Search

Background: Emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness has been associated with lower mortality for injured children but has historically been suboptimal in nonpediatric trauma centers. Over the past decade, the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) has invested resources in improving ED pediatric readiness. This study aimed to quantify current trauma center pediatric readiness and identify associations with center-level characteristics to target further efforts to guide improvement., Methods: The study cohort included all centers that responded to the 2021 NPRP national assessment and contributed data to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) the same calendar year. Center characteristics and pediatric (0-15 years) volume from the NTDB were linked to weighted pediatric readiness scores (wPRSs) obtained from the NPRP assessment. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to determine associations between wPRS and trauma center type as well as center-level facility characteristics., Results: The wPRS was reported for 77% (749 of 973) of centers that contributed to the NTDB. Emergency department pediatric readiness was highest in American College of Surgeons level 1 pediatric trauma centers, but wPRS in the highest quartile was seen among all adult and pediatric trauma center types. Independent predictors of high wPRS included American College of Surgeons level 1 pediatric trauma center verification, pediatric trauma volume, and the presence of a pediatric intensive care unit. Higher-level adult trauma centers and pediatric trauma centers were more likely to have pediatric-specific physician requirements, pediatric emergency care coordinators, and pediatric quality improvement initiatives., Conclusion: Emergency department pediatric readiness in trauma centers remains variable and is predictably lower in centers that lack inpatient resources. There is, however, no aspect of ED pediatric readiness that is constrained to high-level pediatric facilities, and a highest quartile wPRS was achieved in all types of adult centers in our study. Ongoing efforts to improve pediatric readiness for initial stabilization at nonpediatric centers are needed, particularly in centers that routinely transfer children out., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Objective: To use updated 2021 weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS) data to identify a threshold level of trauma center emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness., Background: Most children in the United States receive initial trauma care at nonpediatric centers. The aim of the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) was to ensure that all EDs are prepared to provide quality care for children. Trauma centers reporting the highest quartile of wPRS on the 2013 national assessment have been shown to have lower mortality. Significant efforts have been invested to improve pediatric readiness in the past decade., Study Design: A retrospective cohort of trauma centers that completed the NPRP 2021 national assessment and contributed to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2019 to 2021 was analyzed. Center-specific observed-to-expected mortality estimates for children (0-15 y) were calculated using Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program models. Deterministic linkage was used for transferred patients to account for wPRS at the initial receiving center. Center-specific mortality odds ratios were then compared across quartiles of wPRS., Results: A total of 66,588 children from 630 centers with a median (interquartile range) wPRS of 79 (66-93) were analyzed. The average observed-to-expected odds of mortality [1.02 (0.97-1.06)] for centers in the highest quartile (wPRS≥93) was lower than any of the lowest 3 wPRS quartiles [1.19 (1.14-1.23) (Q1), 1.29 (1.24-1.33) (Q2), and 1.28 (1.19-1.36) (Q3), all P <0.05). The presence of a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan was the domain with the strongest independent association with mortality [standardized beta -0.095 (-0.146 to -0.044)]., Conclusion: Trauma centers should address gaps in pediatric readiness to include a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan and aim to achieve wPRS ≥93., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Importance: Emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness is associated with improved survival among children. However, the association between geographic access to high-readiness EDs in US trauma centers and mortality is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the association between the proximity of injury location to receiving trauma centers, including the level of ED pediatric readiness, and mortality among injured children., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a standardized risk-adjustment model to evaluate the association between trauma center proximity, ED pediatric readiness, and in-hospital survival. There were 765 trauma centers (level I-V, adult and pediatric) that contributed data to the National Trauma Data Bank (January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017) and completed the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Assessment (conducted from January 1 through August 31, 2013). The study comprised children aged younger than 18 years who were transported by ground to the included trauma centers. Data analysis was performed between January 1 and March 31, 2022., Exposures: Trauma center proximity within 30 minutes by ground transport and ED pediatric readiness, as measured by weighted pediatric readiness score (wPRS; range, 0-100; quartiles 1 [low readiness] to 4 [high readiness])., Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality. We used a patient-level mixed-effects logistic regression model to evaluate the association of transport time, proximity, and ED pediatric readiness on mortality., Results: This study included 212 689 injured children seen at 765 trauma centers. The median patient age was 10 (IQR, 4-15) years, 136 538 (64.2%) were male, and 127 885 (60.1%) were White. A total of 4156 children (2.0%) died during their hospital stay. The median wPRS at these hospitals was 79.1 (IQR, 62.9-92.7). A total of 105 871 children (49.8%) were transported to trauma centers with high-readiness EDs (wPRS quartile 4) and another 36 330 children (33.7%) were injured within 30 minutes of a quartile 4 ED. After adjustment for confounders, proximity, and transport time, high ED pediatric readiness was associated with lower mortality (highest-readiness vs lowest-readiness EDs by wPRS quartiles: adjusted odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47-0.89]). The survival benefit of high-readiness EDs persisted for transport times up to 45 minutes. The findings suggest that matching children to trauma centers with high-readiness EDs within 30 minutes of the injury location may have potentially saved 468 lives (95% CI, 460-476 lives), but increasing all trauma centers to high ED pediatric readiness may have potentially saved 1655 lives (95% CI, 1647-1664 lives)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that trauma centers with high ED pediatric readiness had lower mortality after considering transport time and proximity. Improving ED pediatric readiness among all trauma centers, rather than selective transport to trauma centers with high ED readiness, had the largest association with pediatric survival. Thus, increased pediatric readiness at all US trauma centers may substantially improve patient outcomes after trauma.

