Compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention field triage guidelines in an established trauma system

Tradeoffs in Triage of Motor Vehicle Trauma by Rural 911 Emergency Medical Services Practitioners

PURPOSE

Identification and triage of severely injured patients to trauma centers is paramount to survival. Many patients are undertriaged in rural areas and do not receive proper care. The decision-making processes involved in triage are not well understood and should be assessed to improve the triage process and outcomes.

METHODS

Triage decision-making processes were explored through emergency medical services (EMS) practitioner focus groups and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Attributes of trauma determined from focus groups and the literature included patient demography, injury mechanism, and trauma center distance. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

High-risk mechanism, decreased age, multiple comorbidities, and pregnancy were found to increase the preference for triage. Greater trauma center distance was found to decrease preference for triage, but practitioners were willing to trade off up to 2 h of travel time to transport a third-trimester pregnancy and 48 min of travel time to transport a 25-y-old than they would a 50-y-old with the same comorbidities, injuries, and stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that current forms of EMS protocols may not be appropriately tailored to support the mechanisms underlying practitioner decision making. Public health professionals and researchers should consider using DCEs to better understand EMS practitioner decision making and identify structures and incentives that may improve patient outcomes and optimally guide appropriate triage decisions.

HIGHLIGHTS

Discrete choice experiments are an effective method to elicit prehospital practitioners' preferences around transport of the traumatized patient.Practitioner biases observed in EMS transport data are recovered in stated preference models incorporating individual preference heterogeneity.There is a discrepancy between the triage priorities recommended by protocol and those measured from prehospital practitioners' decisions-this may have implications in over- and undertriage rates and prehospital protocol design.

Under-Triage and Over-Triage Using the Field Triage Guidelines for Injured Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The Field Triage Guidelines (FTG) are used across North America to identify seriously injured patients for transport to appropriate level trauma centers, with a goal of under-triaging no more than 5% and over-triaging between 25% and 35%. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on under-triage and over-triage rates of the FTG.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the FTG performance. Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Two investigators dual-reviewed eligibility of abstracts and full-text. We included studies evaluating under- or over-triage of patients using the FTG in the prehospital setting. We excluded studies not reporting an outcome of under- or over-triage, studies evaluating other triage tools, or studies of triage not in the prehospital setting. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias for each included article. The primary accuracy measures to assess the FTG were under-triage, defined as seriously injured patients transported to non-trauma hospitals (1-sensitivity), and over-triage, defined as non-injured patients transported to trauma hospitals (1-specificity). Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

We screened 2,418 abstracts, reviewed 315 full-text publications, and identified 17 studies that evaluated the accuracy of the FTG. Among eight studies evaluating the entire FTG (steps 1-4), under-triage rates ranged from 1.6% to 72.0% and were higher for older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (20.1-72.0%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (15.9-34.8%) compared to all ages (1.6-33.8%). Over-triage rates ranged from 9.9% to 87.4% and were higher for all ages (12.2-87.4%) compared to older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (9.9-48.2%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (28.0-33.6%). Under-triage was lower in studies strictly applying the FTG retrospectively (1.6-34.8%) compared to as-practiced (10.5-72.0%), while over-triage was higher retrospectively (64.2-87.4%) compared to as-practiced (9.9-48.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that under-triage, while improved if the FTG is strictly applied, remains above targets, with higher rates of under-triage in both children and older adults.

A Comparative Analysis of Hospital Triage Systems in the Geriatric Adult Trauma Patients: A Quality Improvement Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study is to compare the predicted hospital admission disposition based on the level of risk as determined by the modified Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (mTSFI) score with those determined by arbitrary decisions made based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) severity level.

METHODS

We surveyed 100 trauma patients ages 50 and older, admitted to a level 1 trauma center between April 2019 and July 2019. We retrospectively reviewed the hospital admission disposition of each patient under the ESI, which was then compared to the mTSFI-predicted hospital admission disposition. The mTSFI scores were calculated by surveying each patient. Statistical analysis was performed to identify any statistical significance of concordance and discordance when comparing the mTSFI and ESI.

RESULTS

The average age was 57.6 ± 4.2 years old in the non-geriatric group vs 76.3 ± 7.3 years old in the geriatric group. There was a male predominance in both groups (61% vs 69.5%). The mTSFI identified a higher percentage of triage discordance in the non-geriatric group (73%) compared to the geriatric cohort (53%) (95% difference CI, [39.6-40], P = .05).

