Tertiary Survey Performance in a Regional Trauma Hospital Without a Dedicated Trauma Service

Clinical outcomes of trauma tertiary surveys conducted by allied health and non-medical healthcare professionals: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) is a critical step in identifying missed injuries following primary and secondary trauma assessment. The TTS is traditionally performed by junior medical professionals on a trauma unit. Despite this, increasing trauma caseloads have led to challenges with TTS adherence, missed injuries and overwork. This has prompted interest into delegating some of the TTS tasks to non-medical professionals, however the efficacy and safety of this approach is poorly characterised.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology following a comprehensive search in Medline, Embase, Emcare and CINAHL databases. The search encompassed terms related to TTS and non-medical professionals. Outcomes were related to safety and efficacy of TTS performed by non-medical professionals.

RESULTS

Four observational studies involving trauma nurses (n = 3) and midlevel providers (n = 1) as non-medical providers of the TTS were included. Overall, there was evidence to suggest TTS performed by non-medical providers had similar missed injury detection rates and saved up to 1802 h of time for trauma residents. However, non-medical professionals demonstrated variable knowledge of TTS protocols, with gaps identified in training and experience.

CONCLUSION

TTS performed by non-medical professionals appears feasible and yields comparable clinical outcomes to medical staff, with potential to alleviate medical workforce pressures. These findings are based on studies of high clinical heterogeneity and poor control for confounders.

Renal Trauma: A 4-Year Retrospective Review of Injury Severity, Treatment Approaches, and Outcomes from a Polish Trauma Center

Background: The management of renal injuries in hemodynamically stable adult patients is moving toward more conservative methods, even in cases of severe grade and/or penetrating trauma. The objective of this study was to analyze the patterns of injury, management, and complications in renal trauma patients at a Polish trauma center. Methods: Patients diagnosed with renal trauma at the trauma center between January 2019 and December 2023 were identified based on the ICD-10 codes. The information was gathered from digitalized medical records, while imaging data were classified by Radiologists. Results: During a period of 4 years, a total of 81 patients with renal trauma were admitted to the trauma center. 76% of these patients were males, with a mean age of 44.61 ± 16.8 years. The most common concomitant conditions, both among men and women, included retroperitoneal hematoma, rib fractures, as well as chest and lung injuries. Surgical intervention within 8 h of admission was mainly performed on patients with grade IV and V kidney damage, which included a total of 22 people. In deferred treatment, 31 patients underwent surgical intervention. Conclusions: Hemodynamically stable patients, even with penetrating and/or high-grade blunt trauma, were mostly managed non-operatively, with a low rate of complications.

Tertiary Trauma Survey on Emergency Department Observational Units: A Systematic Literature Review

In today's competitive world with a fast-paced lifestyle, trauma is on the rise and is globally recognized as the leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. Despite the development of major trauma centers and the introduction of advanced trauma training courses and management guidelines, there remains a substantial risk of missed or delayed diagnosis of injuries with potentially life-changing physical, emotional, and financial implications. The proportion of such incidents is potentially higher in busy emergency departments and developing countries with fewer dedicated major trauma centers or where focused emergency and trauma training and skills development is still in its infancy. In the last decade, tertiary trauma surveys have been recognized as an important re-assessment protocol in reducing such missed injuries or delayed diagnoses in patients involved in major trauma. This naturally leads to the presumption that tertiary trauma surveys could also play an important role in observational medicine. This also brings into question whether a standardized tertiary trauma survey of major trauma patients on emergency observation units could reduce missed injuries, especially in low-income countries with fewer resources and trauma expertise. Thus, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to explore the potential role of tertiary trauma survey as a tool to reducing missed or delayed diagnosis in the emergency observation units and its applicability and feasibility in less-developed healthcare systems and in low- and middle-income countries. A broad-based systematic literature review was conducted to include electronic databases, grey literature, reference lists, and bibliographies using the keywords: tertiary trauma survey, major trauma, observational medicine, emergency observation units, clinical decision unit, adult, missed injuries, and delayed diagnosis. Over 19,000 citations were identified on initial search. Following a review of abstracts, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and review of the full article, 19 publications were finally selected for the purpose of this systematic literature review. Current evidence shows a general trend that tertiary trauma surveys performed 24 hours after admission play an important role in identifying injuries missed at the time of initial primary and secondary survey, and its implementation in observational medicine could prove beneficial, especially in resource-depleted healthcare systems.

Improving trauma tertiary survey performance and missed injury identification using an education-based quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND

Performance of a trauma tertiary survey (TTS) reduces rates of missed injuries, but performance has been inconsistent at trauma centers. The objectives of this study were to assess whether quality improvement (QI) efforts would increase the frequency of TTS documentation and determine if TTS documentation would increase identification of traumatic injuries. Our hypothesis was that QI efforts would improve documentation of the TTS.

