A comparison of patient characteristics and survival in two trauma centres located in different countries

Polytrauma patients in the Netherlands and the USA: A bi-institutional comparison of processes and outcomes of care

BACKGROUND

Modern trauma systems differ worldwide, possibly leading to disparities in outcomes. We aim to compare characteristics and outcomes of blunt polytrauma patients admitted to two Level 1 Trauma Centers in the US (USTC) and the Netherlands (NTC).

METHODS

For this retrospective study the records of 1367 adult blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 admitted between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 (640 from NTC, 727 from USTC) were analysed.

RESULTS

The USTC group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [standard deviation] 1.15 [2.2] vs. 1.73 [2.8], p<0.0001) and Injury Severity Score (median [interquartile range, IQR] 25 [17-29] vs. 21 [17-26], p<0.0001). The in-hospital mortality was similar in both centers (11% in USTC vs. 10% NTC), also after correction for baseline differences in patient population in a multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.48, p=0.83). USTC patients had a longer Intensive Care Unit stay (median [IQR] 4 [2-11] vs. 2 [2-7] days, p=0.006) but had a shorter hospital stay (median [IQR] 6 [3-13] vs. 8 [4-16] days, p<0.0001). USTC patients were discharged more often to a rehabilitation center (47% vs 10%) and less often to home (46% vs. 66%, p<0.0001), and had a higher readmission rate (8% vs. 4%, p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although several outcome parameters differ in two urban area trauma centers in the USA and the Netherlands, the quality of care for trauma patients, measured as survival, is equal. Other outcomes varied between both trauma centers, suggesting that differences in local policies and processes do influence the care system, but not so much the quality of care as reflected by survival.

Comparative analysis of gender differences in outcomes after trauma in India and the USA: case for standardised coding of injury mechanisms in trauma registries

Introduction

While females generally have better outcomes than males after traumatic injury, higher mortality has been shown to occur in females after intentional trauma in lower-income countries. However, gender differences in trauma outcomes in different countries have not been previously compared. We conducted a two-country comparative analysis to characterise gender differences in mortality for different mechanisms of injury.

Methods

Two urban trauma databases were analysed from India and the USA for fall, motor vehicle collision (MVC) and assault patients between 2013 and 2015. Coarsened exact matching was used to match the two groups based on gender, age, injury severity score, Glasgow Coma Score and type of injury (blunt vs penetrating). The primary outcome of mortality was studied by using logistic regression to calculate the odds of death in the four country/gender subgroups.

Results

A total of 10 089 and 14 144 patients were included from the Indian and US databases, respectively. After matching on covariates, 7505 and 9448 patients were included in the logistic regression. Indian males had the highest odds of death compared with US males, US females and Indian females for falls, MVC and assaults. Indian females had over 7 times the odds of dying after falls, 5 times the odds of dying for MVC and 40 times the odds of dying after assaults when compared with US females.

Conclusion

The high odds of death for Indian females compared with US females suggests that there are other injury and systemic factors that contribute to this discrepancy in mortality odds. This same mortality pattern and implication is seen for Indian males compared with all subgroups. Standardised coding of injury mechanism in trauma registries, in addition to intentionality of injury, can help further characterise discrepancies in outcomes by gender and country, to guide targeted injury prevention and care.

Benchmarking facilities providing care: An international overview of initiatives

We performed a literature review of existing benchmarking projects of health facilities to explore (1) the rationales for those projects, (2) the motivation for health facilities to participate, (3) the indicators used and (4) the success and threat factors linked to those projects. We studied both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We examined 23 benchmarking projects of different medical specialities. The majority of projects used a mix of structure, process and outcome indicators. For some projects, participants had a direct or indirect financial incentive to participate (such as reimbursement by Medicaid/Medicare or litigation costs related to quality of care). A positive impact was reported for most projects, mainly in terms of improvement of practice and adoption of guidelines and, to a lesser extent, improvement in communication. Only 1 project reported positive impact in terms of clinical outcomes. Success factors and threats are linked to both the benchmarking process (such as organisation of meetings, link with existing projects) and indicators used (such as adjustment for diagnostic-related groups). The results of this review will help coordinators of a benchmarking project to set it up successfully.

Do trauma systems work? A comparison of major trauma outcomes between Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Massachusetts General Hospital

Trauma is an important matter of public health and a major cause of mortality. Since the late 1980s trauma care provision in the United Kingdom is lacking when compared to the USA. This has been attributed to a lack of organisation of trauma care leading to the formation of trauma networks and Major Trauma Centres in England and Wales. The need for similar centres in Scotland is argued currently. We assessed the activity of two quite different trauma systems by obtaining access to comparative data from two hospitals, one in the USA and the other in Scotland. Aggregate data on 5604 patients at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (ARI) from 1993 to 2002 was obtained from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group. A comparable data set of 16,178 patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Direct comparison of patient demographics; injury type, mechanism and Injury Severity Score (ISS); mode of arrival; length of stay and mortality were made. Statistical analysis was carried out using Chi-squared and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel. There were significant differences in the data sets. There was a higher proportion of penetrating injuries at MGH, (8.6% vs 2.6%) and more severely injured patients at MGH, patients with an ISS>16 accounted for nearly 22.1% of MGH patients compared to 14.0% at ARI. ISS 8-15 made up 54.6% of ARI trauma with 29.6% at MGH. Falls accounted for 50.1% at ARI and 37.9% at MGH. Despite the higher proportion of severe injuries at MGH and crude mortality rates showing no difference (4.9% ARI vs 5.2% MGH), pooled odds ratio of mortality was 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.2-1.6) showing worse mortality outcomes at ARI compared to MGH. In conclusion, there were some differences in case mix between both data sets making direct comparison of the outcomes difficult, but the effect of consolidating major trauma on the proportion and number of severely injured patients treated in the American Level 1 centre was clear with a significant improvement in mortality in all injury severity groups.

