Trauma registry comparison: six-year results in trauma care in Southern Finland and Germany

Severe trauma in Germany and Israel: are we speaking the same language? A trauma registry comparison

Background

Trauma registries are a crucial component of trauma systems, as they could be utilized to perform a benchmarking of quality of care and enable research in a critical but important area of health care. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two national trauma systems: Germany (TraumaRegister DGU®, TR-DGU) and Israel (Israeli National Trauma Registry, INTR).

Methods

The present study was a retrospective analysis of data from the described above trauma registries in Israel and Germany. Adult patients from both registries treated during 2015-2019 with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 points were included. Patient demographics, type, distribution, mechanism, and severity of injury, treatment delivered and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and in the hospital were included in the analysis.

Results

Data were available from 12,585 Israeli patients and 55,660 German patients. Age and sex distribution were comparable, and road traffic collisions were the most prevalent cause of injuries. The ISS of German patients was higher (ISS 24 vs. 20), more patients were treated on an intensive care unit (92 vs. 32%), and mortality was higher (19.4 vs. 9.5%) as well.

Conclusion

Despite similar inclusion criteria (ISS ≥ 16), remarkable differences between the two national datasets were observed. Most probably, this was caused by different recruitment strategies of both registries, like trauma team activation and need for intensive care in TR-DGU. More detailed analyses are needed to uncover similarities and differences of both trauma systems.

Differences in characteristics between patients ≥ 65 and < 65 years of age with orthopaedic injuries after severe trauma

Aim

Many trauma patients have associated orthopaedic injuries at admission. The existing literature regarding orthopaedic trauma often focuses on single injuries, but there is a paucity of information that gives an overview of this group of patients. Our aim was to describe the differences in characteristics between polytrauma patients ≥ 65 and < 65 years of age suffering orthopaedic injuries.

Methods

Patients registered in the Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) with an injury severity score (ISS) > 15 and orthopaedic injuries, who were admitted to Haukeland University Hospital in 2016–2018, were included. Data retrieved from the patients’ hospital records and NTR were analysed. The patients were divided into two groups based on age.

Results

The study comprised 175 patients, of which 128 (73%) and 47 (27%) were aged < 65 (Group 1) and ≥ 65 years (Group 2), respectively. The ISS and the new injury severity score (NISS) were similar in both groups. The dominating injury mechanism was traffic-related and thoracic injury was the most common location of main injury in both groups. The groups suffered a similar number of orthopaedic injuries. A significantly higher proportion of Group 1 underwent operative treatment for their orthopaedic injuries than in Group 2 (74% vs. 53%). The mortality in Group 2 was significantly higher than that in Group 1 (15% vs. 3%). In Group 2 most deaths were related to traffic injuries (71%). High energy falls and traffic-related incidents caused the same number of deaths in Group 1. In Group 1 abdominal injuries resulted in most deaths, while head injuries was the primary reason for deaths in Group 2.

Conclusions

Although the ISS and NISS were similar, mortality was significantly higher among patients aged ≥ 65 years compared to patients < 65 years of age. The younger age group underwent more frequently surgery for orthopaedic injuries than the elderly. There may be multiple reasons for this difference, but our study does not have sufficient data to draw any conclusions. Future studies may provide a deeper understanding of what causes treatment variation between age groups, which would hopefully help to further develop strategies to improve outcome for the elderly polytrauma patient.

Ten‐year trends of adult trauma patients in Central Denmark Region from 2010 to 2019: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Trauma causes significant economic and societal burdens, and the trauma patient population and their prognosis change over time. This study aims to analyze 10‐year trends of trauma patients at a major trauma center in Central Denmark Region.

Methods

Five thousand three hundred and sixty‐six patients aged ≥16 years with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 0 admitted by trauma team activation at a major trauma center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were included. An annual percent change with a 95% confidence interval was used to estimate trends in the mechanism of injuries. Multiple logistic regression with mortality as the outcome was adjusted for age, sex, and ISS. Admission year was used as continuous variable in logistic regressions.

Results

The median age increased from 37 in 2010 to 49 in 2019, and the proportion of patients aged ≥65 doubled. The annual incidence of minor injuries (ISS 1–15) decreased from 181.3/10⁵ inhabitants in 2010 to 112.7/10⁵ in 2019. Severe injuries (ISS > 15) increased from 10.1/10⁵ inhabitants in 2010 to 13.6/10⁵ in 2019. The proportion of patients with ISS > 15 increased from 18.1% in 2010 to 31.1% in 2019. Multivariable logistic regression indicates lower 30‐day mortality for all trauma patients over the study period when adjusting for age, sex, and ISS (odds ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90–0.99). The 30‐day mortality for severely injured patients with ISS > 15 seems to decrease during the study period when adjusting for age, sex, and ISS (Odds ratio: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Fall injuries increased by 4.1% annually (95% CI: 2.3%–6.1%).

