Multidisciplinary approach to decrease pediatric trauma undertriage

Current trauma team activation processes at Canadian trauma centres: A national survey

BACKGROUND

Trauma team activation (TTA) allows the provision of specialized and timely care to improve outcomes for severely injured patients. Limited information is available on the current state of TTA in Canadian trauma centres (TC). Study objectives were to describe TTA processes, data and reports, along with the challenges and successes from a national perspective.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey was undertaken with Canadian trauma leadership, utilizing a total population sampling strategy. The questionnaire, containing 108-items, was administered online between February-April 2022, utilizing a modified Dillman technique. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Trauma leaders from 9 out of 10 provinces responded for a response rate of 68% (32/47). Two-thirds (67%) of respondents worked in adult TC; 63% in a level I center. A higher proportion of pediatric TC had a two-tiered TT response (60% pediatric; 35% adult). The most common criteria were neurologic compromise (100% one-level TTA) and hypotension (pediatric: 100% one-level, 100% tier 1; adult: 92% one-level, 86% tier 1). All one-level TTA included penetrating trauma criteria. One-third of respondents reported using TTA subgroup criteria for pediatric, pregnant, and/or geriatric patients. There was variability with disciplines responding to TTA, with largest, most comprehensive teams for tier 1. Two-thirds of TC review activation compliance (under/overtriage), while 55% focus on non-compliance and reasons for missed TTA. The most frequent challenges related to TTA practices were reliable data collection (60%) while successes included were the establishment of TTA guidelines to improve team compliance (33%) and RN initiated TTA.

CONCLUSIONS

Some TTA practices were similar among Canadian TC, while others showed variability. Findings provide opportunities for improvement, including a two-tier system, geriatric-specific criteria, and RN initiated TTA, and could help establish national standards and best practices. Compliance with standards has the potential to improve Canadian TTA practices and patient outcomes.

Failure to initiate trauma team activation for patients who meet the criteria in a level 1 paediatric trauma centre: which patients are missing out?

BACKGROUND

Trauma team activation (TTA) is paramount in the early hospital management of trauma patients. This study aimed to evaluate factors which contribute to failure to activate the Trauma team for management of paediatric trauma.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of Emergency Department (ED) presentations at the paediatric major trauma hospital in Adelaide, South Australia was conducted over a 16-month period. Data from the hospital's trauma registry, individual case files and digital medical records were evaluated to determine factors that were associated with no TTA.

RESULTS

During the study period, 617 trauma patients who met Level 1 or Level 2 TTA criteria attended the trauma centre. For 29 (4.7%) of these patients, there was no TTA. Predictors of no TTA included sustaining abdomen and/or pelvis injuries compared to limb injuries (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 10.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98-56.69, P = 0.006), sustaining non-accidental injury (NAI) versus an injury with vehicle involvement (OR = 30.13, 95% CI 6.43-141.21, P < 0.001), and arriving via emergency medical retrieval service compared to private vehicle (OR = 14.23, 95% CI 3.94-51.36, P < 0.001). No patients transferred directly to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), or High Dependency Unit (HDU) received an appropriate TTA.

CONCLUSION

Multiple factors were associated with no TTA in paediatric trauma patients. The results highlight that even in PICU and HDU admissions and transfer patients, vigilant clarification of mechanism of injury and potential for occult injuries should be undertaken to ensure appropriate TTA and improve patient outcome.

Prehospital Factors Predict Outcomes in Pediatric Trauma: A Principal Component Analysis

BACKGROUND

Trauma team activation leveling decisions are complex and based on many variables. Accurate triage decisions improve patient safety and resource utilization. Our purpose was to establish proof-of-concept for using principal component analysis (PCA) to identify multivariate predictors of injury severity and to assess their ability to predict outcomes in pediatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that we could identify significant principal components (PCs) among variables used for decisions regarding trauma team activation and that PC scores would be predictive of outcomes in pediatric trauma.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of the trauma registry (1/2014-12/2020) at our pediatric trauma center, including all pediatric patients (age < 18 y) who triggered a trauma team activation. Data included patient demographics, prehospital report, Injury Severity Score, and outcomes. Four significant principal components were identified using PCA. Differences in outcome variables between the highest and lowest quartile for PC score were examined.

RESULTS

1090 pediatric patients were included. The 4 significant PCs accounted for >96% of the overall date variance. The first PC was a composite of prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and was predictive of outcomes, including injury severity, length of stay, and mortality. The second PC was characterized primarily by prehospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) and high PC scores were associated with increased length of stay. The third and fourth PCs were characterized by patient age and by prehospital RTS and SBP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that, using information available at the time of trauma team activation, PCA can be used to identify key predictors of patient outcome. While the ultimate goal is to create a machine learning-based predictive tool to support and improve clinical decision making, this study serves as a crucial step toward developing a deep understanding of the features of the model and their behavior with actual clinical data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Diagnostic test.