DISCUSSION

Non-geriatric patients have higher recorded rate of frailty than previously recognized and screening should begin at age 50, not 65. The mTSFI may be an effective tool to appropriately triage adult trauma patients at increased risk due to frailty and may reduce in-hospital complications.

Extending Trauma Quality Improvement Beyond Trauma Centers: Hospital Variation in Outcomes Among Nontrauma Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) conducts a robust quality improvement program for ACS-verified trauma centers, yet many injured patients receive care at non-accredited facilities. This study tested for variation in outcomes across non-trauma hospitals and characterized hospitals associated with increased mortality.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The study included state trauma registry data of 37,670 patients treated between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Clinical data were supplemented with data from the American Hospital Association and US Department of Agriculture, allowing comparisons among 100 nontrauma hospitals.

METHODS

Using Bayesian techniques, risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted rates of mortality and interfacility transfer, as well as Emergency Departments length-of-stay (ED-LOS) among patients transferred from EDs were calculated for each hospital. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients ages >55 years and those with decreased Glasgow coma scores (GCS). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data.

RESULTS

Mortality varied 3-fold (0.9%-3.1%); interfacility transfer rates varied 46-fold (2.1%-95.6%); and mean ED-LOS varied 3-fold (81-231 minutes). Hospitals that were high and low statistical outliers were identified for each outcome, and subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable hospital variation. Metropolitan hospitals were associated increased mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7, P = 0.004], decreased likelihood of interfacility transfer (OR 0.7, P ≤ 0.001), and increased ED-LOS (coef. 0.1, P ≤ 0.001) when compared with nonmetropolitan hospitals and risk-adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variation in trauma outcomes exists across nontrauma hospitals. Efforts to improve trauma quality should include engagement of nontrauma hospitals to reduce variation in outcomes of injured patients treated at those facilities.

The impact of frailty on posttraumatic outcomes in older trauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a risk factor for mortality among the elderly. However, evidence from longitudinal studies linking trauma and frailty is fragmented, and a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between frailty and adverse outcomes is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether frailty is predictive of posttraumatic results including mortality, adverse discharge, complications, and readmission in trauma patients.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews. Articles in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 1990, to October 31, 2019, were systematically searched. Articles in McDonald et al.'s study (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(5):824-834) and Cubitt et al.'s study (Injury 2019;50(11):1795-1808) were included for studies evaluating the association between frailty and outcomes in trauma patients. Cohort studies, both retrospective and prospective, were included. Study population was patients suffering trauma injuries with an average age of 50 years and older. Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated through a random-effects model, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess studies.

RESULTS

We retrieved 11,313 entries. Thirteen studies including seven prospective and six retrospective cohort studies involving 50,348 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Frailty was a significant predictor of greater than 30-day mortality (OR, 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-4.95; I = 88.1%), in-hospital and 30-day mortality (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.02-8.11; I = 0%), postoperative complications (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.34-3.73; I = 78.2%), Clavien-Dindo IV complications (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.70-10.17; I = 0%), adverse discharge (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.15-2.84; I = 78.6%), and readmission (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.19-3.91; I = 21.5%) in elderly trauma patients. Subgroup analysis showed that prospective studies (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.43-6.56) demonstrated a greater correlation between frailty and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Frailty has significant adverse impacts on the occurrence of posttraumatic outcomes. Further studies should focus on interventions for patients with frailty. Given the number of vulnerable elderly trauma patients grows, further studies are needed to determine the accuracy of these measures in terms of trauma outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level IV.

Reduced Recovery Capacity After Major Trauma in the Elderly: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Registry-Based Cohort Study

AIMS

Considering the worldwide trend of an increased lifetime, geriatric trauma is moving into focus. Trauma is a leading cause of hospitalization, leading to disability and mortality. The purpose of this study was to compare the global health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of geriatric patients with adult patients after major trauma.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective registry-based observational study compares HRQoL of patients aged ≥65 years who sustained major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16) with patients <65 years of age within the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (DGU). The global HRQoL was measured at 6, 12, and 24 months post trauma using the EQ-5D-3L score.

