What trauma patients need: the European dilemma

ESTES recommendations for the treatment of polytrauma-a European consensus based on the German S3 guidelines for the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries

INTRODUCTION

Considerable heterogeneity exists in the configuration and implementation maturity of trauma systems across European healthcare settings, and the opportunities for guideline-informed high-quality care varies considerably. Therefore, the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), with its constituent national societies, has developed comprehensive consensus recommendations for care-context appropriate treatment of polytrauma patients in Europe, from the pre-hospital setting to the first surgical phase.

METHODS

Adhering to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), ESTES conducted a three-round modified Delphi consensus. National society expert delegates assessed Grade of Recommendation (GoR) A and Good Clinical Practice Points (GPP) elements of the German Society of Trauma Surgery (DGU) "S3 guidelines for polytrauma/severe injury management" for appropriateness and implementability within their respective healthcare systems.

RESULTS

In the first consensus round, 82 GoR A and 57 GPP recommendations were analysed. Of these, seven GPP were rephrased for clarity and four were removed due to redundancy or conflicting content. Consequently, 135 recommendations (82 GoR A and 53 GPP) remained, with 128 (77 GoR A and 51 GPP) deemed appropriate and necessary, and seven as uncertain due to expert disagreement.

CONCLUSION

These ESTES recommendations constitute the first cohesive Europe-wide framework for managing the polytrauma patient from the prehospital setting to the end of the first surgical phase. They serve as a foundational tool for the development of national guidelines, particularly in regions with evolving trauma systems, and promote alignment towards a uniform standard-of-care across Europe.

Trauma room requirements

Effective shock (or trauma) room management requires thorough preparation, staff competence, dedicated infrastructure and organised protocols. Shock rooms must be sufficiently equipped according to the hospital's designated level of care. This chapter outlines essential aspects, including equipment and facilities, staff qualifications and composition, and communication practices. Key areas including initial assessment, diagnostic procedures, emergency interventions, and future aspects in the care of severely injured patients are addressed, along with emerging innovations in trauma care.

Health system governance for injury care in low- and middle-income countries: a survey of policymakers and policy implementors

INTRODUCTION

Good health system governance is essential for reducing high mortality and morbidity after injury in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, the current state of governance for injury care is not known. This study evaluated governance for injury care in Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa, four LMICs with diverse contexts, to allow understanding of similarities or difference in the status of governance systems in different LMICs.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study captured the perceptions of 220 respondents (31 policymakers and 189 policy implementers) on injury care governance using the framework for governance in health system developed by Siddiqi. Input was captured in 10 domains: strategic vision; participation and consensus; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; equity and inclusion; effectiveness and efficiency; accountability; intelligence and information; and ethics.

RESULT

The median injury care governance score across all domains and countries was 29% (IQR 17-43). The highest median score was achieved in the rule of law (50, 33-67), and the lowest scores were seen in the transparency (0, 0-33), accountability (0, 0-33), and participation and consensus (0, 0-33) domains. Median scores were higher for policymakers (33, 27-48) than for policy implementers (27, 17-42), but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The four studied countries have developed some of the foundations of good injury care governance, although many governance domains require more attention. The gap in awareness between policymakers and policy implementers might reflect a delayed or partial implementation of policies or lack of communication between sectors. Ensuring equitable access to injury care across LMICs requires investment in all domains of good injury care governance.

Identifying and addressing mentorship gaps in European trauma and emergency surgical training. Results from the Young European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (yESTES) mentorship survey

PURPOSE

European training pathways for surgeons dedicated to treating severely injured and critically ill surgical patients lack a standardized approach and are significantly influenced by diverse organizational and cultural backgrounds. This variation extends into the realm of mentorship, a vital component for the holistic development of surgeons beyond mere technical proficiency. Currently, a comprehensive understanding of the mentorship landscape within the European trauma care (visceral or skeletal) and emergency general surgery (EGS) communities is lacking. This study aims to identify within the current mentorship environment prevalent practices, discern existing gaps, and propose structured interventions to enhance mentorship quality and accessibility led by the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES).

METHODS

Utilizing a structured survey conceived and promoted by the Young section of the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (yESTES), we collected and analyzed responses from 123 ESTES members (both surgeons in practice and in training) across 20 European countries. The survey focused on mentorship experiences, challenges faced by early-career and female surgeons, the integration of non-technical skills (NTS) in mentorship, and the perceived role of surgical societies in facilitating mentorship.

RESULTS

Findings highlighted a substantial mentorship experience gap, with 74% of respondents engaging in mostly informal mentorship, predominantly centered on surgical training. Notably, mentorship among early-career surgeons and trainees was less reported, uncovering a significant early-career gap. Female surgeons, representing a minority within respondents, reported a disproportionately poorer access to mentorship. Moreover, while respondents recognized the importance of NTS, these were inadequately addressed in current mentorship practices. The current mentorship input of surgical societies, like ESTES, is viewed as insufficient, with a call for structured programs and initiatives such as traveling fellowships and remote mentoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey underscores critical gaps in the current mentorship landscape for trauma and EGS in Europe, particularly for early-career and female surgeons. A clear need exists for more formalized, inclusive mentorship programs that adequately cover both technical and non-technical skills. ESTES could play a pivotal role in addressing these gaps through structured interventions, fostering a more supportive, inclusive, and well-rounded surgical community.

