Survival Benefit of Treatment at or Transfer to a Tertiary Trauma Center among Injured Older Adults

Should We Keep or Transfer Our Severely Injured Geriatric Patients to Higher Levels of Care?

INTRODUCTION

Interfacility transfer to higher levels of care is becoming increasingly common. This study aims to evaluate the association between transfer to higher levels of care and prolonged transfer times with outcomes of severely injured geriatric trauma patients compared to those who are managed definitively at lower-level trauma centers.

METHODS

Severely injured (Injury Severity Score >15) geriatric (≥60 y) trauma patients in the 2017-2018 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database managing at an American College of Surgeons/State Level III trauma center or transferring to a level I or II trauma center were included. Outcome measures were 24-h and in-hospital mortality and major complications.

RESULTS

Forty thousand seven hundred nineteen patients were identified. Mean age was 75 ± 8 y, 54% were male, 98% had a blunt mechanism of injury, and the median Injury Severity Score was 17 [16-21]. Median transfer time was 112 [79-154] min, and the most common transport mode was ground ambulance (82.3%). Transfer to higher levels of care within 90 min was associated with lower 24-h mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.493, P < 0.001) and similar odds of in-hospital mortality as those managed at level III centers. However, every 30-min delay in transfer time beyond 90 min was progressively associated with increased odds of 24-h (aOR: 1.058, P < 0.001) and in-hospital (aOR: 1.114, P < 0.001) mortality and major complications (aOR: 1.127, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Every 30-min delay in interfacility transfer time beyond 90 min is associated with 6% and 11% higher risk-adjusted odds of 24-h and in-hospital mortality, respectively. Estimated interfacility transfer time should be considered while deciding about transferring severely injured geriatric trauma patients to a higher level of care.

Intentionally self-injured patients have lower mortality when treated at trauma centers versus non-trauma centers in South Korea

Objective

This study investigated the characteristics and survival rates of patients with intentional severe trauma (self-harm or suicide) who were transported to either a regional trauma center (TC) or a non-TC facility.

Methods

This retrospective, national, population-based, observational, case-control study included patients who sustained intentional severe trauma and had an abnormal Revised Trauma Score at the injury site between January 2018 and December 2019. The data were a community-based severe trauma survey based on data collected from severe injury and multiple casualty patients transported by 119 emergency medical services (EMS), distributed by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. The treatment hospitals were divided into two types, TC and non-TCs, and several variables, including in-hospital mortality, were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of confounding variables on the survival outcomes.

Results

Among the 3864 patients, 872 and 2992 visited TC and non-TC facilities, respectively. The injury severity did not differ significantly between patients treated at TCs and non-TCs (TC, 9; non-TC, 9; p=0.104). However, compared with those treated at non-TCs, patients treated at TCs had a higher rate of surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization (14.2% vs 38.4%; p<0.001) and a higher admission rate to the emergency department (34.4% vs 60.6%; p<0.001). After PSM, 872 patients from both groups were analyzed. Patients treated at TCs exhibited a higher overall survival rate than those treated at non-TCs (76.1% vs 66.9%; p<0.001), and multiple variable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the causes of injury and transport to the TC were significantly associated.

Conclusion

Using Korean EMS data, the results of this study revealed that initial transport to TCs was associated with reduced mortality rates. However, considering the limitations of using data from only 2 years and the retrospective design, further research is warranted.

Study type

Retrospective national, population-based observational case-control study.

Level of evidence

Level III.

Societal Burden of Trauma and Disparities in Trauma Care

Trauma imposes a significant societal burden, with injury being a leading cause of mortality worldwide. While numerical data reveal that trauma accounts for millions of deaths annually, its true impact goes beyond these figures. The toll extends to non-fatal injuries, resulting in long-term physical and mental health consequences. Moreover, injury-related health care costs and lost productivity place substantial strain on a nation's economy. Disparities in trauma care further exacerbate this burden, affecting access to timely and appropriate care across various patient populations. These disparities manifest across the entire continuum of trauma care, from prehospital to in-hospital and post-acute phases. Addressing these disparities and improving access to quality trauma care are crucial steps toward alleviating the societal burden of trauma and enhancing equitable patient outcomes.