Conclusions

Ten‐year trends of trauma patients at a major trauma center show an increasing median age, injury severity, and number of fall injuries. The 30‐day mortality of trauma patients decreased slightly for both minor injuries and severe injuries when adjusting for age, sex, and injury severity.

Prolonged Casualty Care: Extrapolating Civilian Data to the Military Context

BACKGROUND

Civilian and military populations alike are increasingly faced with undesirable situations in which prehospital and definitive care times will be delayed. The Western Cape of South Africa has some similarities in capabilities, injury profiles, resource-limitations, and system configuration to U.S. military prolonged casualty care (PCC) settings. This study provides an initial description of civilians in the Western Cape who experience PCC and compares the PCC and non-PCC populations.

METHODS

We conducted a 6 month analysis of an on-going, prospective, large-scale epidemiologic study of prolonged trauma care in the Western Cape ('EpiC'). We define PCC as ≥10 hours from injury to arrival at definitive care. We describe patient characteristics, critical interventions, key times, and outcomes as they may relate to military PCC and compare these using chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests. We estimated the associations between PCC status and the primary and secondary outcomes using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

146 of 995 patients experienced PCC. The PCC group, compared to non-PCC, were more critically injured (66% vs 51%), received more critical interventions (36% vs 29%), had a greater proportionate mortality (5% vs 3%), longer hospital stays (3 vs 1 day), and higher SOFA scores (5 vs 3). The odds of 7-day mortality and a SOFA score ≥ 5 were 1.6 (OR: 1.59; 0.68, 3.74) and 3.6 (OR: 3.69; 2.11, 6.42) times higher, respectively, in PCC versus non-PCC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EpiC enrolled critically injured patients with PCC who received resuscitative interventions. PCC patients had worse outcomes than non-PCC. EpiC will be a useful platform to provide on-going data for PCC relevant analyses, for future PCC-focused interventional studies, and to develop PCC protocols and algorithms. Findings will be relevant to the Western Cape, South Africa, other LMICs, and military populations experiencing prolonged care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; prospective comparative study.

Trauma Registry Data as a Policy-Making Tool: A Systematic Review on the Research Dimensions

Objective:

To review the research dimensions of trauma registry data on health policy making.

Methods:

PubMed and EMBASE were searched until July 2020. Keywords were used on the search process included Trauma, Injury, Registry and Research, which were searched by using appropriate search strategies. The included articles had to: 1. be extracted from data related to trauma registries; 2- be written in English; 3- define a time period and a patient population; 4- preferably have more details and policy recommendations; and 5- preferably have a discussion on how to improve diagnosis and treatment. The results obtained from the included studies were qualitatively analyzed using thematic synthesis and comparative tables.

Results:

In the primary round of search, 19559 studies were retrieved. According to PRISMA statement and also performing quality appraisal process, 30 studies were included in the final phase of analysis. In the final papers’ synthesis, 14 main research domains were extracted and classified in terms of the policy implication and research priority. The domains with the highest frequency were “The relationship between trauma registry data and hospital care protocols for trauma patients” and “The causes of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) due to trauma”.

Conclusion:

Using trauma registry data as a tool for policy-making could be helpful in several ways, namely increasing the quality of patient care, preventing injuries and decreasing their number, figuring out the details of socioeconomic status effects, and improving the quality of researches in practical ways. Also, follow-up of patients after trauma surgery as one of the positive effects of the trauma registry can be the focus of attention of policy-making bodies.

Evaluation of the sequential organ failure assessment score and newly introduced criteria - Traumasis - in traffic collision patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and the newly introduced criteria, traumasis, defined as a SOFA score 2 or more among trauma patients.

METHODS

Consecutive adult traffic collision patients who were admitted to the study hospital emergency department (ED) from January 2017 to December 2018 were enrolled retrospectively in the study. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. The SOFA score was calculated using relevant initial ED data. Traditional risk scores for trauma patients, such as the injury severity score (ISS), the revised trauma score (RTS), and the trauma injury severity score (TRISS), were also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 927 patients were available for analysis, of whom 46 died (5.0%). The median SOFA score was 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-3.0). A total of 417 patients (45.0%) were identified as having traumasis (SOFA score ≥ 2), of whom 44 died (10.6%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the SOFA score (0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.95) was comparable with that of the TRISS (0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) and better than that of the ISS(0.81; 95% CI 0.75-0.86) and the RTS (0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the traumasis criteria for the primary outcome were 95.7%, 63.0%, 11.9%, and 99.6%, respectively. The net reclassification improvement for the comparison between the traumasis criteria and major trauma criteria (ISS ≥ 15) was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.82; p < 0.001). The multivariate Cox regression model showed that the SOFA score (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.37-1.67) and traumasis (aHR 11.40; 95% CI 2.70-48.13), respectively, was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

The SOFA score can be used as a reliable tool for predicting in-hospital death among traffic collision patients. The newly introduced criteria, traumasis, may be used as a risk-stratification and quality-control criteria among patients with trauma, similar to the sepsis criteria among patients with infectious disease.