RESULTS

We identified 405 patients meeting the inclusion criteria with a mean ISS of 25.6. Even though the geriatric patients group (≥65 years, n = 77) had a lower ISS (m = 24, SD = 8) than patients aged <65 years (n = 328), they reported more difficulties in each EQ dimension compared to patients <65 years. Contrary to patients < 65, the EQ-5D Index of the geriatric patients did not improve at 12 and 24 months after trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a limited HRQoL in both groups after major trauma. The group of patients ≥65 showed no improvement in HRQoL from 6 to 24 months after trauma.

A quality-improvement approach to effective trauma team activation

Background

Appropriate, timely trauma team activation (TTA) can directly affect outcomes for patients with trauma. A review of quality-performance indicators at our Canadian level 1 trauma centre showed a high level of undertriage, with TTA compliance rates less than 60% for major trauma. A quality-improvement project was undertaken, targeting a sustained goal of at least 90% TTA compliance based on Accreditation Canada guidelines.

Methods

Quality-improvement action followed a well-defined process. Baseline data collection was performed, and, in keeping with the Donabedian approach, we brought together stakeholders to collectively review and understand the reasons behind poor TTA compliance; and root-cause analysis. This was followed by rapid change cycles that focused on structure and processes with ongoing audits to support and sustain change.

Results

Trauma team activation compliance improved from 58.8% to more than 90% over 2 years. Quality indicators showed a statistically significant reduction in the time to computed tomography scanner, time in the acute care region of the emergency department and total time in the emergency department, with improved TTA compliance.

Conclusion

Compliance with TTA protocols improved to more than 90% over a 2-year period, which shows the benefit of having a clearly outlined qualityimprovement process. This well-defined quality-improvement method provides a framework for use by other institutions that seek to improve their processes of trauma care, including activation rates.

The Triage of Older Adults with Physiologic Markers of Serious Injury Using a State-Wide Prehospital Plan

INTRODUCTION

In January of 2010, North Carolina (NC) USA implemented state-wide Trauma Triage Destination Plans (TTDPs) to provide standardized guidelines for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) decision making. No study exists to evaluate whether triage behavior has changed for geriatric trauma patients.

HYPOTHESIS/PROBLEM

The impact of the NC TTDPs was investigated on EMS triage of geriatric trauma patients meeting physiologic criteria of serious injury, primarily based on whether these patients were transported to a trauma center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of geriatric trauma patients transported by EMS from March 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009 (pre-TTDP) and March 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010 (post-TTDP) meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) age 50 years or older; (2) transported to a hospital by NC EMS; (3) experienced an injury; and (4) meeting one or more of the NC TTDP's physiologic criteria for trauma (n = 5,345). Data were obtained from the Prehospital Medical Information System (PreMIS). Data collected included proportions of patients transported to a trauma center categorized by specific physiologic criteria, age category, and distance from a trauma center.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients transported to a trauma center pre-TTDP (24.4% [95% CI 22.7%-26.1%]; n = 604) was similar to the proportion post-TTDP (24.4% [95% CI 22.9%-26.0%]; n = 700). For patients meeting specific physiologic triage criteria, the proportions of patients transported to a trauma center were also similar pre- and post-TTDP: systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg (22.5% versus 23.5%); respiratory rate <10 or >29 (23.2% versus 22.6%); and Glascow Coma Scale (GCS) score <13 (26.0% versus 26.4%). Patients aged 80 years or older were less likely to be transported to a trauma center than younger patients in both the pre- and post-TTDP periods.

CONCLUSIONS

State-wide implementation of a TTDP had no discernible effect on the proportion of patients 50 years and older transported to a trauma center. Under-triage remained common and became increasingly prevalent among the oldest adults. Research to understand the uptake of guidelines and protocols into EMS practice is critical to improving care for older adults in the prehospital environment.

A Comparison of Scoring Systems for Predicting Short- and Long-term Survival After Trauma in Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of geriatric patients at high risk for mortality is important to guide clinical care, medical decision making, palliative discussions, quality assurance, and research. We sought to identify injured older adults at highest risk for 30-day mortality using an empirically derived scoring system from available data and to compare it with current prognostic scoring systems.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥ 65 years transported by 44 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to 49 emergency departments in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, with follow-up through December 31, 2012. We matched data from EMS to Medicare, inpatient, trauma registries, and vital statistics. Using a primary outcome of 30-day mortality, we empirically derived a new risk score using binary recursive partitioning and compared it to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), modified frailty index, geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS), GTOS II, and Injury Severity Score (ISS).