Geriatric trauma, frailty, and ACS trauma center verification level: Are there any correlations with outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

It remains unclear whether geriatrics benefit from care at higher-level trauma centers (TCs). We aimed to assess the impact of the TC verification level on frail geriatric trauma patients' outcomes. We hypothesized that frail patients cared for at higher-level TCs would have improved outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients ≥65 years were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database (2017-2019). Patients transferred, discharged from emergency department (ED), and those with head abbreviated injury scale >3 were excluded. 11-factor modified frailty index was utilized. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed. Outcomes included discharge to skilled nursing facility or rehab (SNF/rehab), withdrawal of life-supporting treatment (WLST), mortality, complications, failure-to-rescue, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay (LOS), and ventilator days.

RESULTS

110,680 patients were matched (Frail:55,340, Non-Frail:55,340). Mean age was 79 (7), 90% presented following falls, and median ISS was 5 [2-9]. Level-I/II TCs had lower rates of discharge to SNF/rehab (52.6% vs. 55.8% vs. 60.9%; p < 0.001), failure-to-rescue (0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.6%;p = 0.005), and higher rates of WLST (2.4% vs. 2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) compared to level-III regardless of injury severity and frailty. Compared to Level-III centers, Level-I/II centers had higher complications among moderate-to-severely injured patients (4.1% vs. 3.3% vs. 2.7%; p < 0.001), and lower mortality only among frail patients regardless of injury severity (1.8% vs. 1.5% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001). Patients at Level-I TCs were more likely to be admitted to ICU, and had longer hospital LOS and ventilator days compared to Level-II and III TCs (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Frailty may play an important role when triaging geriatric trauma patients. In fact, the benefit of care at higher-level TCs is particularly evident for patients who are frail. Level III centers may be underperforming in providing access to palliative and end-of-life care.

Effect of the Implementation of the French Hospital Regionalization Policy on Patient Mobility

A new law was voted in France in 2016 to increase cooperation between public sector hospitals. Hospitals were encouraged to work under the leadership of local referral centers and to share their support functions (e.g., information systems) with newly created hospital groups, called "Regional Hospital Groups." The law made it compulsory for each public sector hospital to become affiliated with one of 136 newly created hospital groups. The policy's aim was to ensure that all patients were sent to the hospital best qualified to treat their unique condition, among the hospitals available at the regional level. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether this regionalization policy was associated with changes in observed patterns of patient mobility between hospitals. This nationwide observational study followed an interrupted time series design. For each stay occurring from 2014 to 2019, we ascertained whether or not the stay was followed by mobility toward another hospital within 90 days, and whether or not the receiving hospital was part of the same Regional Hospital Group as the sender hospital. The proportion of mobility directed toward the same regional hospital group increased from 22.9% in 2014 (95% CI 22.7-23.1) to 24.6% in 2019 (95% CI 24.4-24.8). However, the absence of discontinuity during the policy change year was consistent with the hypothesis of a preexisting trend toward regionalization. Therefore, the policy did not achieve major changes in patterns of mobility between hospitals. Other objectives of the reform, including long-term consequences on the healthcare offer, remain to be assessed.

Trauma bypass performed by vascular surgeons demonstrate excellent long-term outcomes and limb preservation

OBJECTIVE

Long-term outcomes in civilian trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization is poorly studied secondary to limitations of certain large databases and the nature of the patients in this specific vascular subset. This study reports on the experience and outcomes of a Level 1 trauma center that serves both an urban and a large rural population over a 20-year period to identify bypass outcomes and surveillance protocols.