Objective: We used machine learning to identify the highest impact components of emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness for predicting in-hospital survival among children cared for in US trauma centers., Background: ED pediatric readiness is associated with improved short-term and long-term survival among injured children and part of the national verification criteria for US trauma centers. However, the components of ED pediatric readiness most predictive of survival are unknown., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children below 18 years treated in 458 trauma centers from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, matched to the 2013 National ED Pediatric Readiness Assessment and the American Hospital Association survey. We used machine learning to analyze 265 potential predictors of survival, including 152 ED readiness variables, 29 patient variables, and 84 ED-level and hospital-level variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival., Results: There were 274,756 injured children, including 4585 (1.7%) who died. Nine ED pediatric readiness components were associated with the greatest increase in survival: policy for mental health care (+8.8% change in survival), policy for patient assessment (+7.5%), specific respiratory equipment (+7.2%), policy for reduced-dose radiation imaging (+7.0%), physician competency evaluations (+4.9%), recording weight in kilograms (+3.2%), life support courses for nursing (+1.0%-2.5%), and policy on pediatric triage (+2.5%). There was a 268% improvement in survival when the 5 highest impact components were present., Conclusions: ED pediatric readiness components related to specific policies, personnel, and equipment were the strongest predictors of pediatric survival and worked synergistically when combined., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Introduction: Direct transport from the scene of injury to a trauma centre reduces saves lives. In Ontario, paramedics use the field trauma triage standard (FTTS) to determine if a patient meets trauma bypass criteria. Recent studies have questioned the efficacy of the FTTS in identifying severely injured patients. The objective of this study was to determine the predictive performance of the FTTS on the need for trauma center care in patients who were transported to a trauma center., Methods: This was a single-center health records study of patients transported by ambulance directly to a level 1 trauma center. Hospital based trauma center need and injury severity score-based need were defined. Bivariate associations with one or more FTTS criteria were tested using the Wilcoxon two-sample test for continuous variables, and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of each category of the FTTS were calculated., Results: There were 1427 patients included in the study, with 76% men, mean age of 40, and 76% had a blunt mechanism. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the FTTS was 90.9% and 20.8% for hospital-based need and 91.6% and 20.3 for injury severity need. The most sensitive variable for hospital-based need was physiologic criteria (53.7). Mechanism of injury was the most sensitive criteria for injury severity need (54.8). Physiological criteria had the highest association with hospital-based and injury severity need (adjusted odds ratios 7.5 [95% CI 5.8-9.8] and 5.1 [95% CI 3.9-6.7])., Conclusions: The FTTS has fair performance in identifying the need for hospital-based and injury severity need. Systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale (motor) less than 6, and falls greater than 6 m were most predictive of trauma center need. Improving prehospital trauma triage is critical to ensure timely transport to a trauma centre., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Abstract: Pediatric trauma system development is essential to public health infrastructure and pediatric health systems. Currently, trauma systems are managed at the state level, with significant variation in consideration of pediatric needs. A recently developed Pediatric Trauma System Assessment Score (PTSAS) demonstrated that states with lower PTSAS have increased pediatric mortality from trauma. Critical gaps are identified within six PTSAS domains: Legislation and Funding, Access to Care, Injury Prevention and Recognition, Disaster, Quality Improvement and Trauma Registry, and Pediatric Readiness. For each gap, a recommendation is provided regarding the necessary steps to address these challenges. Existing national organizations, including governmental, professional, and advocacy, highlight the potential partnerships that could be fostered to support efforts to address existing gaps. The organizations created under the US administration are described to highlight the ongoing efforts to support the development of pediatric emergency health systems.It is no longer sufficient to describe the disparities in pediatric trauma outcomes without taking action to ensure that the health system is equipped to manage injured children. By capitalizing on organizations that intersect with trauma and emergency systems to address known gaps, we can reduce the impact of injury on all children across the United States., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Importance: There is substantial variability among emergency departments (EDs) in their readiness to care for acutely ill and injured children, including US trauma centers. While high ED pediatric readiness is associated with improved in-hospital survival among children treated at trauma centers, the association between high ED readiness and long-term outcomes is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the association between ED pediatric readiness and 1-year survival among injured children presenting to 146 trauma centers., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, injured children younger than 18 years who were residents of 8 states with admission, transfer to, or injury-related death at one of 146 participating trauma centers were included. Children cared for in and outside their state of residence were included. Subgroups included those with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or more; any Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or more; head AIS score of 3 or more; and need for early critical resources. Data were collected from January 2012 to December 2017, with follow-up to December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to July 2021., Exposures: ED pediatric readiness for the initial ED, measured using the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS; range, 0-100) from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death within 365 days., Results: Of 88 071 included children, 30 654 (34.8%) were female; 2114 (2.4%) were Asian, 16 730 (10.0%) were Black, and 49 496 (56.2%) were White; and the median (IQR) age was 11 (5-15) years. A total of 1974 (2.2%) died within 1 year of the initial ED visit, including 1768 (2.0%) during hospitalization and 206 (0.2%) following discharge. Subgroups included 12 752 (14.5%) with an ISS of 16 or more, 28 402 (32.2%) with any AIS score of 3 or more, 13 348 (15.2%) with a head AIS of 3 or more, and 9048 (10.3%) requiring early critical resources. Compared with EDs in the lowest wPRS quartile (32-69), children cared for in the highest wPRS quartile (95-100) had lower hazard of death to 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.88). Supplemental analyses removing early deaths had similar results (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-0.996). Findings were consistent across subgroups and multiple sensitivity analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: Children treated in high-readiness trauma center EDs after injury had a lower risk of death that persisted to 1 year. High ED readiness is independently associated with long-term survival among injured children.