RESULTS

There were 4,849 patients, of whom 234 (4.8%) died within 30 days and 1,040 (21.5%) died within 1 year. The derived score, the geriatric trauma risk indicator (GTRI; emergent airway or CCI ≥ 2), had 87.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.0% to 91.5%) and 30.6% specificity (95% CI = 29.3% to 31.9%) for 30-day mortality (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.589, 95% CI = 0.566 to 0.611). AUROC values for other scoring systems ranged from 0.592 to 0.678. When the sensitivity for each existing score was held at 90%, specificity values ranged from 7.5% (ISS) to 30.6% (GTRI).

CONCLUSIONS

Older, injured adults transported by EMS to a large variety of trauma and nontrauma hospitals were more likely to die within 30 days if they required emergent airway management or had a higher comorbidity burden. When compared to other risk measures and holding sensitivity constant near 90%, the GTRI had higher specificity, despite a lower AUROC. Using GTOS II or the GTRI may better identify high-risk older adults than traditional scores, such as ISS, but identification of an ideal prognostic tool remains elusive.

Identifying Predictors of Undertriage in Injured Older Adults After Implementation of Statewide Geriatric Trauma Triage Criteria

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to identify factors associated with transport of injured older adults meeting statewide geriatric trauma triage criteria to a trauma center.

METHODS

An observational retrospective cohort study using the 2009 to 2011 Ohio Trauma Registry. Subjects were adults ≥ 70 years old who met Ohio's geriatric triage criteria for trauma center transport by emergency medical services. We created multivariable logistic regression models to identify predictors of initial and ultimate (e.g., interfacility transfer) transport to a Level I or II trauma center and to a Level I, II, or III center.

RESULTS

Of 10,411 subjects, 47% were initially and 59% were ultimately transported to a Level I or II trauma center with rates of 66 and 74%, respectively, for transport to a Level I, II, or III center. For initial transport to a Level I or II center, age 80 to 89 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89), age ≥ 90 (OR = 0.76), and either only a Level 3 (OR = 0.3) or no trauma center (OR = 0.11) in county of residence had decreased odds of transport, while male sex (OR = 1.38), black race (OR = 2.07), Injury Severity Score (ISS) 10-15 (OR = 1.99), ISS > 15 (OR = 2.85), and Glasgow Coma Scale score < 9 (OR = 2.11) had increased odds. Results were similar for ultimate transport to a Level I or II center. Analyzing transport to a Level I, II, or III center demonstrated similar results except a Level III trauma center in county of residence was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.00 for initial and 2.21 for ultimate) of transport to a Level I, II, or III center.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified factors independently associated with failure to transport injured older adults to trauma centers in statewide data collected after adoption of geriatric triage criteria. Lack of a trauma center in the county of residence remained a factor even in analyses that included ultimate transport.

Prevalence and Predictors of Under-Diversion in the Primary Trauma Diversion System in Hong Kong

Introduction

Primary trauma diversion (PTD) enables direct transfer of major trauma patients to trauma centres for definitive care. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of PTD in the New Territories West Cluster (NTWC) of Hospital Authority and to identify the predictors for under-diversion.

Methods

A cross-sectional study based on local trauma registry. All major trauma patients (defined as ISS>15 or requiring trauma team activation) in the catchment area of the local hospital from September 2007 to December 2011 were included. The appropriateness of diversion decision was independently evaluated by an expert team (a trauma nurse coordinator and an emergency medicine practitioner). The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, agreement, over-diversion and under-diversion rates were calculated. Potential predictors for under-diversion including age, Glasgow Coma Scale, mechanism of injury, injured body part, and the distance from scene to the trauma centre/local hospital were employed for logistic regression analysis.

Results

There were 141 eligible cases identified. The sensitivity and specificity for PTD were 59.5% and 96.5% respectively. The over-diversion rate was 3.5% and the under-diversion rate was 40.5%. The overall accuracy was around 74.5%. Non-motor vehicle accident (OR 13, 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.5-48.0, p<0.01) and isolated head injury (OR 5.35, 95% CI=1.5-19.5, p=0.01) were 2 independent predictors for under-diversion in PTD.

Conclusions

The overall field triage compliance by the paramedics is satisfactory. Under-diversion rate in NTWC is high. Non-motor vehicle accident mechanism and isolated head injury are 2 significant predictors for under-diversion. Reinforcement in training to avoid potential pitfalls would improve the paramedics' trauma triage performance.