METHODS

Database of a single vascular group at an academic center was queried for trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2022. Patient demographics, indications, operative details, operative mortality, 30-day nonoperative morbidity, revisions, subsequent major amputations, and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 223 revascularizations were performed, 161 (72%) lower and 62 (28%) upper extremities. One hundred sixty-seven patients (74.9%) were male, with a mean age of 39 years (range, 3-89 years). Comorbidities included hypertension (n = 34; 15.3%), diabetes (n = 6; 2.7%), and tobacco use (n = 40; 17.9%). Mean follow-up time was 23 months (range, 1-234 months), with 90 patients (40.4%) lost to follow-up. Mechanisms included blunt trauma (n = 106; 47.5%), penetrating trauma (n = 83; 37.2%), and operative trauma (n = 34; 15.3%). Bypass conduit was reversed vein (n= 171; 76.7%), prosthetic (n = 34; 15.2%), and orthograde vein (n = 11; 4.9%). Bypass inflow artery was superficial femoral (n = 66; 41.0%), above-knee popliteal (n = 28; 17.4%), and common femoral (n = 20; 12.4%) in the lower extremity, and brachial (n = 41; 66.1%), axillary (n = 10; 16.1%), and radial (n = 6; 9.7%) in the upper extremity. Lower extremity outflow artery was posterior tibial (n = 47; 29.2%), below-knee popliteal (n = 41; 25.5%), superficial femoral (n = 16; 9.9%), dorsalis pedis (n = 10; 6.2%), common femoral (n = 9; 5.6%), and above-knee popliteal (n = 10; 6.2%). Upper extremity outflow artery was brachial (n = 34; 54.8%), radial (n = 13; 21.0%), and ulnar (n = 13; 21.0%). Total operative mortality was nine patients (4.0%), all involving lower extremity revascularization. Thirty-day non-fatal complications included immediate bypass occlusion (n = 11; 4.9%), wound infection (n = 8; 3.6%), graft infection (n = 4; 1.8%), and lymphocele/seroma (n = 7; 3.1%). All major amputations (n = 13; 5.8%) were early and in the lower extremity bypass group. Late revisions in the lower and upper extremity groups were 14 (8.7%) and four (6.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization for extremity trauma can be performed with excellent limb salvage rates and has demonstrated long-term durability with low limb loss and bypass revision rates. The poor compliance with long-term surveillance is concerning and may require adjustment in patient retention protocols; however, emergent returns for bypass failure are extremely low in our experience.

A novel, evidence-based, comprehensive clinical decision support system improves outcomes for patients with traumatic rib fractures

BACKGROUND

Traumatic rib fractures are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been shown to improve adherence to evidence-based (EB) practice and improve clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to investigate if a rib fracture CDSS reduced hospital length of stay (LOS), 90-day and 1-year mortality, unplanned ICU transfer, and the need for mechanical ventilation. The independent association of two process measures, an admission EB order set and a pain-inspiratory-cough score early warning system, with LOS were investigated.

METHODS

The CDSS was scaled across nine US trauma centers. Following multiple imputation, multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate the association of the CDSS on primary and secondary outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, propensity score matching was also performed to confirm regression findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 3,279 patients met inclusion criteria. Rates of EB practices increased following implementation. On risk-adjusted analysis, in-hospital LOS preintervention versus postintervention was unchanged (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.15, p = 0.2) but unplanned transfer to the ICU was reduced (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.84, p = 0.024), as was 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.89, p = 0.01). Provider utilization of the admission order bundle was 45.3%. Utilization was associated with significantly reduced LOS (IRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; p = 0.019). The early warning system triggered on 34.4% of patients; however, was not associated with a significant reduction in hospital LOS (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06; p = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

A novel, user-centered, comprehensive CDSS improves adherence to EB practice and is associated with a significant reduction in unplanned ICU admissions and possibly mortality, but not hospital LOS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Evaluating associations between level of trauma care and outcomes of patients with specific severe injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of -1.63 (95% CI, -2.89 to -0.36) and -0.21 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

An Analysis of Injured Patients Treated at Level 1 Trauma Centers Versus Other Centers: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Trauma systems continue to evolve to create the best outcomes possible for patients who have undergone traumatic injury.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to evaluate the existing research on outcomes based on field triage to a Level 1 trauma center (L1TC) compared to other levels of hospitals and nontrauma centers.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. Studies analyzing measures of morbidity, mortality, and cost after receiving care at L1TCs compared to lower-level trauma centers and nontrauma centers in the United States and Canada were included. Three independent reviewers reviewed abstracts, and two independent reviewers conducted full-text review and quality assessment of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twelve thousand five hundred fourteen unique articles were identified using the literature search. 61 relevant studies were included in this scoping review. 95.2% of included studies were national or regional studies, and 96.8% were registry-based studies. 72.6% of included studies adjusted their results to account for injury severity. The findings from receiving trauma care at L1TCs vary depending on severity of injury, type of injury sustained, and patient characteristics. Existing literature suffers from limitations inherent to large de-identified databases, making record linkage between hospitals impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review shows that the survival benefit of L1TC care is largest for patients with the most severe injuries. This scoping review demonstrates that further research using high-quality data is needed to elucidate more about how to structure trauma systems to improve outcomes for patients with different severities of injuries and in different types of facilities.