Purpose: To provide an overview of trauma system maturation in Europe., Methods: Maturation was assessed using a self-evaluation survey on prehospital care, facility-based trauma care, education/training, and quality assurance (scoring range 3-9 for each topic), and key infrastructure elements (scoring range 7-14) that was sent to 117 surgeons involved in trauma, orthopedics, and emergency surgery, from 24 European countries. Average scores per topic were summed to create a total score on a scale from 19 to 50 per country. Scores were compared between countries and between geographical regions, and correlations between scores on different sections were assessed., Results: The response rate was 95%. On the scale ranging from 19 to 50, the mean (SD, range) European trauma system maturity score was 38.5 (5.6, 28.2-48.0). Prehospital care had the highest mean score of 8.2 (0.5, 6.9-9.0); quality assurance scored the lowest 5.9 (1.7, 3.2-8.5). Facility-based trauma care was valued 6.9 (1.4, 4.1-9.0), education and training 7.0 (1.2, 5.2-9.0), and key infrastructure elements 10.3 (1.6, 7.6-13.5). All aspects of trauma care maturation were strongly correlated (r > 0.6) except prehospital care. End scores of Northern countries scored significantly better than Southern countries (p = 0.03)., Conclusion: The level of development of trauma care systems in Europe varies greatly. Substantial improvements in trauma systems in several European countries are still to be made, especially regarding quality assurance and key infrastructure elements, such as implementation of a lead agency to oversee the trauma system, and funding for growth, innovation and research., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: In the Netherlands, approximately 70% of severely injured patients (ISS ≥ 16) are transported directly to a Level I trauma center. This study compared the time needed to return to normal vital parameters and normal acid-base status in severely injured patients and some in-hospital processes in Level I versus Level II trauma centers., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all adult severely injured patients or adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit between 2015 and 2020 in a Dutch trauma region. The primary endpoint was time until normal vital parameters and acid-base status. Secondary endpoints were complication rate, hospital length of stay, emergency department length of stay, and time until a computed tomography (CT) scan., Results: A total of 2345 patients were included. Patients admitted to a Level I trauma center had a significantly higher rate of normalization of vital parameters over time (HR 1.51). There was no significant difference in normalization rate of the acid-base status over time (HR 1.10). In Level I trauma centers, time spent at the emergency department and time until the CT scan was significantly shorter (respectively, β - 38 min and β - 77 min), and the complication rate was significantly lower (OR 0.35)., Conclusion: Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center require less time to normalize their vital functions. Level I centers are better equipped, resulting in better in-hospital processes with shorter time at the emergency department and shorter time until a CT scan., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Background: Despite the high incidence of blunt trauma in older adults, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for computed tomography (CT) imaging in this population. We aimed to identify an algorithm to guide use of a pan-scan (head/cervical spine [C-spine]/torso) or a selective scan (head/C-spine ± torso). We hypothesized that a patient's initial history and examination could be used to guide imaging., Methods: We prospectively studied blunt trauma patients 65 years or older at 18 Level I/II trauma centers. Patients presenting >24 hours after injury or who died upon arrival were excluded. We collected history and physical elements and final injury diagnoses. Injury diagnoses were categorized into CT body regions of head/C-spine or Torso (chest, abdomen/pelvis, and thoracolumbar spine). Using machine learning and regression modeling as well as a priori clinical algorithms based, we tested various decision rules against our data set. Our priority was to identify a simple rule, which could be applied at the bedside, maximizing sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) to minimize missed injuries., Results: We enrolled 5,498 patients with 3,082 injuries. Nearly half (n = 2,587 [47.1%]) had an injury within the defined CT body regions. No rule to guide a pan-scan could be identified with suitable sensitivity/NPV for clinical use. A clinical algorithm to identify patients for pan-scan, using a combination of physical examination findings and specific high-risk criteria, was identified and had a sensitivity of 0.94 and NPV of 0.86. This rule would have identified injuries in all but 90 patients (1.6%) and would theoretically spare 11.9% (655) of blunt trauma patients a torso CT., Conclusion: Our findings advocate for head/C-spine CT in all geriatric patients with the addition of torso CT in the setting of positive clinical findings and high-risk criteria. Prospective validation of this rule could lead to streamlined diagnostic care of this growing trauma population., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level II., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prediction models for survival in trauma rely on arrival vital signs to generate survival probabilities. Hospitals are benchmarked on expected and observed outcomes. Prehospital blood (PB) transfusion has been shown to improve mortality, which may affect survival prediction modeling. We hypothesize that the use of PB increases the predicted survival derived from probability models compared with non-blood-based resuscitation., Methods: All adult trauma patients presenting to a level 1 trauma center requiring emergency release blood transfusion from January 2017 to December 2021 were reviewed. Patients were grouped into those receiving PB or those who did not (no PB). Prehospital Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and shock index were compared with those at presentation to hospital. Univariate and multivariate regressions were performed to identify factors associated with changes in survival probability at presentation., Results: In total, 2117 patients were reviewed (PB, 1,011; no PB, 1,106). Patients receiving PB were younger (35 vs. 40 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have blunt mechanism (71% vs. 65%, p = 0.002), and more severely injured (Injury Severity Score, 27 vs. 25; p < 0.001) and had higher rates of prehospital hypotension (44% vs. 19%, p < 0.001) and shock index (1.10 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001). Upon arrival, PB patients had lower rates of ED hypotension (34% vs. 39%, p = 0.01), and significant improvements in arrival TRISS scores (+0.09 vs. -0.02, p < 0.001) and shock index (+0.10 vs. -0.07, p < 0.001) compared with prehospital. On multivariate analysis, PB was associated with a threefold increase in unexpected survivors (odds ratio, 3.28; 95% confidence interval, 2.23-4.60)., Conclusion: The use of PB was associated with improved probability of survival and an increase in unexpected survivors. Applying TRISS and shock index at hospital arrival does not account for en route hemostatic resuscitation, causing patients to arrive with improved vitals despite severity of injury. Caution should be used when implementing survival probability calculations using arrival vitals in centers with prehospital transfusion capability., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: It is well established that seriously injured older adults are under-triaged to tertiary trauma centers. However, the survival benefit of tertiary trauma centers (TC) compared to a non-tertiary trauma centers (Non-TCs) remains unclear for this patient population. Using improved methodology and a larger sample, we hypothesized that there was a difference in hospital mortality between injured older adults treated at TCs and those treated at Non-TCs. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured older adults (> =55 years) reported to the Oklahoma statewide trauma registry between 2005 and 2014. The outcome of interest was 30-day in-hospital mortality and the exposure variable of interest was level of definitive trauma care (TC vs Non-TC). Overall survival benefit of treatment at a TC as well as the survival benefit of transferring injured older adults to a TC were evaluated using multivariable survival analyses as well as propensity score-adjusted analyses. Results: Of the 25,288 patients eligible for analysis, 43% (10,927) were treated at TCs. Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed effect modification by age group and time. After adjusting for potential confounders within the age strata, overall, patients treated at TCs were significantly less likely to die within 7 days of admission and this effect was stronger for patients aged 55-64 years (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.52) compared to those > =65 years (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70). Overall survival benefit of TCs beyond 7 days was also observed (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83). Similarly, for the survival benefit of transferring injured older adults, after adjusting for the propensity to be transferred and other confounders, transfer to a TC was associated with lower 30-day mortality both for patients less than 65 years old (HR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.49) and those 65 years and older (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.48-0.64). Conclusions: Our results suggest a survival benefit for injured older adults treated at TCs. This benefit was also observed for patients transferred from non-tertiary trauma centers. Further research should focus on identifying specific subgroups of patients who would especially benefit from this level of care to minimize trauma triage inefficiencies.