Enhancing patient safety in trauma: Understanding adverse events, assessment tools, and the role of trauma video review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate adverse events (AEs) in trauma resuscitation, evaluate contributing factors, and assess methods, such as trauma video review (TVR), to mitigate AEs.

BACKGROUND

Trauma remains a leading cause of global mortality and morbidity, necessitating effective trauma care. Despite progress, AEs during trauma resuscitation persist, impacting patient outcomes and the healthcare system. Identifying and analyzing AEs and their determinants are crucial for improving trauma care.

METHODS

This narrative review explored the definition, identification, and assessment of AEs associated with trauma resuscitation within the trauma system. It includes various studies and assessment tools such as STAT Taxonomy and T-NOTECHs. Additionally, it assessed the role of TVR in detecting AEs and strategies to enhance patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Integrated with standardized tools, TVR shows promise for identifying AEs. Challenges include ensuring reporting consistency and integrating approaches into existing protocols. Future research should prioritize linking trauma team performance to patient outcomes, and develop sustainable TVR programs to enhance patient safety.

Maturation of trauma systems in Europe

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.

Trauma systems in high socioeconomic index countries in 2050

Considerable political, structural, environmental and epidemiological change will affect high socioeconomic index (SDI) countries over the next 25 years. These changes will impact healthcare provision and consequently trauma systems. This review attempts to anticipate the potential impact on trauma systems and how they could adapt to meet the changing priorities. The first section describes possible epidemiological trajectories. A second section exposes existing governance and funding challenges, how these can be met, and the need to incorporate data and information science into a learning and adaptive trauma system. The last section suggests an international harmonization of trauma education to improve care standards, optimize immediate and long-term patient needs and enhance disaster preparedness and crisis resilience. By demonstrating their capacity for adaptation, trauma systems can play a leading role in the transformation of care systems to tackle future health challenges.

Concepts, utilization, and perspectives on the Dutch Nationwide Trauma registry: a position paper

Over the last decades, the Dutch trauma care have seen major improvements. To assess the performance of the Dutch trauma system, in 2007, the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry (DNTR) was established, which developed into rich source of information for quality assessment, quality improvement of the trauma system, and for research purposes. The DNTR is one of the most comprehensive trauma registries in the world as it includes 100% of all trauma patients admitted to the hospital through the emergency department. This inclusive trauma registry has shown its benefit over less inclusive systems; however, it comes with a high workload for high-quality data collection and thus more expenses. The comprehensive prospectively collected data in the DNTR allows multiple types of studies to be performed. Recent changes in legislation allow the DNTR to include the citizen service numbers, which enables new possibilities and eases patient follow-up. However, in order to maximally exploit the possibilities of the DNTR, further development is required, for example, regarding data quality improvement and routine incorporation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. This would improve the quality assessment and scientific output from the DNTR. Finally, the DNTR and all other (European) trauma registries should strive to ensure that the trauma registries are eligible for comparisons between countries and healthcare systems, with the goal to improve trauma patient care worldwide.

Worldwide snapshot of trauma team structure and training: an international survey

INTRODUCTION

Trauma teams (TTs) are a key tool in trauma care, as they bring a multidisciplinary approach to the trauma patient, improving outcomes. Excellent teamwork (TW) requires not only individual skills but also training at non-technical skills (NTS). Although there is evidence supporting TTs, there is little information regarding how they are organized and trained. With this study, we intend to assess the reality of TTs all over the world, focusing on how they are organized and trained.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We composed a 42-question sheet on Google Forms, in four different languages (English, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish). The questions regarded the respondents' background, and their respective hospitals' trauma patient management, TT features and its training, NTS and TW. The survey was shared on social media, through the International Assessment Group of Online Surgical & Trauma Education community, and the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. Statistical analysis was performed on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 27.

RESULTS

We obtained 296 answers from 52 different countries, with 6 having at least 10 answers (Brazil, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Italy, and USA). While the majority of the respondents (97%) agreed that TTs can improve outcomes, only 61% have a TT in their hospital, with 69% of these being dedicated TTs. General surgery (76%), trauma surgery (68%), and anesthesia (66%) were the three most common specialties in the teams. Teams performed briefings and debriefings with a frequency of, at least, "often" in only 49% and 38%, respectively. Only 50% and 33% of the respondents stated that their hospital provided trauma management courses focusing on individual technical skills, and TT training courses, respectively. The Advanced Trauma Life Support (85%), the Definitive Surgical and Anesthetic Trauma Care (38%), and the European Trauma Course (31%) were the three trauma management courses of choice. Regarding TT training courses, the European Trauma Course (52%) and local/in-house (42%) courses were the most common ones. Most participants (93%) stated that NTS were highly important in trauma care. However, only 60% of the respondents had postgraduate training on NTS and TW, and only 24% had this type of training on an undergraduate level.

CONCLUSION

The number of TTs worldwide does not match their relevance in trauma care. Institutions are not providing enough trauma courses, particularly TT training courses and NTS teaching. Implementing TT should include promotion of team courses, as well as team briefings and debriefings.