Enhancing utility of interfacility triage guidelines using machine learning: Development of the Geriatric Interfacility Trauma Triage score

BACKGROUND

Undertriage of injured older adults to tertiary trauma centers (TTCs) has been demonstrated by many studies. In predominantly rural regions, a majority of trauma patients are initially transported to nontertiary trauma centers (NTCs). Current interfacility triage guidelines do not highlight the hierarchical importance of risk factors nor do they allow for individual risk prediction. We sought to develop a transfer risk score that may simplify secondary triage of injured older adults to TTCs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective prognostic study of injured adults 55 years or older initially transported to an NTC from the scene of injury. The study used data reported to the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2009 and 2019. The outcome of interest was either mortality or serious injury (Injury Severity Score, ≥16) requiring an interventional procedure at the receiving facility. In developing the model, machine-learning techniques including random forests were used to reduce the number of candidate variables recorded at the initial facility.

RESULTS

Of the 5,913 injured older adults initially transported to an NTC before subsequent transfer to a TTC, 32.7% (1,696) had the outcome of interest at the TTC. The final prognostic model (area under the curve, 75.4%; 95% confidence interval, 74-76%) included the following top four predictors and weighted scores: airway intervention (10), traffic-related femur fracture (6), spinal cord injury (5), emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤13 (5), and hemodynamic support (4). Bias-corrected and sample validation areas under the curve were 74% and 72%, respectively. A risk score of 7 yields a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 56%.

CONCLUSION

Secondary triage of injured older adults to TTCs could be enhanced by use of a risk score. Our study is the first to develop a risk stratification tool for injured older adults requiring transfer to a higher level of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiolgical; Level III.

Comparison of survival outcomes among older adults with major trauma after trauma center versus non-trauma center care in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare level 1 and 2 trauma centers with similarly sized non-trauma centers on survival after major trauma among older adults.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We used claims of 100% of 2012-2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received hospital care after major trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

Survival differences were estimated after applying propensity-score-based overlap weights. Subgroup analyses were performed for ambulance-transported patients and by external cause. We assessed the roles of prehospital care, hospital quality, and volume.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-day mortality was higher overall at level 1 versus non-trauma centers by 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 2.6) percentage points (pp). Thirty-day mortality was higher at level 1 versus non-trauma centers by 2.3 (95% CI: 1.9, 2.8) pp for falls and 2.3 (95% CI: 0.2, 4.4) pp for motor vehicle crashes. Differences persisted at 1 year. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers had similar outcomes. Hospital quality and volume did not explain these differences. In the ambulance-transported subgroup, after adjusting for prehospital variables, no statistically significant differences remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma centers may not provide longer survival than similarly sized non-trauma hospitals for severely injured older adults.

Association of Trauma Center Designation With Postdischarge Survival Among Older Adults With Injuries

Importance

Trauma centers improve outcomes for young patients with serious injuries. However, most injury-related hospital admissions and deaths occur in older adults, and it is not clear whether trauma center care provides the same benefit in this population.

Objective

To examine whether 30- and 365-day mortality of injured older adults is associated with the treating hospital's trauma center level.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, population-based cohort study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older with inpatient admission for traumatic injury in 2014 to 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 31, 2021. Preinjury health was measured using 2013 claims, and outcomes were measured through 2016. The population was stratified by anatomical injury pattern. Propensity scores for level I trauma center treatment were estimated using the Abbreviated Injury Scale, age, and residential proximity to trauma center and then used to match beneficiaries from each trauma level (I, II, III, and IV/non-trauma centers) by injury type.

Exposure

Admitting hospital's trauma center level.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Case fatality rates (CFRs) at 30 and 365 days after injury, estimated in the matched sample using multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models.

Results

A total of 433 169 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 82.9 [8.3] years; 68.4% female; 91.5% White) were included in the analysis. A total of 206 275 (47.6%) were admitted to non-trauma centers and 161 492 (37.3%) to level I or II trauma centers. Patients with isolated extremity fracture had the fewest deaths (365-day CFR ranged from 16.1% [95% CI, 11.2%-22.4%] to 17.4% [95% CI, 11.8%-24.6%] by trauma center status). Patients with both hip fracture and traumatic brain injury had the most deaths (365-day CFRs ranged from 33.4% [95% CI, 25.8%-42.1%] to 35.8% [95% CI, 28.9%-43.5%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that older adults do not benefit from existing trauma center care, which is designed with younger patients in mind. There is a critical need to improve trauma care practices to address common injury mechanisms and types of injury in older adults.