Study Objective: To identify predictors of undertriage among older injured Medicare beneficiaries, identify any regions in which undertriage is more likely to occur, and examine additional factors associated with undertriage at a national level., Methods: Using 2009 to 2014 Medicare claims data, we identified older adults (≥65 years) receiving a diagnosis of traumatic injury, and linked claims with trauma center designation records from the American Trauma Society. Undertriage was defined as nontrauma centers treatment with an Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16, consistent with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma benchmark. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds of undertriage by census region, adjusting for sex, race, age, Injury Severity Score, trauma center proximity, and mode of transportation., Results: Forty-six percent of severely injured patients (n=125,731) were treated at a nontrauma center. Compared with that for patients in the Midwest, adjusted odds of undertriage were 100% higher for patients in Southern states (odds ratio [OR] 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00 to 2.04) and 78% higher in Western states (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.73 to 1.82). Compared with that for patients aged 65 to 69 years, odds of undertriage gradually increased in all age groups, reaching 57% for patients older than 80 years (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.61). Distance to a trauma center was associated with increasing odds of undertriage, with 37% higher odds (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40) for older adults living more than 30 miles from a trauma center compared with patients living within 15 miles., Conclusion: Nearly half of older adult trauma patients are undertriaged; it increases with age and distance to care and is most common in Southern and Western states. Improvements to field triage and trauma center access for older patients are urgently needed., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Geographic location is a barrier to providing specialized care to pediatric traumas. In 2019, we instituted a pediatric teletrauma program in collaboration with the Statewide Pediatric Trauma Network at our level 1 pediatric trauma center (PTC). Triage guidelines were provided to partnering hospitals (PHs) to aid in evaluation of pediatric traumas. Our pediatric trauma team was available for phone/video trauma consultation to provide recommendations on disposition and management. We hypothesized that this program would improve access and timely assessment of pediatric traumas while limiting patient transfers to our PTC., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the PTC between January 2019 and May 2023. All pediatric trauma patients younger than 18 years who had teletrauma consults were included. We also evaluated all avoidable transfers without teletrauma consults defined as admission for less than 36 hours without an intervention or imaging as a comparison group., Results: A total of 151 teletrauma consults were identified: 62% male and median age of 8 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4-12 years). Teletrauma consults increased from 12 in 2019 to 100 in 2022 to 2023, and the number of PHs increased from 2 to 32. Partnering hospitals were 15 to 554 miles from the PTC, with a median distance of 34 miles (IQR, 28-119 miles). Following consultation, we recommended discharge (34%), admission (29%), or transfer to PTC (35%). Of those who were not transferred, 3% (3 of 97) required subsequent treatment at the PTC. Nontransferred teletrauma consults had a higher percentage of TBI (61% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) and were from farther distances (40 miles [IQR, 28-150 miles] vs. 30 miles [IQR, 28-50 miles], p < 0.001) compared with avoidable transferred patients without a teletrauma consult., Conclusion: Teletrauma consult is a safe and viable addition to a pediatric trauma program faced with providing care to a large geographical catchment area. The pediatric teletrauma program provided management recommendations to 32 PHs and avoided transfer in approximately 63% of cases., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Trauma registries are the primary data mechanism in trauma systems to evaluate and improve the care of injured patients. Research has suggested that trauma registries may miss high-risk older adults, who commonly experience morbidity and mortality after injury., Objective: To compare injured older adults who were included in with those excluded from trauma registries, with a focus on patients with serious injuries, requiring major surgery, or dying after injury., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all injured adults 65 years and older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma centers in 7 counties in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, with follow-up through December 31, 2012. Record linkage was used to match emergency medical services records with state trauma registries, state discharge databases, state death registries, and Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August to November 2018., Exposures: Inclusion in vs exclusion from a trauma registry., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality up to 12 months, including time to death and causes of death., Results: Of 8161 included patients, 5579 (68.4%) were women, and the mean (SE) age was 82.2 (0.10) years. A total of 1720 older adults (21.1%) were matched to a trauma registry record. Seriously injured patients not captured by trauma registries ranged from 18% (7 of 38 patients with abdominal-pelvic Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater) to 80.0% (1792 of 2241 patients with extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater), while 68 of 186 patients requiring major nonorthopedic surgery (36.6%) and 1809 of 2325 patients requiring orthopedic surgery (77.8%) were not included in trauma registries. Of patients with serious injuries or undergoing major surgery missed by trauma registries (range by injury and procedure type, 36.0% to 57.1%), 36.4% (39.3% when excluding serious extremity injuries and orthopedic procedures) were treated at trauma centers, particularly level III through V hospitals. When registry and nonregistry groups were tracked over 12 months, 93 of 188 in-hospital deaths (49.5%) and 1531 of 1887 total deaths (81.1%) occurred in the nonregistry cohort., Conclusions and Relevance: In their current form, trauma registries are ineffective in capturing, tracking, and evaluating injured older adults, although mortality following injury is frequently due to noninjury causes. High-risk injured older adults are not included in registries because of care in nontrauma hospitals, restrictive registry inclusion criteria, and being missed by registries in trauma centers.

Introduction: The differentiators of centers performing at the highest level of quality and patient safety are likely both structural and cultural. We aimed to combine five indicators representing established domains of trauma quality and to identify and describe the structural characteristics of consistently performing centers., Methods: Using American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data from 2017 to 2020, we evaluated five quality measures across several care domains for adult patients in levels I and II trauma centers: (1) time to operating room for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds and shock, (2) proportion of patients receiving timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, (3) failure to rescue (death following a complication), (4) major hospital complications, and (5) mortality. Overall performance was summarized as a composite score incorporating all measures. Centers were ranked from highest to lowest performer. Principal component analysis showed the influence of each indicator on overall performance and supported the composite score approach., Results: We identified 272 levels I and II centers, with 28 and 27 centers in the top and bottom 10%, respectively. Patients treated in high-performing centers had significant lower rates of death major complications and failure to rescue, compared with low-performing centers ( p < 0.001). The median time to operating room for gunshot wound was almost half that in high compared with low-performing centers, and rates of timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were