METHODS

Before-and-after analysis of QI interventions at a level 1 trauma center was performed. The interventions included an electronic template for TTS documentation, customized educational sessions, and emphasis from trauma leadership on TTS performance. The primary outcome was documentation of the TTS. Detection of additional injuries based on tertiary evaluation was a secondary outcome. Associations between outcomes and categorical patient and encounter characteristics were assessed using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 592 trauma encounters were reviewed (296 preimplementation and 296 postimplementation). Trauma tertiary survey documentation was significantly higher after implementation of the interventions (30.1% preimplementation vs. 85.1% postimplementation, p < 0.001). Preimplementation documentation of the TTS was less likely earlier in the academic year (14.3% first academic quarter vs. 46.5% last academic quarter, p < 0.001), but this temporal pattern was no longer evident postimplementation (88.5% first academic quarter vs. 77.9% last academic quarter, p = 0.126). Patients were more likely to have a missed traumatic injury diagnosed on TTS postimplementation (1.7% in preimplementation vs. 5.7% postimplementation, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Documentation of the TTS and missed injury detection rates were significantly increased following implementation of a bundle of QI interventions. The association between time of year and documentation of the TTS was also attenuated, likely through reduction of the resident learning curve. Targeted efforts to improve TTS performance may improve outcomes for trauma patients at teaching hospitals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, Level IV.

The Impact of the Tertiary Survey in an Established Trauma Program

INTRODUCTION

The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) was first described in 1990 and is recognized as an essential practice in trauma care. The TTS remains effective in detecting secondary injuries in the modern era.

METHODS

Trauma patients discharged between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, were identified in our trauma registry. Collected data include TTS completion rates, detection of injuries, type of provider, and timing. TTS documentation was qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 407 patients, 264 patients (65%) received a TTS. Injury detection rate was 1.1.%. Average time to TTS was 41 hours. TTS were completed by resident physicians (46%) and advanced practice providers (APPs; 46%). TTS documentation was more complete for APPs than for resident physicians.

CONCLUSION

TTS remains an integral component of modern trauma care. Ongoing education on the significance of TTS and the importance of thorough documentation is essential. Provision of real-time feedback to providers is also critical for improving current practices.

A comparative epidemiologic study of fractures among people in rural and urban areas

PURPOSE

This study aimed to comparatively analyse the epidemiologic characteristics of fractures among inpatients from rural and urban areas.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analysed patients with traumatic fractures of the limbs, pelvis and spine treated in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2017. Patients from rural and urban areas were classified into Group A and Group B, respectively. Data on age, sex, distribution of fracture locations, injury mechanism, season, date and time when the fracture occurred, length of hospital stay, chronic comorbidities and in-hospital mortality were collected, and compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 10,046 patients (Group A: 4,440; 3,062 males and 1,378 females and Group B: 5,606; 3,374 males and 2,232 females) with traumatic fractures were included. The male-to-female ratio was significantly different between both groups (P<0.001). In Groups A and B, the patients aged 41.9 ± 21.6 and 45.0 ± 23.5 years old, respectively, showing significant difference (P<0.05). As for injury mechanism, the most common one was low-energy injury (Group A: 2110, accounting for 47.5%; Group B: 3422, accounting for 61.0%) in both Groups, followed by traffic accidents (Group A: 921, accounting for 20.7%; Group B: 973, accounting for 17.4%). In patients with multiple injuries, the most common mechanism of injury is traffic accidents (354, 46.1%). There were 178 patients in Group A (4.0%) and 141 patients in Group B (2.5%) combined with head injury. As for season, both groups had most of the fractures in autumn (Group A: 1449, accounting for 32.6%; Group B: 1518, accounting for 27.3%).

CONCLUSION

The epidemiological features of patients with traumatic fractures in rural and urban areas are somewhat different in terms of age distribution, injury mechanism, injured body site and season. Patients with high risk of fractures in rural areas were younger than those in urban areas. Fractures more frequently occurred in the wrist and hips in rural and urban areas, respectively. Prevention of low-energy-induced osteoporotic fractures has become very critical for both rural and urban populations. Reducing the risk of traffic accident remains critical to prevent multiple injuries.

Missed Injuries in Polytrauma Patients after Trauma Tertiary Survey in Trauma Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Injuries are often missed during the primary and secondary surveys in trauma patients. Studies have suggested that a formal tertiary survey protocol lowers the number of missed injuries. Our aim was to determine the number, severity, and consequences of injuries missed by a non-formalized trauma tertiary survey, but detected within 3 months from the date of injury in trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit between 1 January and 17 October 2013. We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit in order to register any missed injuries, their delay, and possible consequences. We classified injuries into four types: Type 0, injury detected prior to trauma tertiary survey; Type I, injury detected by trauma tertiary survey; Type II, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey but detected prior to discharge; and Type III, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey and detected after discharge.