Surgical strategy for femoral shaft fractures in severely injured patients: A 13-year experience from a tertiary trauma centre

BACKGROUND

The treatment strategy of femoral shaft fractures in polytraumatised patients has evolved over the years and led to improved outcomes for these patients. However, there is still controversy regarding the optimal treatment strategy and surgical care can differ markedly from one country to another. We investigate the surgical treatment strategy (Early Definitive Care (EDC) or Damage Control Orthopaedics (DCO)) implemented in the care of severely injured patients with femoral shaft fractures treated at a single tertiary trauma centre in southern Finland and factors affecting decision making.

METHODS

The Helsinki Trauma Registry (HTR) was used retrospectively to identify severely injured patients (New Injury Severity Score [NISS] ≥ 16) treated from 2006 through to 2018 with concomitant femoral shaft fractures. Patients <16 years old, with isolated head injuries, dead on arrival and those admitted >24 h following the injury were excluded. Based on their initial surgical management strategy, femoral fracture patients were divided into EDC and DCO groups and compared.

RESULTS

Compared to other trauma-registry patients, those with femoral shaft fractures are younger (30.9 ± 15.9 vs. 47.0 ± 19.7, p<0.001) and more often injured in road traffic accidents (64.1% vs. 34.4%, p<0.001). The majority (78%) of included patients underwent EDC. Patients who underwent DCO were significantly more severely injured (NISS: 40.1 ± 11.5 vs. 27.8 ± 10.1, p<0.001) with longer lengths of stay in ICU (15.4 ± 9.8 vs. 7.5 ± 6.1 days, p<0.001) and in hospital (29.9 ± 29.6 vs. 13.7 ± 11.4 days, p<0.001) than patients treated with EDC. Decision making was based primarily on injury related factors, while non-injury related factors may have contributed to choosing a DCO approach in a small number of cases.

CONCLUSION

Early definitive care is the prevailing treatment strategy in severely injured femoral shaft fracture patients treated at a tertiary trauma centre. Patients treated with DCO strategy are more severely injured particularly having sustained worse intracranial and thoracic injuries. In addition to injury related factors, treatment strategy decision making was influenced by non-injury related factors in only a minority of cases.

Trauma-registry survival outcome follow up: 30 days is mandatory and appears sufficient

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-day in-hospital mortality is a common outcome measure in trauma-registry research and benchmarking. However, this does not include deaths after hospital discharge before 30 days or late deaths beyond 30 days since the injury. To evaluate the reliability of this outcome measure, we assessed the timing and causes of death during the first year after major blunt trauma in patients treated at a single tertiary trauma center.

METHODS

We used the Helsinki Trauma Registry to identify severely injured (NISS ≥ 16) blunt trauma patients during 2006 to 2015. The Population Register center of Finland provided the mortality data for patients and Statistics Finland provided the cause of death information from death certificates. Disease, work-related disease, medical treatment, and unknown cause of death were considered as non-trauma related deaths. We divided the 1-year study period into the following three categories: in-hospital death before 30 days (Group 1), death after discharge but within 30 days (Group 2), and death 31 to 365 days since admission (Group 3).

RESULTS

We included 3557 patients with a median NISS of 29. Altogether, 21.8% (776/3557) patients died during the first year since the injury. Of these non-survivors, 12.7% (450) were in Group 1, 4.0% (141) in Group 2, and 5.2% (185) in Group 3. Non-traumatic deaths not directly related to the injury increased substantially as the time from the injury increased and were 2.0% (9/450) in Group 1, 13.5% (19/141) in Group 2, and 35.7% (66/185) in Group 3.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day mortality is a proper outcome that measures survival after severe blunt trauma. However, applying only in-hospital mortality instead of actual 30-day mortality may exclude non-survivors who die at another facility before day 30. This could result in over-optimistic benchmarking results. On the other hand, extending the follow-up period beyond 30 days increases the rate of non-traumatic deaths. By combining data from different registries, it is possible to address this challenge in current trauma-registry research caused by lack of follow up.