over twofold greater ( p < 0.001). Top performing centers were more likely to be level I centers and cared for a higher number of severely injured patients per annum. Each indicator contributed meaningfully to the variation in scores and centers tended to perform consistently across most indicators., Conclusion: The combination of multiple indicators across dimensions of quality sets a higher standard for performance evaluation and allows the discrimination of centers based on structural elements, specifically level 1 status, and trauma center volume., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic /Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) were developed to stratify traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and improve health care utilization by selectively requiring repeat imaging, intensive care unit admission, and neurosurgical (NSG) consultation. The goal of this study is to assess safety and potential resource savings associated with the application of mBIG on interhospital patient transfers for TBI., Methods: Adult patients with TBI transferred to our Level I trauma center from January 2017 to December 2022 meeting mBIG inclusion criteria were retrospectively stratified into mBIG1, mBIG2, and mBIG3 based on initial clinicoradiological factors. At the time, our institution routinely admitted patients with TBI and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to the intensive care unit and obtained a repeat head computed tomography with NSG consultation, independent of TBI severity or changes in neurological examination. The primary outcome was progression of ICH on repeat imaging and/or NSG intervention. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and financial charges. Subgroup analysis on isolated TBI without significant extracranial injury was performed., Results: Over the 6-year study period, 289 patients were classified into mBIG1 (61; 21.1%), mBIG2 (69; 23.9%), and mBIG3 (159; 55.0%). Of mBIG1 patients, 2 (2.9%) had radiological progression to mBIG2 without clinical decline, and none required NSG intervention. Of mBIG2, 2 patients (3.3%) progressed to mBIG3, and both required NSG intervention. More than 35% of transferred patients had minor isolated TBI. For mBIG1 and mBIG2, the median hospitalization charges per patient were $152,296 and $149,550, respectively, and the median length of stay was 4 and 5 days, respectively, with the majority downgraded from the intensive care unit within 48 hours., Conclusion: Clinically significant progression of ICH occurred infrequently in 1.5% of patients with mBIG1 and mBIG2 injuries. More than 35% of interfacility transfers for minor isolated TBI meeting mBIG1 and 2 criteria are low value and may potentially be safely deferred in an urban health care setting., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Purpose: The treatment of trauma patients requires significant hospital resources. Numerous protocols exist to triage the injured patient and determine the level of care they may require. The purpose of this work is to describe an institutional trauma nurse screening procedure and to evaluate its effectiveness in triaging injured patients., Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a large, tertiary trauma center from January to June 2021. Patients were assessed by trauma nurse clinicians (TNC) utilizing a standardized screening process to determine suitability for trauma activation. If the patient did not meet activation criteria, they were sent to the main Emergency Department for evaluation and treatment. Patients could be activated later by the emergency physician. The primary variables of interest were number of activations after initial "rule out," injury severity score (ISS) for patients who were activated, mechanism of injury, and disposition., Results: A total of 1874 TNC screenings were performed. Of these, 1449 (77%) patients did not meet trauma activation criteria. Only 41 (2.8%) patients initially ruled out were later activated by the emergency physician and admitted for treatment of injuries. The average ISS of all activated patients was 9 ± 6. Thirty-six patients had an ISS ≤ 15, four between 16 and 25, and only one patient had an ISS > 25. Twenty-seven patients were admitted to the ward, five went to step-down units, and five required intensive care unit admission. Four patients required operative intervention for their injuries., Conclusion: These results suggest that nursing screening protocols can be safe, effective tools for triage of trauma patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Background: Pediatric trauma triage and transfer decisions should incorporate the likelihood that an injured child will require pediatric trauma center (PTC) resources. Resource utilization may be a better basis than mortality risk when evaluating pediatric injury severity. However, there is currently no consensus definition of PTC resource utilization that encompasses the full scope of PTC services., Methods: Consensus criteria were developed in collaboration with the Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) Research Committee using a modified Delphi approach. An expert panel was recruited representing the following pediatric disciplines: prehospital care, emergency medicine, nursing, general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedics, anesthesia, radiology, critical care, child abuse, and rehabilitation medicine. Resource utilization criteria were drafted from a comprehensive literature review, seeking to complete the following sentence: "Pediatric patients with traumatic injuries have used PTC resources if they..." Criteria were then refined and underwent three rounds of voting to achieve consensus. Consensus was defined as agreement of 75% or more panelists. Between the second and third voting rounds, broad feedback from attendees of the PTS annual meeting was obtained., Results: The Delphi panel consisted of 18 members from 15 institutions. Twenty initial draft criteria were developed based on literature review. These criteria dealt with airway interventions, vascular access, initial stabilization procedures, fluid resuscitation, blood product transfusion, abdominal trauma/solid organ injury management, intensive care monitoring, anesthesia/sedation, advanced imaging, radiologic interpretation, child abuse evaluation, and rehabilitative services. After refinement and panel voting, 14 criteria achieved the >75% consensus threshold. The final consensus criteria were reviewed and endorsed by the PTS Guidelines Committee., Conclusion: This study defines multidisciplinary consensus-based criteria for PTC resource utilization. These criteria are an important step toward developing a criterion standard, resource-based, pediatric injury severity metric. Such metrics can help optimize system-level pediatric trauma triage based on likelihood of requiring PTC resources., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level II., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The use of low titer O whole blood (LTOWB) has expanded although it remains unclear how many civilian trauma centers are using LTOWB., Methods: We analyzed data on civilian LTOWB recipients in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database 2020-2021. Unique facility keys were used to determine the number of centers that used LTOWB in that period., Results: A total of 16,603 patients received LTOWB in the TQIP database between 2020 and 2021; 6600 in 2020, and 10,003 in 2021. The total number of facilities that reported LTOWB use went from 287/779 (37%) in 2020 to 302/795 (38%) in 2021. Between 2020 and 2021, among all level 1-3 designated trauma facilities that report to TQIP LTOWB use increased at level-1 centers (118 to 129), and level-2 centers (81 to 86), but decreased in level-3 facilities (9 to 4). Among pediatric and dual pediatric-adult designated hospitals there was a decrease in the number of pediatric level-1 centers (29 to 28) capable of administering LTOWB. Among centers with either single or dual level-1 trauma center designation with adult centers, the number that administered LTOWB to injured pediatric patients also decreased from 17 to 10, respectively., Conclusions: There was an increase in the number of facilities transfusing LTOWB between 2020 and 2021. The use of LTOWB is underutilized in children at centers that have it available. These findings inform the expansion of LTOWB use in trauma., (© 2024 AABB. