Survival prediction algorithms miss significant opportunities for improvement if used for case selection in trauma quality improvement programs

The predictive value of the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) in the outcome of multi-traumatic patients compared to the estimated Injury Severity Score (eISS)

PURPOSE

The classification of trauma patients in emergency settings is a constant challenge for physicians. However, the Injury Severity Score (ISS) is widely used in developed countries, it may be difficult to perform it in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). As a result, the ISS was calculated using an estimated methodology that has been described and validated in a high-income country previously. In addition, a simple scoring tool called the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) was developed recently. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of KTS and estimated ISS (eISS) in order to achieve a valid and efficient scoring system in our resource-limited setting.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study between December 2020 and March 2021 among the multi-trauma patients who presented at the emergency department of Imam Reza hospital, Tabriz, Iran. After obtaining informed consent, all data including age, sex, mechanism of injury, GCS, KTS, eISS, final outcome (including death, morbidity, or discharge), and length of hospital stay were collected and entered into SPSS version 27.0 and analyzed.

RESULTS

381 multi-trauma patients participated in the study. The area under the curve for prediction of mortality (AUC) for KTS was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.888-0.958) and for eISS was 0.910 (95% CI: 0.877-0.944). For the mortality, comparing the AUCs by the Delong test, the difference between areas was not statistically significant (p value = 0.356). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for the prediction of mortality KTS and eISS were 28.27 and 32.00, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, the KTS has similar accuracy in predicting the mortality of multi-trauma patients compared to the eISS.

The preventability of trauma-related death: A two-year cohort study in a trauma center in middle Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

The preventable death rate (PDR) is an important parameter in the quality assurance of traumatic care. Medical errors or untimely management may occur during stressful trauma care, resulting in preventable deaths. We aimed to develop an applicable PDR model in a trauma center in middle Taiwan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified adult trauma-related deaths which occurred from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 at our hospital. Patients with a trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) <75% or ≥75% but with a chance of preventability, as determined by a trauma surgeon, were discussed by a panel comprising an emergency physician and surgeons specializing in different fields of medicine. Deaths were subsequently classified as definitely preventable (DP), potentially preventable (PP), or non-preventable (NP). Causes of DP or PP deaths were categorized as delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, technical error, or inadequate infection prevention/control. The relationship between the time and cause of preventable deaths was also analyzed.

RESULTS

This study included 127 trauma-related deaths, of which 39 were discussed by the panel. Eight patients (6.3%) were categorized as DP, eight (6.3%) as PP, and 111 (87.4%) as NP. Among patients with preventable deaths, inadequate infection prevention/control, delayed treatment, delayed diagnosis, and technical error were identified in six (37.5%), five (31.2%), three (18.8%), and two (12.5%) patients, respectively. Four patients in the inadequate infection prevention/control group (4/6, 66.7%) died of aspiration pneumonia during the recovery phase.

CONCLUSION

A PDR evaluation model was developed and revealed that postoperative care is as important as a timely diagnosis and treatment to avoid preventable deaths following trauma.

Preventable death in trauma: A systematic review on definition and classification

PURPOSE

Trauma-related preventable death (TRPD) has been used to assess the management and quality of trauma care worldwide. However, due to differences in terminology and application, the definition of TRPD lacks validity. The aim of this systematic review is to present an overview of current literature and establish a designated definition of TRPD to improve the assessment of quality of trauma care.

METHODS

A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Web of Science Core Collection. Including studies regarding TRPD, published between January 1, 1990, and April 6, 2021. Studies were assessed on the use of a definition of TRPD, injury severity scoring tool and panel review.

RESULTS

In total, 3,614 articles were identified, 68 were selected for analysis. The definition of TRPD was divided in four categories: I. Clinical definition based on panel review or expert opinion (TRPD, trauma-related potentially preventable death, trauma-related non-preventable death), II. An algorithm (injury severity score (ISS), trauma and injury severity score (TRISS), probability of survival (Ps)), III. Clinical definition completed with an algorithm, IV. Other. Almost 85% of the articles used a clinical definition in some extend; solely clinical up to an additional algorithm. A total of 27 studies used injury severity scoring tools of which the ISS and TRISS were the most frequently reported algorithms. Over 77% of the panels included trauma surgeons, 90% included other specialist; 61% emergency medicine physicians, 46% forensic pathologists and 43% nurses.

CONCLUSION

The definition of TRPD is not unambiguous in literature and should be based on a clinical definition completed with a trauma prediction algorithm such as the TRISS. TRPD panels should include a trauma surgeon, anesthesiologist, emergency physician, neurologist, and forensic pathologist.