Severe traffic injuries in the Helsinki Trauma Registry between 2009-2018

OBJECTIVE

The European Union (EU) has adopted the Vision Zero and Safe System approach to eliminate deaths and serious traffic injuries on European roads by 2050. Detailed information on serious injuries, injury mechanisms and consequences are needed. The aim of this study was to describe and compare by injury mechanism the demographics, injuries, injury severity, and treatment of seriously injured road traffic trauma patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analysed data on severe traffic injury trauma patients aged ≥16 years of the Helsinki Trauma Registry (HTR) covering the years 2009-2018. The variables analysed were basic patient demographics, injury mechanism, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes, injured body regions, patient Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) values, NISS groups (NISS 16-24 and NISS ≥25), AIS 3+ injuries, trauma bay and 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) at ICU and in hospital, surgeries performed, pre-injury classification, and intention of injury.

RESULTS

A total of 1 063 traffic injury patients were analysed; 38.6% were motor vehicle occupants, 28.5% motorcyclists or moped drivers, 17.2% bicyclists, and 15.7% pedestrians. The mean age of patients was 44.3 years (SD 20.2). Median ISS score was 22 and median NISS score was 27. Both scores were highest in pedestrians. Among all patients, total hospital LOS was 12 517 days (median 9) and total ICU LOS was 6 311 days (median 5). The most common AIS 3+ injuries according to ISS body regions were chest injuries (60%) and head or neck injuries (43.7%). Chest injuries occurred more frequently in motorcyclists and motor vehicle occupants, whereas head or neck injuries were most common among bicyclists and pedestrians.

CONCLUSIONS

Severely injured pedestrians and bicyclists were older and they had higher mortality than motorcyclists and motor vehicle occupants. According to NISS, the overall severity was highest among pedestrians followed by bicyclists. However, the both median ICU LOS and hospital LOS were highest for pedestrians but lowest for bicyclists. The most common AIS 3+ injuries were chest and head or neck injuries. To specify effective injury prevention measures, hospital data should be complemented with information on the circumstances of the accident.

Pre-hospital trauma care in Switzerland and Germany: do they speak the same language?

Purpose

Swiss and German (pre-)hospital systems, distribution and organization of trauma centres differ from each other. It is unclear if outcome in trauma patients differs as well. Therefore, this study aims to determine differences in characteristics, therapy and outcome of trauma patients between both German-speaking countries.

Methods

The TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) was used. Patients with Injury Severity Score ≥ 9 admitted to a level 1 trauma centre between 01/2009 and 12/2017 were included if they required ICU care or died. Trauma pattern, pre-hospital procedures and outcome were compared between Swiss (CH, n = 4768) and German (DE, n = 66,908) groups.

Results

Swiss patients were older than German patients (53 vs. 50 years). ISS did not differ between groups (CH 23.8 vs. DE 23.0 points). There were more low falls < 3 m (34% vs. 21%) at the expense of less traffic accidents (37% vs. 52%) in the Swiss population. In Switzerland 30% of allocations were done without physician involvement, whereas this occurred in 4% of German cases. Despite a comparable number of patients with a GCS ≤ 8 (CH 29.6%; DE 26.4%), differences in pre-hospital intubation rates occurred (CH 31% vs. DE 40%). Severe traumatic brain injuries were diagnosed most frequently in Switzerland (CH 62% vs. DE 49%). Admission vital signs were similar, and standardized mortality ratios were close to one in both countries.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that patients’ age, trauma patterns and pre-hospital care differ between Germany and Switzerland. However, adjusted mortality was almost similar. Further benchmarking studies are indicated to optimize trauma care in both German-speaking countries.

Imaging of penetrating thoracic trauma in a large Nordic trauma center

Background

Penetrating trauma is rarely encountered in Nordic trauma centers, yet the incidence is increasing. Typical imaging findings in penetrating trauma should thus be familiar to all radiologists.

Purpose

To evaluate incidence and imaging findings of penetrating chest trauma, gunshot wound (GSW) and stab wound (SW) injury spectrum, imaging protocols, and outcome in a large trauma center.

Material and Methods

Trauma registry data from 2013–2016 was retrieved, and imaging accessed through hospital PACS. Retrieved variables included age, gender, injury severity scores, mechanism of injury, time to CT, and 30-day mortality. Depth of thoracic, pulmonary, abdominal and skeletal injury, active bleeding, and use of chest tubes were evaluated.

Results

Of 636 patients with penetrating injuries, 443 (69.7%) underwent imaging. Of these, 161 (36.3%) had penetrating thoracic injuries. Of 161 patients with penetrating chest trauma in imaging, 151 (93.8%) were men (mean age = 34.9 years) and 10 (6.2%) were women (mean age = 40.7 years). The majority of patients had SWs (138 SW vs. 15 GSW). Patients with GSWs were more severely injured (mean ISS 17.00 vs. 8.84 [P=0.0014] and ISS≥16 in 53.3% vs. 16.7%) than SW patients. In CT, intrathoracic injuries were found in 49.4% (77/156) and active bleeding in 26.3% (41/156). Emergency surgery was performed in 6.2% (10/161) with postoperative CT imaging. Thirty-day mortality rate was 1.2% (2/161).