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Timely access to trauma center (TC) care is critical to achieve "Zero Preventable Deaths after Injury." However, the impact of timely access to TC care on pre-hospital deaths in each US state remains unknown. We sought to determine the state-level relationship between the proportion of pre-hospital deaths, age-adjusted mortality, and timely access to trauma center care., Study Design: We analyzed state-level analysis of adult trauma deaths reported to the CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research (WONDER) (1999 to 2016). Correlation between the state-level pre-hospital:in-hospital death ratio (PH:IH), the proportion of population with access to Level-I/II TC, and the age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) was determined. Population proportion with timely access to TC care was compared between states with a high pre-hospital death burden vs all other states. National estimates of potentially preventable pre-hospital deaths were calculated., Results: There were 1,949,375 trauma deaths analyzed. Overall, 1.19 times more deaths occurred pre-hospital (49%, n = 960,554) than in-hospital (42%, n = 810,387). States with better TC access had a lower AAMR (r = -0.71, p < 0.05) and relatively fewer pre-hospital deaths (r = -0.64, p < 0.05); states with higher AAMR had relatively more pre-hospital deaths (r = 0.70, p < 0.05). States with a high pre-hospital death burden had a lower proportion of population with access to Level-I/II TC within 1 hour vs all other states (63.2% vs 90.2%, p < 0.001). If all states had the same PH:IH death ratio as those among the best quartile for access, 129,213 pre-hospital deaths may potentially have been averted., Conclusions: States with poor TC access have more pre-hospital deaths, which contribute to higher overall injury mortality. This suggests that in these states, improving TC access will be critical to achieve "Zero Preventable Deaths after Injury.", (Copyright © 2018 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Interventions performed within the first hour after trauma increase survival rates. Literature showed that measuring times can optimize the trauma resuscitation process as time awareness potentially reduces acute care time. This study examined the effect of a digital clock placement on trauma resuscitation times in an academic level-1 trauma center., Methods: A prospective observational pre-post cohort analysis was conducted for six months before and after implementing a visible clock in the trauma resuscitation room, indicating the time passed since starting the in-hospital resuscitation process. Trauma patients (age ≥ 16) presented during weekdays between 9.00 AM and 9.00 PM were included. Time until diagnostics (X-Ray, FAST, or CT scan), time until therapeutic intervention, and total resuscitation time were measured manually with a stopwatch by a researcher in the trauma resuscitation room. Patient characteristics and information regarding trauma- and injury type were collected. Times before and after clock implementation were compared., Results: In total, 100 patients were included, 50 patients in each cohort. The median total resuscitation time (including CT scan) was 40.3 min (IQR 23.3) in the cohort without a clock compared to 44.3 (IQR 26.1) minutes in the cohort with a clock. The mean time until the first diagnostic and until the CT scan was 8.3 min (SD 3.1) and 25.5 min (SD 7.1) without a clock compared to 8.6 min (SD 6.5) and 26.6 min (SD 11.5) with a clock. Severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16) showed a median resuscitation time in the cohort without a clock (n = 9) of 54.6 min (IQR 50.5) compared to 46.0 min (IQR 21.6) in the cohort with a clock (n = 8)., Conclusion: This study found no significant reduction in trauma resuscitation time after clock placement. Nonetheless, the data represent a heterogeneous population, not excluding specific patient categories for whom literature has shown that a short time is essential, such as severely injured patients, might benefit from the presence of a trauma clock. Future research is recommended into resuscitation times of specific patient categories and practices to investigate time awareness., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Numerous studies have modified the Trauma Injury and Severity Score (TRISS) to improve its predictive accuracy for specific trauma populations. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple and practical prediction model that accurately predicts mortality for all acute trauma admissions., Methods: This retrospective study used Dutch National Trauma Registry data recorded between 2015 and 2018. New models were developed based on nonlinear transformations of TRISS variables (age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS)), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), the sex-age interaction, the best motor response (BMR) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification. The models were validated in 2018 data and for specific patient subgroups. The models' performance was assessed based on discrimination (areas under the curve (AUCs)) and by calibration plots. Multiple imputation was applied to account for missing values., Results: The mortality rates in the development and validation datasets were 2.3% (5709/245363) and 2.5% (1959/77343), respectively. A model with sex, ASA class, and nonlinear transformations of age, SBP, the ISS and the BMR showed significantly better discrimination than the TRISS (AUC 0.915 vs. 0.861). This model was well calibrated and demonstrated good discrimination in different subsets of patients, including isolated hip fractures patients (AUC: 0.796), elderly (AUC: 0.835), less severely injured (ISS16) (AUC: 878), severely injured (ISS ≥ 16) (AUC: 0.889), traumatic brain injury (AUC: 0.910). Moreover, discrimination for patients admitted to the intensive care (AUC: s0.846), and for both non-major and major trauma center patients was excellent, with AUCs of 0.940 and 0.895, respectively., Conclusion: This study presents a simple and practical mortality prediction model that performed well for important subgroups of patients as well as for the heterogeneous population of all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. Because this model includes widely available predictors, it can also be used for international evaluations of trauma care within institutions and trauma systems., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Objective: While out-of-hospital under-triage of seriously injured older adults to tertiary trauma centers has long been acknowledged, no study has adjusted for place of injury or evaluated the extent of inter-facility under-triage. We sought to determine distance and confounder adjusted odds of treatment at a tertiary trauma center (TTC) for older adult trauma patients compared to younger trauma patients, for patients transported from the scene of injury and those transferred from a non-tertiary trauma (NTTC) center., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from a statewide trauma registry reported over a 10-year period (2005-14). The outcome of interest was treatment at an American College of Surgeons or state-designated Level I/II trauma center (TTC). The predictor variable of interest was age group (> = 55 years vs. < 55 years). Covariates of interest included patient demographics, clinical characteristics and various distance measures calculated based on the patient's injury location., Results: 84 930 patients met study criteria. Of these 42% (35659) were 55 years and older with an average age of 74 years (SD, 11.6). Older adult patients were on average, injured slightly farther away from a TTC (median distance, 34 vs. 29 miles, p < 0.001). Among patients initially presenting to NTTCs, older adults were significantly more likely to be transferred to another NTTC (53% vs. 34%). After adjusting for confounders and distance measures, older adults were less likely to be treated at TTCs overall (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.52-0.56), whether transported by EMS from the scene of injury (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.44-0.50) or via inter-facility transfer (OR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.59-0.68)., Conclusions: Injured older adults face significant under-triage to TTCs whether by EMS from the scene of injury or via transfer from NTTCs. Adjusting for proximity of injury to a TTC does not alter these findings.