Establishing an enduring Military Trauma Mortality Review: Misconceptions and lessons learned

Under direction from the Defense Health Agency, subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Joint Trauma System, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, and civilian sector established the Military Trauma Mortality Review process. To establish the most empirically robust process, these SMEs used both qualitative and quantitative methods published in a series of peer-reviewed articles over the last 3 years. Most recently, the Military Mortality Review process was implemented for the first time on all battle-injured service members attached to the United States Special Operations Command from 2001 to 2018. The current Military Mortality Review process builds on the strengths and limitations of important previous work from both the military and civilian sector. To prospectively improve the trauma care system and drive preventable death to the lowest level possible, we present the main misconceptions and lessons learned from our 3-year effort to establish a reliable and sustainable Military Trauma Mortality Review process. These lessons include the following: (1) requirement to use standardized and appropriate lexicon, definitions, and criteria; (2) requirement to use a combination of objective injury scoring systems, forensic information, and thorough SME case review to make injury survivability and death preventability determinations; (3) requirement to use nonmedical information to make reliable death preventability determinations and a comprehensive list of opportunities for improvement to reduce preventable deaths within the trauma care system; and (4) acknowledgment that the military health system still has gaps in current infrastructure that must be addressed to globally and continuously implement the process outlined in the Military Trauma Mortality Review process in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Preventable Trauma Deaths and Corrective Actions to Prevent Them: A 10-Year Comparative Study at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of preventable trauma deaths in an African hospital, identify the potential effect of improvements in trauma care over the past decade and identify deficiencies in care that still need to be addressed.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel assessed pre-hospital, hospital, and postmortem data on 89 consecutive in-hospital trauma deaths over 5 months in 2017 at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital. The panel judged the preventability of each death. For definitely and potentially preventable deaths, the panel identified deficiencies in care.

RESULTS

Thirteen percent (13%) of trauma deaths were definitely preventable, 47% potentially preventable, and 39% non-preventable. In comparison with a panel review in 2007, there was no change in total preventable deaths, but there had been a modest decrease in definitely preventable deaths (25% in 2007 to 13% in 2017, p = 0.07) There was a notable change in the pattern of deficiency (p = 0.001) with decreases in pre-hospital delay (19% of all trauma deaths in 2007 to 3% in 2017) and inadequate resuscitation (17 to 8%), but an increase in delay in treatment at the hospital (23 to 40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, there have been improvements in pre-hospital transport and in-hospital resuscitation. However, the preventable death rate remains unacceptably high and there are still deficiencies to address. This study also demonstrates that preventable death panel reviews are a feasible method of trauma quality improvement in the low- and middle-income country setting.

Recognizing Preventable Death: Is There a Role of Survival Prediction Algorithms?

Monitoring the quality of trauma care is important but particularly challenging. Preventable death assessment aims to identify those cases where the patient's death would have not occurred if the patient had been treated differently. Determination of preventable death in trauma care is often based on calculated probability of survival, commonly by using the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). TRISS is not suited for identifying all cases with opportunities for improvement. Combined with other methods such as morbidity and mortality conferences, however, it might be a valid approach if a complete review of all trauma deaths is not feasible at an institution.

Prehospital trauma death review in the State of Victoria, Australia: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Regionalised trauma systems have been shown to improve outcomes for trauma patients. However, the evaluation of these trauma systems has been oriented towards in-hospital care. Therefore, the epidemiology and care delivered to the injured patients who died in the prehospital setting remain poorly studied. This study aims to provide an overview of a methodological approach to reviewing trauma deaths in order to assess the preventability, identify areas for improvements in the system of care provided to these patients and evaluate the potential for novel interventions to improve outcomes for seriously injured trauma patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The planned study is a retrospective review of prehospital and early in-hospital (<24 hours) deaths following traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that were attended by Ambulance Victoria between 2008 and 2014. Eligible patients will be identified from the Victorian Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry and linked with the National Coronial Information System. For patients who were transported to hospital, data will be linked the Victoria State Trauma Registry. The project will be undertaken in four phases: (1) survivability assessment; (2) preventability assessment; (3) identification of potential areas for improvement; and (4) identification of potentially useful novel technologies. Survivability assessment will be based on predetermined anatomical injuries considered unsurvivable. For patients with potentially survivable injuries, multidisciplinary expert panel reviews will be conducted to assess the preventability as well as the identification of potential areas for improvement and the utility of novel technologies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The present study was approved by the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation HREC (CF/16/272) and the Monash University HREC (CF16/532 - 2016000259). Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reports provided to Ambulance Victoria, the Victorian State Trauma Committee and the Victorian State Government Department of Health and Human Services.