Predicting in-hospital death among patients injured in traffic crashes in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Traffic-related injuries are a major cause of premature death in developing countries. Saudi Arabia has struggled with high rates of traffic-related deaths for decades, yet little is known about health outcomes of motor vehicle victims seeking medical care. This study aims to develop and validate a model to predict in-hospital death among patients admitted to a large-urban trauma centre in Saudi Arabia for treatment following traffic-related crashes.

METHODS

The analysis used data from King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During the study period 2001-2010, 5325 patients met the inclusion criteria of being injured in traffic crashes and seen in the Emergency Department (ED) and/or admitted to the hospital. Backward stepwise logistic regression, with in-hospital death as the outcome, was performed. Variables with p<0.05 were included in the final model. The Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was employed to identify the most parsimonious model. Model discrimination was evaluated by the C-statistic and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit statistic. Bootstrapping was used to assess overestimation of model performance and obtain a corrected C-statistic.

RESULTS

457 (8.5%) patients died at some time during their treatment in the ED or hospital. Older age, the Triage-Revised Trauma Scale (T-RTS), and Injury Severity Score were independent risk factors for in-hospital death: T-RTS was best modelled with linear and quadratic terms to capture a flattening of the relationship to death in the more severe range. The model showed excellent discrimination (C-statistic=0.96) and calibration (H-L statistic 4.29 [p>0.05]). Internal bootstrap validation gave similar results (C-statistic=0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed model can predict in-hospital death accurately. It can facilitate the triage process among injured patients, and identify unexpected deaths in order to address potential pitfalls in the care process. Conversely, by identifying high-risk patients, strategies can be developed to improve trauma care for these patients and reduce case-fatality. This is the first study to develop and validate a model to predict traffic-related mortality in a developing country. Future studies from developing countries can use this study as a reference for case fatality achievable for different risk profiles at a well-equipped trauma centre.

Trauma Incidents Attended by Emergency Medical Services in Victoria, Australia

Introduction:

International literature describing the profile of trauma patients attended by a statewide emergency medical services (EMS) system is lacking. Most literature is limited to descriptions of trauma responses for a single emergency medical service, or to patients transported to a specific Level-1 trauma hospital. There is no Victorian or Australian literature describing the type of trauma patients transported by a state emergency medical service.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to define a profile of all trauma incidents attended by statewide EMS.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of all patient care records (PCR) for trauma responses attended by Victorian Ambulance Services for 2002 was conducted. Criteria for trauma categories were defined previously, and data were extracted from the PCRs and entered into a secure data repository for descriptive analysis to determine the trauma profile. Ethics committee approval was obtained.

Results:

There were 53,039 trauma incidents attended by emergency ambulances during the 12-month period. Of these, 1,566 patients were in physiological distress, 11,086 had a significant pattern of injury, and a further 8,931 had an identifiable mechanism of injury. The profile includes minor trauma (n = 9,342), standing falls (n = 20,511), no patient transported (n = 3,687), and deceased patients (n = 459).

Conclusions:

This is a unique analysis of prehospital trauma. It provides a baseline dataset that may be utilized in future studies of prehospital trauma care. Additionally, this dataset identifies a ten-fold difference in major trauma between the prehospital and the hospital assessments.

Differentiation of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients using pre-hospital trauma triage criteria

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature comparing trauma patients who meet pre-hospital trauma triage guidelines ('potential major trauma') with trauma patients who are identified as 'confirmed major trauma patients' at hospital discharge. This type of epidemiological surveillance is critical to continuous performance monitoring of mature trauma care systems. The current study aimed to determine if the current trauma triage criteria resulted in under/over-triage and whether the triage criteria were being adhered to.

METHODS

For a 12-month time period there were 45,332 adult (≥16 years of age) trauma patients transported by ambulance to hospitals in metropolitan Melbourne. This retrospective study analysed data from 1166 patients identified at hospital discharge as 'confirmed major trauma patients' and 16,479 patients captured by the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria, who did not go on to meet the definition of confirmed major trauma. These patients comprise the 'potential major trauma' group. Non-major trauma patients (N=27,687) were excluded from the study. Pre-hospital data was sourced from the Victorian Ambulance Clinical Information System (VACIS) and hospital data was sourced from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). Statistical analyses compared the characteristics of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma patients according to the current trauma triage criteria.