Background: Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time., Methods: All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008-2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS., Results: The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63-74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC., Conclusion: Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Importance: Despite a large rural US population, there are potential differences between rural and urban regions in the processes and outcomes following trauma., Objectives: To describe and evaluate rural vs urban processes of care, injury severity, and mortality among injured patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services (EMS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a prospective cohort enrolled from January 1 through December 31, 2011, and followed up through hospitalization. The study included 44 EMS agencies transporting to 28 hospitals in 2 rural and 5 urban counties in Oregon and Washington. A population-based, consecutive sample of 67 047 injured children and adults served by EMS (1971 rural and 65 076 urban) was enrolled. Among the 53 487 patients transported by EMS, a stratified probability sample of 17 633 patients (1438 rural and 16 195 urban) was created to track hospital outcomes (78.9% with in-hospital follow-up). Data analysis was performed from June 12, 2015, to May 20, 2016., Exposures: Rural was defined at the county level by 60 minutes or more driving proximity to the nearest level I or II trauma center and/or rural designation in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ambulance fee schedule by zip code., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality (out-of-hospital and in-hospital), need for early critical resources, and transfer rates., Results: Of the 53 487 injured patients transported by EMS (17 633 patients in the probability sample), 27 535 were women (51.5%); mean (SD) age was 51.6 (26.1) years. Rural vs urban sensitivity of field triage for identifying patients requiring early critical resources was 65.2% vs 80.5%, and only 29.4% of rural patients needing critical resources were initially transported to major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients. After accounting for transfers, 39.8% of rural patients requiring critical resources were cared for in major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients. Overall mortality did not differ between rural and urban regions (1.44% vs 0.89%; P = .09); however, 89.6% of rural deaths occurred within 24 hours compared with 64% of urban deaths. Rural regions had higher transfer rates (3.2% vs 2.7%) and longer transfer distances (median, 97.4 km; interquartile range [IQR], 51.7-394.5 km; range, 47.8-398.6 km vs 22.5 km; IQR, 11.6-24.6 km; range, 3.5-97.4 km)., Conclusions and Relevance: Most high-risk trauma patients injured in rural areas were cared for outside of major trauma centers and most rural trauma deaths occurred early, although overall mortality did not differ between regions. There are opportunities for improved timeliness and access to major trauma care among patients injured in rural regions.

Background: Interfacility transfer of pediatric trauma patients to pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) after evaluation in nontertiary centers is associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to assess the outcomes of transferred pediatric patients based on their severity of the injury, transfer time, and level of receiving PTCs., Methods: This is a 3-year (2017-2019) analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. All children (younger than 15 years) who were transferred from other facilities to Level I or II PTC were included and stratified by level of receiving PTCs and injury severity. Outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and major complications., Results: A total of 67,726 transferred pediatric trauma patients were identified, of which 52,755 were transferred to Level I and 14,971 to Level II. The mean ± SD age and median Injury Severity Score were 7 ± 4 years and 4 (1-6), respectively. Eighty-five percent were transported by ground ambulance. The median transfer time for Levels I and II was 93 (70-129) and 90 (66-128) minutes, respectively ( p < 0.001). On multivariable regression, interfacility transfers to Level I PTCs were associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality among the mildly to moderately injured group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; p = 0.037) and severely injured group with a transfer time of less than 60 minutes (adjusted odds ratio, 0.27; p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Every minute increase in the interfacility transfer time is associated with a 2% increase in risk-adjusted odds of mortality among severely injured pediatric trauma patients. Factors other than the level of receiving PTCs, such as estimated transfer time and severity of injury, should be considered while deciding about transferring pediatric trauma patients to higher levels of care., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Introduction: The correct triage of trauma patients to trauma centers (TCs) is essential. We sought to determine the percentage of patients who were undertriaged within the Pennsylvania (PA) trauma system and spatially analyze areas of undertriage (UTR) in PA for all age groups: pediatric, adult, and geriatric. We hypothesized that there would be certain areas that had high UTR for all age groups., Methods: From 2003 to 2015, all admissions from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry and those meeting trauma criteria (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Diseases: 800-959) from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4) database were included. Admissions were divided into age groups: pediatric (<15 years), adult (15-64 years), and geriatric (≥65 years). All pediatric trauma cases were included from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation and PHC4 registry, while only cases with Injury Severity Score of >9 were included in adult and geriatric age groups. Undertriage was defined as patients not admitted to level I/II adult TCs (n = 24), pediatric (n = 3), or adult and pediatric combined facility (n = 3) divided by the total number of patients from the PHC4 database. ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.7; ESRI, Redlands, CA) and GeoDa (version 1.14.0; CSDS, Chicago, IL) open source license were used for geospatial mapping of UTR with a spatial empirical Bayesian smoothed UTR by zip code tabulation area (ZCTA) and Stata (version 16.1; Stata Corp., College Station, TX) for statistical analyses., Results: There were significant percentages of UTR for all age groups. One area of high UTR for all age groups had TCs and large nontrauma centers in close proximity. There were high rates of UTR for all ages in rural areas, specifically in the upper central regions of PA, with limited access to TCs., Conclusion: It appears there are two patterns leading to UTR. The first is in areas where TCs are in close proximity to large competing nontrauma centers, which may lead to inappropriate triage. The second has to do with lack of access to TCs. Geospatial mapping is a valuable tool that can be used to ascertain where trauma systems should focus scarce resources to decrease UTR., Level of Evidence: Epidemiological, level III; Care management, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN)., Methods: Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared., Results: There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding., Conclusion: When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols., Level of Evidence: Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of a national database., Objective: To characterize the spine trauma population, describe trauma center (TC) resources, and compare rates of outcomes between the American College of Surgeons (ACS) level I and level II centers., Summary of Background Data: Each year, thousands of patients are treated for spinal trauma in the United States. Although prior analyses have explored postsurgical outcomes for patients with trauma, no study has evaluated these metrics for spinal trauma at level I and level II TCs., Materials and Methods: The ACS Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried for all spinal trauma cases between 2013 and 2015, excluding polytrauma cases, patients discharged within 24 hours, data from TCs without a designated level, and patients transferred for treatment., Results: Although there were similar rates of severe spine traumas (Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3) at ACS level I and level II centers (P=0.7), a greater proportion of level I patients required mechanical ventilation upon emergency department arrival (P=0.0002). Patients at level I centers suffered from higher rates of infectious complications, including severe sepsis (0.58% vs. 0.31%, P=0.02) and urinary tract infections (3.26% vs. 2.34%, P=0.0009). Intensive care unit time (1.90 vs. 1.65 days, P=0.005) and overall length of stay (8.37 days vs. 7.44 days, P<0.0001) was higher at level I TCs. Multivariate regression revealed higher adjusted overall complication rates at level II centers (odds ratio, 1.15, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.24; P<0.001), but no difference in mortality (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.52; P>0.10)., Conclusions: ACS level I TCs possess larger surgical staff and are more likely to be academic centers. Patients treated at level I centers experience fewer overall complications but have a greater incidence of infectious complications. Mortality rates are not statistically different., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the relationship between trauma center volume and outcome., Background: The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium is a network of 11 centers and 60 hospitals conducting emergency care research. For many procedures, high-volume centers demonstrate superior outcomes versus low-volume centers. This remains controversial for trauma center outcomes., Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium multicenter out-of-hospital Hypertonic Saline Trial in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less (traumatic brain injury) or systolic blood pressure of 90 or less and pulse of 110 or more (shock). Regression analyses evaluated associations between trauma volume and the following outcomes: 24-hour mortality, 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale incidence, worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score, and poor 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score., Results: A total of 2070 patients were evaluated: 1251 in the traumatic brain injury cohort and 819 in the shock cohort. Overall, 24-hour and 28-day mortality was 16% and 25%, respectively. For every increase of 500 trauma center admissions, there was a 7% decreased odds of 24-hour and 28-day mortality for all patients. As trauma center volume increased, nonorgan dysfunction complications increased, ventilator-free days increased, and worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score decreased. The associations with higher trauma center volume were similar for the traumatic brain injury cohort, including better neurologic outcomes at 6 months, but not for the shock cohort., Conclusions: Increased trauma center volume was associated with increased survival, more ventilator-free days, and less severe organ failure. Trauma system planning and implementation should avoid unnecessary duplication of services.