Field Trauma Triage among Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

National guidelines for prehospital trauma triage aim to identify seriously injured patients who may benefit from transport to trauma centers. These guidelines have poor sensitivity for serious injury among older adults. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity triage strategy for older adults.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity field triage criteria among older adults compared with current practice. The model used a retrospective cohort of 3621 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who were transported by emergency medical services after an acute injury in 7 counties in the northwestern US during January to December 2011. These data informed model estimates of emergency medical services triage assessment, hospital transport patterns, and outcomes from index hospitalization up to 1 year after discharge. Outcomes beyond 1 year were modeled using published literature. Differences in cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for both strategies using a lifetime analytical horizon. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY gained) to assess cost-effectiveness, which we defined using a threshold of less than $100,000 per QALY.

RESULTS

High-sensitivity trauma field triage for older adults would produce a small incremental benefit in average trauma system effectiveness (0.0003 QALY) per patient at a cost of $1,236,295 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the cost of initial hospitalization and emergency medical services adherence to triage status (ie transporting triage-positive patients to a trauma center) had the largest influence on overall cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

High-sensitivity trauma field triage is not cost-effective among older adults.

Challenges in the PREHOSPITAL emergency management of geriatric trauma patients - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite a widely acknowledged increase in older people presenting with traumatic injury in western populations there remains a lack of research into the optimal prehospital management of this vulnerable patient group. Research into this cohort faces many uniqu1e challenges, such as inconsistent definitions, variable physiology, non-linear presentation and multi-morbidity. This scoping review sought to summarise the main challenges in providing prehospital care to older trauma patients to improve the care for this vulnerable group.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A scoping review was performed searching Google Scholar, PubMed and Medline from 2000 until 2020 for literature in English addressing the management of older trauma patients in both the prehospital arena and Emergency Department. A thematic analysis and narrative synthesis was conducted on the included 131 studies. Age-threshold was confirmed by a descriptive analysis from all included studies. The majority of the studies assessed triage and found that recognition and undertriage presented a significant challenge, with adverse effects on mortality. We identified six key challenges in the prehospital field that were summarised in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma in older people is common and challenges prehospital care providers in numerous ways that are difficult to address. Undertriage and the potential for age bias remain prevalent. In this Scoping Review, we identified and discussed six major challenges that are unique to the prehospital environment. More high-quality evidence is needed to investigate this issue further.

The effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development.

METHOD

A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69-0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10-1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37-1.55]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142842 .

Under-triage of older trauma patients in prehospital care: a systematic review

Aim

The systematic review aimed to assess the under-triage rate for older trauma patients in prehospital care and its impact on their outcomes.

Findings

Older trauma patients were significantly under-triaged in prehospital care and the benefits of triaging these patients to Tauma Centres (TCs) are still uncertain. Current triage criteria and developed geriatric-specific criteria lacked acceptable accuracy and when patients met the criteria, they had a low chance of being transported to TCs.

Message

Future worldwide research is needed to assess the following aspects: (1) the accuracy of current trauma triage criteria, (2) developing more accurate triage criteria, (3) destination compliance rates for patients meeting the triage criteria, (4) factors leading to destination non-compliance and their impact on outcomes, and (5) the benefits of TC access for older trauma patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00512-5.

Background

It is argued that many older trauma patients are under-triaged in prehospital care which may adversely affect their outcomes. This systematic review aimed to assess prehospital under-triage rates for older trauma patients, the accuracy of the triage criteria, and the impact of prehospital triage decisions on outcomes.

Methods

A computerised literature search using MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINHAL databases was conducted for studies published between 1966 and 2021 using a list of predetermined index terms and their associated alternatives. Studies which met the inclusion criteria were included and critiqued using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, narrative synthesis was used in this systematic review.

Results

Of the 280 identified studies, 23 met the inclusion criteria. Current trauma triage guidelines have poor sensitivity to identify major trauma and the need for TC care for older adults. Although modified triage tools for this population have improved sensitivity, they showed significantly decreased specificity or were not applied to all older people. The issue of low rates of TC transport for positively triaged older patients is not well understood. Furthermore, the benefits of TC treatment for older patients remain uncertain.

Conclusions

This systematic review showed that under-triage is an ongoing issue for older trauma patients in prehospital care and its impact on their outcomes is still uncertain. Further high-quality prospective research is needed to assess the accuracy of prehospital triage criteria, the factors other than the triage criteria that affect transport decisions, and the impact of under-triage on outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00512-5.