Conclusion

Penetrating thoracic trauma often violates intrathoracic structures and nearby compartments. Arterial phase whole-body CT is recommended as multiple injuries and active bleeding are common. CT after emergency surgery is warranted, especially to assess injuries outside the surgical field.

How to Validate Data Quality in a Trauma Registry? The Helsinki Trauma Registry Internal Audit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Trauma registry data are used for analyzing and improving patient care, comparison of different units, and for research and administrative purposes. Data should therefore be reliable. The aim of this study was to audit the quality of the Helsinki Trauma Registry internally. We describe how to conduct a validation of a regional or national trauma registry and how to report the results in a readily comprehensible form.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trauma registry database of Helsinki Trauma Registry from year 2013 was re-evaluated. We assessed data quality in three different parts of the data input process: the process of including patients in the trauma registry (case completeness); the process of calculating Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes; and entering the patient variables in the trauma registry (data completeness, accuracy, and correctness). We calculated the case completeness results using raw agreement percentage and Cohen's κ value. Percentage and descriptive methods were used for the remaining calculations.

RESULTS

In total, 862 patients were evaluated; 853 were rated the same in the audit process resulting in a raw agreement percentage of 99%. Nine cases were missing from the registry, yielding a case completeness of 97.1% for the Helsinki Trauma Registry. For AIS code data, we analyzed 107 patients with severe thorax injury with 941 AIS codes. Completeness of codes was 99.0% (932/941), accuracy was 90.0% (841/932), and correctness was 97.5% (909/932). The data completeness of patient variables was 93.4% (3899/4174). Data completeness was 100% for 16 of 32 categories. Data accuracy was 94.6% (3690/3899) and data correctness was 97.2% (3789/3899).

CONCLUSION

The case completeness, data completeness, data accuracy, and data correctness of the Helsinki Trauma Registry are excellent. We recommend that these should be the variables included in a trauma registry validation process, and that the quality of trauma registry data should be systematically and regularly reviewed and reported.

Severe blunt trauma in Finland and Estonia: comparison of two regional trauma repositories

Purpose

Evolving trauma system of Estonia has undergone several reforms; however, performance and outcome indicators have not been benchmarked previously. Thus, we initiated a baseline study to compare demographics, management and outcomes of severely injured patients between Southern Finland and Northern Estonia utilizing regional trauma repositories.

Methods

A comparison of data fields of the Helsinki University Hospital trauma registry (HTR) and trauma registry at the North Estonia Medical Centre in Tallinn (TTR) between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2016 was performed. The inclusion criterion was Injury Severity Score > 15. Transferred patients, patients with penetrating injuries, and pediatric patients were excluded. The data for comparison included demographics, Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS), mortality, and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Primary outcome was mortality and SMR per TRISS methodology.

Results

During the 2-year study period, 324 patients from the HTR and 152 from the TTR were included. Demographic profile was similar between the repositories with the exception of severe abdominal injuries being more prevalent at the TTR (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.002). Predominant injury mechanism was non-ground level fall in both repositories. Mortality was similar at 14.5% and 13.6% at the TTR and HTR, respectively (adj. p = 0.762; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64–1.99). SMR was lower at the HTR compared to the TTR (0.65 vs. 0.77, p > 0.05), however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Benchmarking trauma repositories at a national level provides opportunities for quality and performance improvements. We observed comparable demographic profile and outcome indicators in the compared regional trauma systems.

Trauma center need: the American College of Surgeons' definition in contrast to Swiss highly specialized medicine regulations-a Swiss trauma center perspective

PURPOSE

According to the American College of Surgeons (ACS) recommendations, the benchmark for trauma center need (TCN) is an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. In contrast, Swiss highly specialized medicine (HSM) regulations set out TCN for all patients with an ISS > 19 or an Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) of the head ≥ 3. This investigation assessed to what extent the modification might be justified.

METHODS

Consecutive analysis of all significantly injured (new ISS, NISS ≥ 8) adults treated in a trauma center from 2010 to 2016 based on their ISS and AIS head and in respect to utilized resources and outcome.

RESULTS

Of 2171 patients (mean age 57.2 ± 21.6; ISS 15.0 ± 8.5) 40.1% fulfilled the ACS and 52.7% the HSM-definition of TCN. Comparative analysis of specified subgroups representing combinations of the ISS and the AIS head revealed that patients within the HSM but not within the ACS-definition of TCN achieved worse outcomes in mortality or on the Glasgow Outcome Score and had a higher inpatient rehabilitation rate than patients with an ISS < 15 and an AIS head < 3 compared to patients with an ISS > 15. Mortality for patients with an ISS 16-19 and AIS head < 3 (qualifying for the ACS but not the HSM-definition of TCN) was found to be twice as high for patients who were not in the ACS or the HSM group (ISS < 16 & AIS head < 3).