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

Background: Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures., Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers., Results: Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of -1.63 (95% CI, -2.89 to -0.36) and -0.21 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09)., Conclusion: Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care., Level of Evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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

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.)

Regionalized trauma care has been widely implemented in the United States, with field triage by emergency medical services (EMS) playing an important role in identifying seriously injured patients for transport to major trauma centers. In this study we estimated hospital-level differences in the adjusted cost of acute care for injured patients transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions, overall and by injury severity. Among 301,214 patients, the average adjusted per episode cost of care was $5,590 higher in a level 1 trauma center than in a nontrauma hospital. We found hospital-level differences in cost among patients with minor, moderate, and serious injuries. Of the 248,342 low-risk patients-those who did not meet field triage guidelines for transport to trauma centers-85,155 (34.3 percent) were still transported to major trauma centers, accounting for up to 40 percent of acute injury costs. Adhering to field triage guidelines that minimize the overtriage of low-risk injured patients to major trauma centers could save up to $136.7 million annually in the seven regions we studied.

Background: With implementation of trauma systems, a level of trauma care classification was introduced. Use of such a system has been linked to significant improvements in survival and other outcomes., Objectives: The aim of this study was assessing the association between level of trauma care and fatal and nonfatal outcome measures for general and major trauma (MT) populations., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to December 18, 2019. Studies comparing mortality or nonfatal outcomes between different levels of trauma care in general and MT populations (preferably Injury Severity Score of >15) were included. Two independent reviewers performed selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and a quality assessment of included articles. With a random-effects meta-analysis, adjusted and unadjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated for level I versus non-level I trauma centers., Results: Twenty-two studies were included. Quality of the included studies was good; however, adjustment for comorbidity (32%) and interhospital transfer (38%) was performed less frequently. Nine (60%) of the 15 studies analyzing in-hospital mortality in general trauma populations reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were not associated with higher mortality than non-level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.52). Of the 11 studies reporting in-hospital mortality in MT populations, 10 (91%) reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were associated with lower mortality than non-level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87)., Conclusion: The association between level of trauma care and in-hospital mortality is evident for MT populations; however, this does not hold for general trauma populations. Level I trauma centers produce improved survival in MT populations. This association could not be proven for nonfatal outcomes in general and MT populations because of inconsistencies in the body of evidence., Level of Evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Background: Significant variability exists in the triage of injured children with most systems using mechanism of injury and/or physiologic criteria. It is not well established if existing triage criteria predict the need for intervention or impact morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated existing evidence for pediatric trauma triage. Questions defined a priori were as follows: (1) Do prehospital trauma triage criteria reduce mortality? (2) Do prehospital trauma scoring systems predict outcomes? (3) Do trauma center activation criteria predict outcomes? (4) Do trauma center activation criteria predict need for procedural or operative interventions? (5) Do trauma bay pediatric trauma scoring systems predict outcomes? (6) What secondary triage criteria for transfer of children exist?, Methods: A structured, systematic review was conducted, and multiple databases were queried using search terms related to pediatric trauma triage. The literature search was limited to January 1990 to August 2019. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was applied with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool used to assess the quality of included studies. Qualitative analysis was performed., Results: A total of 1,752 articles were screened, and 38 were included in the qualitative analysis. Twelve articles addressed questions 1 and 2, 21 articles addressed question 3 to 5, and five articles addressed question 6. Existing literature suggest that prehospital triage criteria or scoring systems do not predict or reduce mortality, although selected physiologic parameters may. In contrast, hospital trauma activation criteria can predict the need for procedures or surgical intervention and identify patients with higher mortality; again, physiologic signs are more predictive than mechanism of injury. Currently, no standardized secondary triage/transfer protocols exist., Conclusion: Evidence supporting the utility of prehospital triage criteria for injured children is insufficient, while physiology-based trauma system activation criteria do appropriately stratify injured children. The absence of strong evidence supports the need for further prehospital and secondary transfer triage-related research., Level of Evidence: Systematic review study, level II.

Background: Accurate and reliable data are pivotal to credible risk-adjusted modeling and hospital benchmarking. Evidence assessing the reliability and accuracy of data elements considered as variables in risk-adjustment modeling and measurement of outcomes is lacking. This deficiency holds the potential to compromise benchmarking integrity. We detail the findings of a longitudinal program to evaluate the impact of external data validation on data validity and reliability for variables utilized in benchmarking of trauma centers., Methods: A collaborative quality initiative-based study was conducted of 29 trauma centers from March 2010 through December 2018. Case selection criteria were applied to identify high-yield cases that were likely to challenge data abstractors. There were 127,238 total variables validated (i.e., reabstracted, compared, and reported to trauma centers). Study endpoints included data accuracy (agreement between registry data and contemporaneous documentation) and reliability (consistency of accuracy within and between hospitals). Data accuracy was assessed by mean error rate and type (under capture, inaccurate capture, or over capture). Cohen's kappa estimates were calculated to evaluate reliability., Results: There were 185,120 patients that met the collaborative inclusion criteria. There were 1,243 submissions reabstracted. The initial validation visit demonstrated the highest mean error rate at 6.2% ± 4.7%, and subsequent validation visits demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in error rate compared with the first visit (p < 0.05). The mean hospital error rate within the collaborative steadily improved over time (2010, 8.0%; 2018, 3.2%) compared with the first year (p < 0.05). Reliability of substantial or higher (kappa ≥0.61) was demonstrated in 90% of the 20 comorbid conditions considered in the benchmark risk-adjustment modeling, 39% of these variables exhibited a statistically significant (p < 0.05) interval decrease in error rate from the initial visit., Conclusion: Implementation of an external data validation program is correlated with increased data accuracy and reliability. Improved data reliability both within and between trauma centers improved risk-adjustment model validity and quality improvement program feedback.