New Horizons in Understanding Appropriate Prehospital Identification and Trauma Triage for Older Adults

Caring for older people is an important part of prehospital practice, including appropriate triage and transportation decisions. However, prehospital triage criteria are designed to predominantly assess injury severity or high-energy mechanism which is not the case for older people who often have injuries compounded by multimorbidity and frailty. This has led to high rates of under-triage in this population. This narrative review aimed to assess aspects other than triage criteria to better understand and improve prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. This includes integrating frailty assessment in prehospital trauma triage, which was shown to predict adverse outcomes for older trauma patients. Furthermore, determining appropriate outcome measures and the benefits of Major Trauma Centers (MTCs) for older trauma patients should be considered in order to direct accurate and more beneficial prehospital trauma triage decisions. It is still not clear what are the appropriate outcome measures that should be applied when caring for older trauma patients. There is also no strong consensus about the benefits of MTC access for older trauma patients with regards to survival, in-hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, and complications. Moreover, looking into factors other than triage criteria such as distance to MTCs, patient or relative choice, training, unfamiliarity with protocols, and possible ageism, which were shown to impact prehospital triage decisions but their impact on outcomes has not been investigated yet, should be more actively assessed and investigated for this population. Therefore, this paper aimed to discuss the available evidence around frailty assessment in prehospital care, appropriate outcome measures for older trauma patients, the benefits of MTC access for older patients, and factors other than triage criteria that could adversely impact accurate prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. It also provided several suggestions for the future.

Obesity May Require a Higher Level of Trauma Care: A Propensity-Matched Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Stable patients with less severe injuries are not necessarily triaged to high-level trauma centers according to current guidelines. Obese patients are prone to comorbidities and complications. We hypothesized that stable obese patients with low-energy trauma have lower mortality and fewer complications if treated at Level-I/II trauma centers. Methods: Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) patients with systolic blood pressures ≥90mmHg, Glasgow coma scale ≥14, and respiratory rates at 10-29 were derived from the National Trauma Data Bank between 2013-2015. Per current triage guidelines, these patients are not necessarily triaged to high-level trauma centers. The relationship between obesity and mortality of stable BAT patients was analyzed. A subset analysis of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) <16 was performed with propensity score matching (PSM) to evaluate outcomes between Level-I/II and Level-III/IV trauma centers. Outcomes of obese patients were compared between Level-I/II and Level-III/IV trauma centers. Non-obese patients were analyzed as a control group using a similar PSM cohort analysis. Results: 48,043 stable BAT patients in 707 trauma centers were evaluated. Non-survivors had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (28.7 vs. 26.9, p < 0.001) and higher proportion of obesity (35.6% vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001) than survivors. After a PSM (1,502 obese patients: 751 in Level-I/II trauma centers and 751 in Level-III/IV trauma centers), obese patients treated in Level-I/II trauma centers had significantly lower complication rates than obese patients treated in other trauma centers (20.2% vs. 26.6%, standardized difference = 0.151). The complication rate of obese patients treated at Level-I/II trauma centers was 20.6% lower than obese patients treated at other trauma centers. Conclusion: Obesity plays a role in the mortality of stable BAT patients. Obese patients with ISS < 16 have lower complication rates at Level-I/II trauma centers compared to obese patients treated at other trauma centers. Obesity may be a consideration for triaging to Level-I/II trauma centers.

Management of multiple traumas in emergency medicine department: A review

One of the main causes of adults' disability during their working age is multiple trauma. The process of medical care of patients who are injured seriously is still a challenging job. The primary treatment of these patients in the emergency medicine departments is the most required choice after the wilderness first aid and also would be very required before definitive care in the hospital. The main aim of emergency medicine departments is quick recognition and treatment of injuries which pose severe threat to patients' life in appropriate order of priority. The procedure of primary evaluation in emergency medicine department with the help of medical routine examination and ultrasonography is based on the concept of focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) for identifying spontaneous intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Emergency patients who suffer from massive hematothorax, serious lung and heart traumas, and penetrating traumas to the chest would undergo thoracotomy and patients who have few symptoms of perforated hollow viscous will undergo emergency laparotomy. Based on the trauma severity, emergency treatment could be the way to fast recovery of the structure of injured organ and its function. The subsequent goal, in the acute phase, will concentrate on preventing and stopping bleeding and secondary injuries like painful compartment syndrome or intra-abdominal infections (IAIs). However, the main aim of emergency medicine department in taking care of severely injured patients is the management of airway, protecting circulation and breathing, identification of neurologic problems, and whole body clinical examination with the help of healthcare providers.