Trauma patients centralization for the mechanism of trauma: old questions without answers

INTRODUCTION

Centralization of trauma patients has become the standard of care. Unfortunately, overtriage can overcome the capability of Trauma Centres. This study aims to analyse the association of different mechanisms of injury with severe or major trauma defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15 and an estimation of overtriage upon our Trauma Centre.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our prospective database was undertaken from March 2014 to August 2016. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between covariates (gender, age, and mechanisms of injury) and the risk of major trauma.

RESULTS

The trauma team (TT) treated 1575 patients: among the 1359 (86%) were triaged only because of dynamics or mechanism of trauma. Overtriage according to an ISS < 15, was 74.6% on all trauma team activation (TTA) and 83.2% among the TTA prompted by the mechanism of injury. Patients aged 56-70 years had an 87% higher risk of having a major trauma than younger patients (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.29-2.71) while for patients aged more than 71 years OR was 3.45, 95% CI 2.31-5.15. Car head-on collision (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.27-4.92), intentional falls (OR 5.61, 95% CI 2.43-12.97), motorbike crash (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06-2.65) and pedestrian impact (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.51-4.74) were significantly associated with a higher risk of major trauma in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant association with major trauma was demonstrated in the multivariate analysis of different mechanisms of trauma in patients triaged only for dynamics. A revision of our field triage protocol with a prospective validation is needed to improve overtriage that is above the suggested limits.

Redefining the association between old age and poor outcomes after trauma: The impact of frailty syndrome

BACKGROUND

Frailty syndrome (FS) is a well-established predictor of outcomes in geriatric patients. The aim of this study was to quantify the prevalence of FS in geriatric trauma patients and to determine its association with trauma readmissions, repeat falls, and mortality at 6 months.

METHODS

we performed a 2-year (2012-2013) prospective cohort analysis of all consecutive geriatric (age, ≥ 65 years) trauma patients. FS was assessed using a Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI). Patients were stratified into: nonfrail, TSFI ≤ 0.12; prefrail, TSFI = 0.1 to 0.27; and frail, TSFI > 0.27. Patient follow-up occurred at 6 months to assess outcomes. Regression analysis was performed to assess independent associations between TSFI and outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled. Frail patients were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (nonfrail, 12%; prefrail, 17.4%; and frail, 33.4%; p = 0.02) and an adverse discharge disposition compared with nonfrail and prefrail (nonfrail, 8%; prefrail,18%; and frail, 47%; p = 0.001). Six-month follow-up was recorded in 80% of the patients. Compared with nonfrail patients, frail patients were more likely to have had a trauma-related readmission (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.6) and/or repeated falls (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.1-2.5) over the 6-month period. Overall 6-month mortality was 2.8% (n = 10), and frail elderly patients were more likely to have died (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.04-4.7) compared with nonfrail patients.

CONCLUSION

Over a third of geriatric trauma patients had FS. TSFI provides a practical and accurate assessment tool for identifying elderly trauma patients who are at increased risk of both short-term and long-term outcomes. Early focused intervention in frail geriatric patients is warranted to improve long-term outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level II.

Role of trauma team activation in poor outcomes of elderly patients

INTRODUCTION

Elderly trauma patients suffer worse outcomes than younger patients. Trauma team activation (TTA) improves outcomes in younger patients. It is unclear whether decreased TTA effectiveness or under-activation in elderly patients could contribute to their poor outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective registry study examined all adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center over 2 y. Analyses tested (1) whether age modifies the effect of TTA on poor outcomes, (2) whether elderly patients with severe injury were less likely to receive TTA than younger patients, and (3) which early variables were associated with poor outcomes among elderly patients who did not receive TTA.

RESULTS

The study included 10,033 patients. The adjusted relative risk from TTA for all ages was 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.34-0.68, P < 0.001), and there was no effect modification by age (interaction term P value, 0.171). The adjusted odds ratio for the young was 0.49 (95% CI = 0.26-0.91, P = 0.024) and for the elderly was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.53-1.20, P = 0.282). The adjusted odds ratio for lack of TTA associated with old age was 1.37 (95% CI = 1.12-1.69, P = 0.003). The strongest associations with poor outcomes were seen with low heart rate, low minimum blood pressure, high injury severity score, and high Glasgow coma score.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of TTA could contribute to elderly patients' poor outcomes. Clinicians should not be reassured by normal heart rates and should be wary of even transiently lower blood pressures in the elderly. A large cohort study is needed to identify which additional elderly patients could benefit from TTA.