CONCLUSIONS

If confirmed by others, both the ACS and the Swiss-recommendations for TCN should be adapted accordingly, provided that the resultant increased workload is feasible for the trauma centers concerned.

Systematic review of hospital-wide complication registries

Background

An institutional registry covering all surgical specialties could be an implementation tool in quality benchmarking between hospitals and aid determination of their cost‐effectiveness. The objective of this systematic literature review was to evaluate original articles on existing prospective surgical registries that can be used by single institutions across surgical specialties.

Method

A systematic review of the literature using PRISMA guidelines was conducted for articles focusing on hospital‐wide surgical registries. Single‐specialty retrospective registries, non‐defined outcome measures or system protocols, and studies not in English were excluded.

Results

Five articles were included for analysis. Evaluation of the articles revealed wide methodological heterogeneity in the classification and categorization of complications and data collection methods.

Conclusion

Ideal surgical quality monitoring systems should be real‐time, contain patient‐related risk factors, and encompass all surgical specialties. At present, such institutional registries are rarely reported and no consensus exists on their standard definitions and methodology.

Resource use and clinical outcomes in blunt thoracic injury: a 10-year trauma registry comparison between southern Finland and Germany

PURPOSE

Serious thoracic injuries are associated with high mortality, morbidity, and costs. We compared patient populations, treatment, and survival of serious thoracic injuries in southern Finland and Germany.

METHODS

Mortality, patient characteristics and treatment modalities were compared over time (2006-2015) in all patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) thorax ≥ 3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, age > 15 years, blunt trauma mechanism, and treatment in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in Level 1 hospitals included in the Helsinki Trauma Registry (HTR) and the TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU).

RESULTS

We included 934 patients from HTR and 25 448 patients from TR-DGU. Pre-hospital differences were seen between HTR and TR-DGU; transportation in the presence of a physician in 61% vs. 97%, helicopter use in 2% vs. 42%, intubation in 31% vs. 55%, and thoracostomy in 6% vs. 10% of cases, respectively. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) and ICU LOS was shorter in HTR vs. TR-DGU (13 vs. 25 days and 9 vs. 12 days, respectively). Our main outcome measure, standardised mortality ratio, was not statistically significantly different [1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.18; HTR and 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00; TR-DGU].

CONCLUSIONS

Major differences were seen in pre-hospital resources and use of pre-hospital intubation and thoracostomy. In Germany, pre-hospital intubation, tube thoracostomy, and on-scene physicians were more prevalent, while patients stayed longer in ICU and in hospital compared to Finland. Despite these differences in resources and treatment modalities, the standardised mortality of these patients was not statistically different.

Are large fracture trials really possible? What we have learned from the randomized controlled damage control study?

PURPOSE

Although they are considered the 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials are still a rarity in orthopedic surgery. In the management of patients with multiple trauma, there is a current trend toward 'damage control orthopedics', but to date, there is no proof of the superiority of this concept in terms of evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this article is to present unexpected difficulties we encountered in successfully completing our randomized controlled trial and to discuss the problematic differences between theoretically planning a trial and real-life practical experience of implementing the plan, with attention to published strategies.

METHODS

The multicenter randomized controlled trial on risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients (DCO study) was designed to determine whether 'risk adapted damage control orthopedics' of femoral shaft fractures is advantageous when treating multiple trauma patients. We compared our methods of study planning and realization point by point with published methods for conducting such trials.

RESULTS

The study was methodically planned. We met the most prerequisites for successfully completing a large fracture trial, but experienced unexpected difficulties. After 2.5 years, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft suspended the financing because of low recruitment. The reasons were multifactorial.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe it is much more difficult to perform a large fracture trial in reality than to plan it in theory. Even the theoretically best designed trial can prove unsuccessful in its implementation. The question remains: are large fracture trials even possible? Hopefully YES!

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10321620. Date assigned: 09/02/2007.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Hospital and Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay for Injury Admissions: A Pan-Canadian Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the variation in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions across Canadian provinces and to evaluate the relative contribution of patient case mix and treatment-related factors (intensity of care, complications, and discharge delays) to explaining observed variations.

