Clinical impact of a prehospital trauma shock bundle of care in South Africa.

Introduction: Patients experiencing traumatic shock are at a higher risk for death and complications. We previously designed a bundle of emergency medical services traumatic shock care ("EMS-TruShoC") for prehospital providers in resource-limited settings. We assess how EMS-TruShoC changes clinical outcomes of critically injured prehospital patients.
Methods: This is a quasi-experimental educational implementation of a simplified bundle of care using a pre-post design with a control group. The intervention was delivered to EMS providers in Western Cape, South Africa. Delta shock index (heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure, reported as change from the scene to facility arrival) from the 13 months preceding intervention were compared to the 13 months post-implementation. A difference-in-differences analysis examined the difference in mean shock index change between the groups.
Results: Data were collected from 198 providers who treated 770 severe trauma patients. The patient groups had similar demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline. Over all time-points, both groups had an increase in mean delta shock index (worsening shock), with the largest difference occurring 4-months post-implementation (0.047 change in control arm, 0.004 change in intervention arm; -0.043 difference-in-differences, P  = 0.27). In pre-specified subgroup analyses, there was a statistically significant improvement in delta shock index in the intervention arm in patients with penetrating trauma cared for by basic providers immediately post-implementation (-0.372 difference-in-differences, P  = 0.02).
Discussion: Overall, there was no significant difference in delta shock index between the EMS-TruShoC intervention versus control groups. However, significant improvement in shock index in one subgroup suggests the intervention may be more likely to benefit penetrating trauma patients and basic providers.
Competing Interests: Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by, or the official opinions of, the NIH, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Western Cape Government Department of Health, or the University of Colorado.
(© 2021 The Authors.)