The elderly patient with spinal injury: treat or transfer?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this investigation was to delineate whether elderly patients with spinal injuries benefit from transfers to higher level trauma centers.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank 2007 to 2011, including patients > 65 (y) with any spinal fracture and/or spinal cord injury from a blunt mechanism. Patients who were transferred to level I and II centers from other facilities were compared to those admitted and received their definitive treatment at level III or other centers.

RESULTS

Of 3,313,117 eligible patients, 43,637 (1.3%) met inclusion criteria: 19,588 (44.9%) were transferred to level I-II centers, and 24,049 (55.1%) received definitive treatment at level III or other centers. Most of the patients (95.8%) had a spinal fracture without a spinal cord injury. Transferred patients were more likely to require an intensive care unit admission (48.5% versus 36.0%, P < 0.001) and ventilatory support (16.1% versus 13.3%, P < 0.001). Mortality for the entire cohort was 7.7% (8.6% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and significantly higher, at 21.7% for patients with a spinal cord injury (22.3% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for all available covariates, there was no difference in the adjusted mortality between patients transferred to higher level centers and those treated at lower level centers (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.95-1.17], P = 0.325).

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer of elderly patients with spinal injuries to higher level trauma centers is not associated with improved survival. Future studies should explore the justifications used for these transfers and focus on other outcome measures such as functional status to determine the potential benefit from such practices.

County-Level Effects of Prehospital Regionalization of Critically Ill Patients: A Simulation Study

OBJECTIVE

Regionalization may improve critical care delivery, yet stakeholders cite concerns about its feasibility. We sought to determine the operational effects of prehospital regionalization of nontrauma, nonarrest critical illness.

SETTING

King County, Washington.

DESIGN

Discrete event simulation study.

PATIENTS

All 2006 hospital discharge data, linked to all adult, eligible patients transported by county emergency medical services agencies.

INTERVENTIONS

We simulated active triage of high-risk patients to designated referral centers using a validated prehospital risk score; we studied three regionalization scenarios: 1) up triage, 2) up and down triage, and 3) up and down triage after reducing ICU beds by 25%. We determined the effect on patient routing, ICU occupancy at referral and nonreferral hospitals, and emergency medical services transport times.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 119,117 patients were hospitalized at 11 nonreferral centers and 76,817 patients were hospitalized at three referral centers. Among 20,835 emergency medical services patients, 7,817 patients (43%) were eligible for up triage and 10,242 patients (57%) were eligible for down triage. At baseline, mean daily ICU bed occupancy was 61% referral and 47% at nonreferral hospitals. Up triage increased referral ICU occupancy to 68%, up and down triage to 64%, and up and down triage with bed reduction to 74%. Mean daily nonreferral ICU occupancy did not exceed 60%. Total emergency medical services transport time increased by less than 3% with up and down triage.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization based on prehospital triage of the critically ill can allocate high-risk patients to referral hospitals without adversely affecting ICU occupancy or prehospital travel time.

Sustaining a coordinated, regional approach to trauma and emergency care is critical to patient health care needs

Trauma systems provide an organized approach to the care of injured patients within a defined geographic region. When fully operational, the systems ensure a continuum of care involving public access through 911 calls, emergency medical services, timely triage and transport to acute care, and transfer to rehabilitation services. Substantial progress has been made in establishing statewide trauma systems, which are seen as the prototype for regionalized care for other time-sensitive, emergency conditions such as stroke. Trauma systems provide a model of care that is consistent with the goals of the Affordable Care Act, which authorizes $100 million in annual grants to ensure the continued availability of trauma services. Full funding of these provisions is needed to stabilize statewide systems that are struggling to survive. We describe the components of a regionalized trauma system, review the evidence in support of this approach, and discuss the challenges to sustaining systems that are accountable and affordable.

Comparison of two comorbidity scoring systems for older adults with traumatic injuries

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the mortality predictive value of two different comorbidity scores, Comorbidity-Polypharmacy Score (CPS) and Charlson scoring system, in a large sample of older trauma patients.

STUDY DESIGN

At an urban tertiary care Level I trauma center, trauma patients aged 55 years and older who were initially admitted to critical care were included. This retrospective chart review was conducted at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA. Older trauma patients admitted from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 were screened for inclusion. One-year mortality data were obtained from the Washington State Department of Health. Covariates included age, presence of hypotension, traumatic brain injury, and Injury Severity Score.