BACKGROUND

Identifying unjustified interprovider variations in resource use and the determinants of such variations is an important step towards optimizing health care.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on admissions for major trauma (injury severity score >12) to level I and II trauma centers across Canada (2006-2012). We used data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry linked to hospital discharge data to compare risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across provinces.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted hospital LOS was shortest in Ontario (10.0 days) and longest in Newfoundland and Labrador (16.1 days; P < 0.001). Risk-adjusted ICU LOS was shortest in Québec (4.4 days) and longest in Alberta (6.1 days; P < 0.001). Patient case-mix explained 32% and 8% of interhospital variations in hospital and ICU LOS, respectively, whereas treatment-related factors explained 63% and 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significant variation in risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across trauma systems in Canada. Provider ranks on hospital LOS were not related to those observed for ICU LOS. Treatment-related factors explained more interhospital variation in LOS than patient case-mix. Results suggest that interventions targeting reductions in low-value procedures, prevention of adverse events, and better discharge planning may be most effective for optimizing LOS for injury admissions.

Epidemiological comparison between the Navarra Major Trauma Registry and the German Trauma Registry (TR-DGU®)

BACKGROUND

International benchmarking can help identify trauma system performance issues and determine the extent to which other countries also experience these. When problems are identified, countries can look to high performers for insight into possible responses. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment and outcome of severely injured patients in Germany and Navarra, Spain.

METHODS

Data collected, from 2010 to 2013, in the Navarra Major Trauma Registry (NMTR) and the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) were compared. Both registries followed the Utstein Trauma Template (European Core Dataset) for documentation of trauma patients. Adult patients (≥ 16 years) with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) being >15 points were included in this study. Patients who had been admitted to the hospital later than 24 h after the trauma, had been pronounced dead before hospital arrival, or had been injured by hanging, drowning or burns, were excluded. Demographic data, injury data, prehospital data, hospital treatment data, time intervals, and outcome were compared. The expected mortality was calculated using the Revised Injury Severity Classification score II (RISC II).

RESULTS

A total of 646 and 43,110 patients were included in the outcome analysis from NMTR and TR-DGU, respectively. The difference between observed and expected mortality was -0.4% (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.04) in Germany and 1.6% (SMR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14) in Navarra. Differences in the characteristics of trauma patients and trauma systems between the regions were noted.

CONCLUSION

The higher observed mortality in Navarra is consistent with the epidemiological characteristics of its population. However, to improve the quality of trauma care in the Navarra trauma system, certain improvements are necessary. There were less young adults with severe injuries in Navarra than in Germany. It is possible to compare data of severely injured patients from different countries if standardized registries are used.

Accuracy and Coverage of Diagnosis and Procedural Coding of Severely Injured Patients in the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: Comparison to Patient Files and the Helsinki Trauma Registry

Background and Aims:

The Finnish Hospital Discharge Register data are frequently used for research purposes. The Finnish Hospital Discharge Register has shown excellent validity in single injuries or disease groups, but no studies have assessed patients with multiple trauma diagnoses. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and coverage of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register but at the same time validate the data of the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit.

Materials and Methods:

We assessed the accuracy and coverage of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register data by comparing them to the original patient files and trauma registry files from the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit. We identified a baseline cohort of patients with severe thorax injury from the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit of 2013 (sample of 107 patients). We hypothesized that the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register would lack valuable information about these patients.

Results:

Using patient files, we identified 965 trauma diagnoses in these 107 patients. From the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register, we identified 632 (65.5%) diagnoses and from the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit, 924 (95.8%) diagnoses. A total of 170 (17.6%) trauma diagnoses were missing from the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register data and 41 (4.2%) from the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit data. The coverage and accuracy of diagnoses in the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register were 65.5% (95% confidence interval: 62.5%–68.5%) and 73.8% (95% confidence interval: 70.4%–77.2%), respectively, and for the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit, 95.8% (95% confidence interval: 94.5%–97.0%) and 97.6% (95% confidence interval: 96.7%–98.6%), respectively. According to patient records, these patients were subjects in 249 operations. We identified 40 (16.1%) missing operation codes from the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register and 19 (7.6%) from the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit.

Conclusion:

The validity of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register data is unsatisfactory in terms of the accuracy and coverage of diagnoses in patients with multiple trauma diagnoses. Procedural codes provide greater accuracy. We found the coverage and accuracy of the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit to be excellent. Therefore, a special trauma registry, such as the trauma registry of the Helsinki University Hospital’s Trauma Unit, provides much more accurate data and should be the preferred registry when extracting data for research or for administrative use, such as resource prioritizing.

Evolution of severe trauma in Estonia comparing early versus established independence of the state

PURPOSE

Trauma mechanisms and patterns of severe injuries during the Estonian independence have not been evaluated. The aim of the study was to compare the incidence and outcomes of severe injuries between time periods of early independence from the Soviet Union and the present time.