RESULTS

During the study period, we identified a total of 841 injuries in 115 patients. Of these injuries, 93% were Type 0 injuries, 3.9% were Type I injuries, 2.6% were Type II injuries, and 0,1% were Type III injuries. Although most of the missed injuries in trauma tertiary survey (Type II) were fractures (50%), only 2 of the 22 Type II injuries required surgical intervention. Type II injuries presumably did not cause extended length of stay in the intensive care unit or in hospital and/or morbidity.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the missed injury rate in trauma patients admitted to trauma intensive care unit after trauma tertiary survey was very low in our system without formal trauma tertiary survey protocol. These missed injuries did not lead to prolonged hospital or trauma intensive care unit stay and did not contribute to mortality. Most of the missed injuries received non-surgical treatment.

Meta-analysis of the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Missed injuries are considered as an important issue in trauma patients and can lead to significant morbidity and even mortality. It has been shown that the standard primary and secondary surveys, recommended by the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines, are associated with missed injuries. It has been suggested that tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries. The present paper aimed to identify comparative evidence about the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients.

METHODS

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies evaluating effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

Four prospective and three retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 12,581 trauma patients, were selected for analysis. Pooled odds ratio (OR) analysis of 5727 patients showed that detection of missed injuries was better in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=2.65, (95% CI:1.40-5.01), P=0.003]. A moderate level of heterogeneity among the studies existed (I(2)=68%, P=0.008). Also, analysis of 6,854 patients showed that fewer injuries were missed in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=0.63, (95% CI: 0.44-0.90), P=0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence demonstrates a constant trend in favour of tertiary survey in terms of missed injury reduction, and supports its use in management of trauma patients. Further studies are required to clarify the most cost-effective and systematic way of addressing missed injuries in the first 24h. We recommend use of "missed injury detection rate" and "missed injury rate" as two different outcomes in future studies in order to address the issue of heterogeneity in definition of missed injury in the current literature.

What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge.

Methods/Design

We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality.

Discussion

The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.

Trial registration

ANZCTR: ACTRN12613001218785, prospectively registered, 5 November 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A prospective evaluation of missed injuries in trauma patients, before and after formalising the trauma tertiary survey

Objective

This study prospectively evaluated in-hospital and postdischarge missed injury rates in admitted trauma patients, before and after the formalisation of a trauma tertiary survey (TTS) procedure.

Methods

Prospective before-and-after cohort study. TTS were formalised in a single regional level II trauma hospital in November 2009. All multitrauma patients admitted between March–October 2009 (preformalisation of TTS) and December 2009–September 2010 (post-) were assessed for missed injury, classified into three types: Type I, in-hospital, (injury missed at initial assessment, detected within 24 h); Type II, in-hospital (detected in hospital after 24 h, missed at initial assessment and by TTS); Type III, postdischarge (detected after hospital discharge). Secondary outcome measures included TTS performance rates and functional outcomes at 1 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 487 trauma patients were included (pre-: n = 235; post-: n = 252). In-hospital missed injury rate (Types I and II combined) was similar for both groups (3.8 vs. 4.8 %, P = 0.61), as were postdischarge missed injury rates (Type III) at 1 month (13.7 vs. 11.5 %, P = 0.43), and 6 months (3.8 vs. 3.3 %, P = 0.84) after discharge. TTS performance was substantially higher in the post-group (27 vs. 42 %, P < 0.001). Functional outcomes for both cohorts were similar at 1 and 6 months follow-up.

Conclusions

This is the first study to evaluate missed injury rates after hospital discharge and demonstrated cumulative missed injury rates >15 %. Some of these injuries were clinically relevant. Although TTS performance was significantly improved by formalising the process (from 27 to 42 %), this did not decrease missed injury rates.

A review of tertiary survey and its impact

Trauma is the cause of a large socio-economic burden. A trauma system approach to the care of trauma patients is required to reduce morbidity and mortality. As not all injuries are detected by primary and secondary surveys, tertiary survey is vital to avoid delayed diagnosis or missing any fatal or non-fatal injuries. This may lead to a reduction in morbidity and preventing delay-related mortality. In patients at risk, a tertiary survey (TS) improves diagnostic efficiency and reduces the likelihood of a delay in diagnosis. A comprehensive, careful approach to management results in the best possible outcome for the severely injured patient. This review will focus on the tertiary review.