RESULTS

The leading causes of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma were motor vehicle collisions (30.1% vs. 19.2%) and falls (30.0% vs. 48.7%). More than 80% of confirmed major trauma and 24.4% of potential major trauma patients were directly transported to a major trauma service. Overall, similar numbers of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients had one or more aberrant vital signs (67.0% vs. 66.4%). Specific injuries meeting triage criteria were sustained by 69.2% of confirmed major trauma patients and 51.4% of potential major trauma patients, while 11.7% of confirmed major trauma patients and 4.6% of potential major trauma patients met the combined mechanism of injury criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

While the sensitivity of the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria is high, if paramedics strictly followed the criteria there would be significant over-triage. Triage models using different mechanistic and physiologic criteria should be evaluated.

A benchmarking study of two trauma centres highlighting limitations when standardising mortality for comorbidity

Introduction

A continuous process of trauma centre evaluation is essential to ensure the development and progression of trauma care at regional, national and international levels. Evaluation may be by comparison between pooled datasets or by direct benchmarking between centres. This study attempts to benchmark mortality at two trauma centres standardising this for multiple case-mix factors, which includes the prevalence of individual background pre-existing diseases within the study population.

Methods

Trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 admitted to the two centres in 2001 and 2002 were included in the study with the exception of those who died in the emergency department. Patient characteristics were analysed in terms of 18 case-mix factors including Glasgow Coma Scale on arrival, Injury Severity Score and the presence or absence of 9 co-morbidity types, and patient outcome was compared based on in-hospital mortality before and after standardisation.

Results

Crude mortality was greater at UHNS (18.2 vs 14.5%) with a non-significant odds ratio of 1.31 prior to adjusting for case-mix (P = 0.171). Adjustment for case mix using logistic regression analysis altered the odds ratio to 1.64, which was not significant (P = 0.069).

Discussion

This study did not demonstrate any significant difference in the outcome of patients treated at either hospital during the study period. More importantly it has raised several important methodological issues pertinent to researchers undertaking registry based benchmarking studies. Data at the two registries was collected by personnel with differing backgrounds, in formats that were not completely compatible and was collected for patients that met different admissions criteria. The inclusion of a meaningful analysis of pre-existing disease was limited by the availability of robust data and sample size. We suggest greater communication between trauma research coordinators to ensure equivalent data collection and facilitate future benchmarking studies.

Systems of provision and delivery of hand care, and its impact on the community

Hand injuries are important causes of impairment in the United States. They are one of the top causes for days lost from work and they impose a great economic burden on the country. In less affluent regions of the world, the impact of hand injuries on the population is even more dire, rendering the affected to life-long disability. When one considers that 85% of the world's population lives in low to middle income countries, the global deleterious effect of hand trauma becomes apparent. This paper is a review of pertinent literature available on the provision and delivery of trauma care around the world. While specific reference to hand surgery care is sparse, we will infer trauma management in these countries, synthesised from available literature, to the provision of hand surgery care. We will also examine programs around the world that are implemented at an affordable cost to the respective countries.

Which AIS Based Scoring System is the Best Predictor of Outcome in Orthopaedic Blunt Trauma Patients?

BACKGROUND

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)-based systems-the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and AISmax-are used to assess trauma patients. The merits of each in predicting outcome are controversial.

METHODS

A large prospective database was used to assess their predictive capacity using receiver operator characteristic curves.

RESULTS

In all, 10,062 adult, blunt-trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. All systems were significant outcome predictors for sepsis, multiple organ failure (MOF), length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality (p < 0.0001). NISS was a significantly better predictor than the ISS for mortality (p < 0.0001). NISS was equivalent to the AISmax for mortality prediction and superior in patients with orthopaedic injuries. NISS was significantly better for sepsis, MOF, ICU stay, and total hospital stay (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

NISS is superior or equivalent to the ISS and AISmax for prediction of all investigated outcomes in a population of blunt trauma patients. As NISS is easier to calculate, its use is recommended to stratify patients for clinical and research purposes.

Longitudinal trends in trauma mortality and survival in Stoke-on-Trent 1992-1998

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors related to mortality and to test the null hypothesis of no longitudinal trend in mortality in patients admitted to the North Staffordshire Hospital (NSH) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, between April 1992 and March 1998.

DESIGN

Longitudinal prospective study of 18 factors, including age, sex, mechanism of injury, anatomical injury scores and year of admission. Outcome, based on mortality at discharge, was analysed in two ways: alive or dead at discharge (mortality) and time to death or discharge (survival).

RESULTS

A decreasing trend (P < 0.01 ) in mortality with year of admission was detected on the log-odds scale. The trend could not be explained by a case-mix analysis, which allowed for the 17 other factors. Using multiple logistic regression analysis (mortality) and Cox proportional hazards analysis (survival), eight factors were identified as determinants of outcome: age, head AIS score, chest AIS score, abdominal AIS score, calendar year of admission, external injury AIS score, mechanism of the injury and primary receiving hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed improvement in survival in severely injured patients must result from the interplay of factors not controlled in this analysis or improvements in patient care or both.