METHODS

After the ethics review board approval, all adult trauma admissions to major trauma facilities in 1993-1994 and 2013-2014 with Injury Severity Score >15 were identified. Data collection included demographics, injury severity variables, interventions, and in-hospital outcomes. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of penetrating trauma, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and in-hospital complications. Primary outcome difference comparing the two time segments was determined using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1064 patients were included, 593 and 471 from 1993-1994 to 2013-2014, respectively. Incidence of penetrating trauma during 1993-1994 was 11.1 % and in 2013-2014 at 6.4 % (p = 0.007). Gunshot injuries constituted 62.1 and 23.3 % of all penetrating trauma in 1993-1994 and 2013-2014, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall mean HLOS was 15.5 ± 19.8 days and did not differ between the periods. The rate of adjusted complications showed a trend for a decreased incidence (adj. p = 0.064). Adjusted mortality rate was 50.3 and 16.4 % during 1993-1994 and 2013-2014, respectively (adj. OR 7.01; 95 % CI 4.69-10.47; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Effective law enforcement, gun control, evolution of trauma system, and reduction of interpersonal violence have all contributed to a significant decrease in penetrating trauma incidence and all-cause adjusted mortality during the 20 years of Estonian independence.

[Registries of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma : Overview and perspectives of the DGU and DGOOC registries]

The register network of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) consists of 14 registries that cover the various fields of traumatology and elective orthopedics. In addition to registries that focus on implants and types of diseases without age limitations, there are also registries dealing with special diseases in children and adolescents as well as the special needs of elderly patients with fractures. The registries serve as instruments for outcome research and quality assurance and can be used to develop treatment recommendations on a high level of evidence. The objective of the network is to exchange experience that facilitates the establishment of new registers, to pool expertise and to conserve resources.

Health status and return to work in trauma patients at 3 and 6 months post-discharge: an Australian major trauma centre study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to describe post-discharge outcomes, and determine predictors of 3 and 6 months health status outcomes in a population of trauma patients at an inner city major trauma centre.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of adult trauma patients admitted to this hospital with 3 and 6 months post-discharge outcomes assessment. Outcome measures were the Physical Component Scores (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) of the Short Form 12, EQ-5D, and return to work (in any capacity) if working prior to injury. Repeated measures mixed models and generalised estimating equation models were used to determine predictors of outcomes at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-nine patients were followed up. Patients with lower limb injuries reported lower mean PCS scores between 3 and 6 months (coefficient -4.21, 95 % CI -7.58, -0.85) than those without lower limb injuries. Patients involved in pedestrian incidents or assaults and those with pre-existing mental health diagnoses reported lower mean MCS scores. In adjusted models upper limb injuries were associated with reduced odds of return to work at 3 and 6 months (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.07, 0.57) compared to those without upper limb injuries.

DISCUSSION

Predictors of poorer physical health status were lower limb injuries and predictors of mental health were related to the mechanism of injury and past mental health. Increasing injury severity score and upper limb injuries were the only predictors of reduced return to work. The results provide insights into the feasibility of routine post-discharge follow-up at a trauma service level.

Unconscious trauma patients: outcome differences between southern Finland and Germany-lesson learned from trauma-registry comparisons

PURPOSE

International trauma registry comparisons are scarce and lack standardised methodology. Recently, we performed a 6-year comparison between southern Finland and Germany. Because an outcome difference emerged in the subgroup of unconscious trauma patients, we aimed to identify factors associated with such difference and to further explore the role of trauma registries for evaluating trauma-care quality.

METHODS

Unconscious patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 3-8] with severe blunt trauma [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16] from Helsinki University Hospital's trauma registry (TR-THEL) and the German Trauma Registry (TR-DGU) were compared from 2006 to 2011. The primary outcome measure was 30-day in-hospital mortality. Expected mortality was calculated by Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score. Patients were separated into clinically relevant subgroups, for which the standardised mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated and compared between the two trauma registries in order to identify patient groups explaining outcome differences.

RESULTS

Of the 5243 patients from the TR-DGU and 398 from the TR-THEL included, nine subgroups were identified and analyzed separately. Poorer outcome appeared in the Finnish patients with penetrating head injury, and in Finnish patients under 60 years with isolated head injury [TR-DGU SMR = 1.06 (95 % CI = 0.94-1.18) vs. TR-THEL SMR = 2.35 (95 % CI = 1.20-3.50), p = 0.001 and TR-DGU SMR = 1.01 (95 % CI = 0.87-1.16) vs. TR-THEL SMR = 1.40 (95 % CI = 0.99-1.81), p = 0.030]. A closer analysis of these subgroups in the TR-THEL revealed early treatment limitations due to their very poor prognosis, which was not accounted for by the RISC.

CONCLUSION

Trauma registry comparison has several pitfalls needing acknowledgement: the explanation for outcome differences between trauma systems can be a coincidence, a weakness in the scoring system, true variation in the standard of care, or hospitals' reluctance to include patients with hopeless prognosis in registry. We believe, however, that such comparisons are a feasible method for quality control.