Errors in a trauma registry database cause invalid frequencies, rates, time estimates and statistical measures and affect QA/PI in trauma care. Every functioning trauma registry should develop an on-going program for DV.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the fourth most common preventable hospital-acquired complication for hospitalized trauma patients. Mechanical prophylaxis, using sequential compression or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, is recommended alongside pharmacologic prophylaxis for VTE prevention. However, compliance with device use is a barrier that reduces the effectiveness of mechanical prophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether using the Movement and Compressions (MAC) system compared with an IPC device impacts compliance with mechanical VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. METHODS: This study used a before-and-after design with historical control at a Level II trauma center with a convenience sample of adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit or acute care floor for at least 24 h. We trialed the MAC device for 2 weeks in November and December 2022 with prospective data collection. Data collection for the historical control group occurred retrospectively using patients from a point-in-time audit of IPC device compliance from August and September of 2022. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients met inclusion criteria, with 34 patients in the IPC group and 17 patients in the MAC group. The mean (SD) prophylaxis time was 17.2 h per day (4.0) in the MAC group and 7.5 h per day (8.8) in the IPC group, which was statistically significant (p <.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the MAC device can improve compliance with mechanical prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for appropriate pain control in the geriatric hip fracture population to prevent diminished function, increased mortality, and opioid dependence. Multimodal pain therapy is one method for reducing pain postoperatively while also decreasing opioid use in the geriatric hip fracture patient. This study aimed to determine whether multimodal pain therapy could decrease opioid use without increasing pain scores in surgical geriatric hip fracture patients. Methods: This was a before-and-after cohort study. The hospital implemented multimodal pain control order sets with a standardized pain regimen and performed retrospective chart review pre- and postorder set implementation for analysis. Results: A total of 248 patients were enrolled in the study: 131 in the preorder set group and 117 in the postorder set group. The mean postoperative oral morphine equivalent (OME) was significantly lower in the postorder set group than in the preorder set group (45.1 mg vs. 63.4 mg, respectively, p = .03). Compared with the preorder set group, total OME and postoperative OME were decreased by 22.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] -44.9, -3.8), 1-tailed p < .01, and 53.6% (95% CI -103.4, -16.1), 1-tailed p <.01 respectively, in the postorder set group. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean pain scores at 6, 24, and 48 hr postoperatively (p = .53, .10, and .99), respectively. Conclusion: Implementing a multimodal approach to pain management may help reduce opioid use and may be a critical maneuver in averting the national opioid epidemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]