RESULTS

Records for 667 older trauma patients were reviewed. In multivariate analyses, CPS was an independent predictor of fatal outcomes. Higher CPS was associated with greater mortality, however, it was not superior to Charlson methodology in predicting 1-year mortality in this patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a comorbidity score improves multivariate models predicting long-term mortality in older trauma patients. There was no advantage to using CPS instead of Charlson score, and each was an independent predictor of fatal outcomes.

Undertriage of major trauma patients in the US emergency departments

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that regionalized trauma care and appropriate triage of major trauma patients improve patient outcomes. However, the national rate of undertriage and diagnoses of undertriaged patients are unknown.

METHODS

We used the 2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample to estimate the national rate of undertriage, identify the prevalent diagnoses, and conduct a simulation analysis of the capacity increase required for level I and II trauma centers (TCs) to accommodate undertriaged patients. Undertriaged patients were those with major trauma, injury severity score ≥ 16, who received definitive care at nontrauma centers (NTCs), or level III TCs. The rate of undertriage was calculated with those receiving definitive care at an NTC center or level III center as a fraction of all major trauma patients.

RESULTS

The estimated number of major trauma patient discharges in 2010 was 232448. Level of care was known for 197702 major trauma discharges, and 34.0% were undertriaged in emergency departments (EDs). Elderly patients were at a significantly higher risk of being undertriaged. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) was the most common diagnosis, 40.2% of the undertriaged patient diagnoses. To accommodate all undertriaged patients, level I and II TCs nationally would have to increase their capacity by 51.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that more than one-third of US ED major trauma patients were undertriaged, and more than 40% of undertriaged diagnoses were TBIs. A significant capacity increase at level I and II TCs to accommodate these patients appears not feasible.

The accuracy of alternative triage rules for identification of significant traumatic brain injury: a diagnostic cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults. Reorganisation of trauma services with direct triage of suspected head injury patients to trauma centres may improve outcomes following TBI. This study aimed to determine the sensitivity of principal English triage tools for identifying significant TBI.

METHODS

We performed a diagnostic cohort study using data prospectively collated from the Trauma Audit and Research Network database between 2005 and 2011. Adult head injury patients were retrospectively classified according to London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Head Injury Transportation Straight to Neurosurgery study (HITS-NS) triage criteria. Sensitivity and specificity were then calculated against a reference standard of significant TBI, comprising head region abbreviated injury score (AIS) ≥3 or neurosurgical operation.

RESULTS

6559 patients were included in complete case analyses. The LAS and HITS-NS triage tools demonstrated sensitivities of 44.5% (95% CI 43.2 to 45.9) and 32.6% (95% CI 31.4 to 33.9), respectively, for identifying significant TBI patients. False negative significant TBI cases were relatively older, more likely to be female, more frequently secondary to low-level falls, and were less likely to have very severe AIS five or six head injuries, p<0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of significant head injury patients may not be triaged directly to trauma centres. Investment is therefore necessary to improve the accuracy of existing triage rules and maintain expertise in TBI diagnosis and management in non-specialist emergency departments.

Outcomes of different health care contexts for direct transport to a trauma center versus initial secondary center care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Within a trauma system, pre-hospital care is the first step in managing the trauma patient. Timely and appropriate transport of the injured patient to the most appropriate facility is important. Many trauma systems mandate that serious trauma cases are transported directly to a level I trauma center unless transfer to a closer hospital is deemed necessary to resuscitate and stabilize the patient prior to onward transfer to definitive care. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity is often high and is likely to be influenced by the heath care context.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes for patients with serious trauma transported directly to a Level I/II trauma center ('direct' group) to those transported to a healthcare facility before transfer to the Level I/ II trauma center ('transfer' group). A search of bibliographic databases and secondary sources that focus on trauma was made. Studies were grouped by region: United States of America, Canada, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa.

RESULTS

The review included 43,554 patients from the 30 studies that met the selection criteria. Heterogeneity of the studies was high (I(2) 71%) overall but low for European, Asian, and Australian and New Zealand studies. There was considerable variation between studies in the structure, policies and practices of the respective trauma systems. The effect of "directness" on patient outcomes was inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

The current research evidence does not support nor refute a position that all serious trauma patients be routinely transported directly to a level I/II trauma center. As this is a complex issue, local health-care context and injury profile influence trauma policy and practice.