Search

Evaluate the utility of routine rescanning of older, mild head trauma patients with an initial negative brain computed tomography (CT), who is on a preinjury antithrombotic (AT) agent by assessing the rate of delayed intracranial hemorrhage (dICH), need for surgery, and attributable mortality.Participating centers were trained and provided data collection instruments per institutional review board-approved protocols. Data were obtained from manual chart review and electronic medical record download. Adults ≥55 years seen at Level I/II Trauma Centers, between 2017 and 2019 with suspected head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale 14 to 15, negative initial brain CT, and no other Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries2 were identified, grouped by preinjury AT therapy (AT- or AT+) and compared on dICH rate, need for operative neurosurgical intervention, and attributable mortality using univariate analysis (α=.05).A total of 2,950 patients from 24 centers were enrolled; 280 (9.5%) had a repeat brain CT. In those rescanned, the dICH rate was 15/126 (11.9%) for AT- and 6/154 (3.9%) in AT+. Assuming nonrescanned patients did not suffer clinically meaningful dICH, the dICH rate would be 15/2001 (0.7%) for AT- and 6/949 (0.6%) for AT+. No surgical operations were done for dICH. All-cause mortality was 9/2950 (0.3%) and attributable mortality was 1/2950 (0.03%). The attributable death was an AT+, dICH patient whose family declined intervention.In older patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 to 15 and a negative initial brain CT scan, the dICH rate is low (1%) and of minimal clinical consequence, regardless of AT use. In addition, no patient had operative neurosurgical intervention. Therefore, routine rescanning is not supported based on the results of this study.

Background Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality. Methods Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression. Results There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47; P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05). Conclusions This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

BACKGROUND Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. METHODS This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I-IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018-2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. RESULTS Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p < .001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution-larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p < .001) or "medical" (58.4%; p < .001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." CONCLUSIONS The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience.

We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases.A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographicsoutcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019.The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home.Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

Background Well-developed trauma programs take years of planning, dedication, and commitment to the trauma population to achieve the desired outcomes and, even more, resilience and persistence to maintain a high-quality standard of care. Despite widespread trauma care systems across the nation and their link to improved outcomes for the trauma patient, there is a paucity of literature outlining the foundational elements required to evolve and grow a successful trauma program. Objective The purpose of this article is to outline the key elements for developing and maintaining a successful trauma program that yields high-quality patient outcomes. Methods Developing a program requires intense focus and continued efforts. Multiple foundational building blocks can facilitate program success and foster program growth. Results Foundational elements include leadership structure and support, building the right team, clinical expertise, trauma registry, program data, research, outreach and education, injury prevention, and ensuring adequate survey readiness. Building on these foundational elements, engagement of stakeholders at all levels throughout the program and organization can help drive program growth. Using these strategies, a program has been able to grow from 7.6 full-time equivalents to 24.4 in just a few short years while achieving, exceeding, and sustaining top metrics across state and national benchmarks. Conclusion A program can achieve sustainable, high-quality outcomes for the trauma patient by following a structured team approach to program development. Using the outlined building blocks for program development and sustainability, a successful trauma program can lead to improved patient and program outcomes.

BackgroundReports indicate social distancing guidelines and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted trauma patient volumes and injury patterns. This report is the first analysis of a large trauma network describing the extent of these impacts. The objective of this study was to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes, demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes.MethodsFor this descriptive, multicenter study from a large, multistate hospital network, data were collected from the system-wide centralized trauma registry and retrospectively reviewed to retrieve patient information including volume, demographics, and outcomes. For comparison, patient data from January through May of 2020 and January through May of 2019 were extracted.ResultsA total of 12 395 trauma patients (56% men, 79% white, mean age 59 years) from 85 trauma centers were included. The first 5 months of 2020 revealed a substantial decrease in volume, which began in February and continued into June. Further analysis revealed an absolute decrease of 32.5% in patient volume in April 2020 compared with April 2019 (4997 from 7398; pDiscussionEarly phases of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 32.5% decrease in trauma patient volumes and altered injury patterns at 85 trauma centers in a multistate system. This preliminary observational study describes the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and warrants further investigation.Level of evidenceLevel II (therapeutic/care management).

Problem Stroke is the fifth highest cause of death and the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States. North Carolina has one of the highest death rates from stroke in the nation. Access to acute stroke care in rural western North Carolina is limited, with only one primary stroke center within an 18-county region. Angel Medical Center, located in rural western North Carolina, sought to pursue The Joint Commission's disease-specific certification as an Acute Stroke Ready Hospital in an effort to improve stroke care and outcomes across the region. Methods A multidisciplinary team of ED clinicians, hospital leadership, and community participants was formed to develop a structured care algorithm and intensive process improvement initiatives to guide the Acute Stroke Ready Hospital application process. Results In the 7 months since implementation, door-to-laboratory results have improved by an average of 12 minutes, door-to-computed tomography interpretation has improved by 3 minutes, time to intravenous thrombolytics has improved to less than 60 minutes, and patient transfer within 2 hours of arrival has also improved. ED provider average response time has been reduced by 5 minutes, and time to neurology via telemedicine has been reduced by almost 10 minutes. Implications for Practice By driving best practices in the delivery of stroke care, Angel Medical Center enhanced stroke care in a rural community, allowing patients and families to receive evaluation and treatment in a timely and efficient manner close to home.