In-house versus on-call attending trauma surgeons at comparable level I trauma centers: a prospective study

In-House Attending Trauma Surgeon Does Not Reduce Mortality in Patients Presented to a Level 1 Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Trauma is the leading cause of death in the Western world. Trauma systems have been paramount in opposing this problem. Commonly, Level 1 Trauma Centers are staffed by in-house (IH) attending trauma surgeons available 24/7, whereas other institutions function on an on-call (OC) basis with defined response times. There is on-going debate about the value of an IH attending trauma surgeon compared to OC trauma surgeons regarding clinical outcome.

METHODS

This study was performed at a tertiary care facility complying with all requirements to be a designated Level 1 Trauma Center as defined by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT). Inclusion occurred from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013. Patients were assigned an identifier for IH trauma surgeon attendance versus OC attendance. The primary outcome variable studied was overall mortality in relation to IH or OC attending trauma surgeons. Additionally, time to operating theater, hospital length-of-stay (HLOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admittance were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,287 unique trauma cases in 1,285 patients were presented to the trauma team. Of all cases, 712 (55.3%) occurred between 1700h and 0800h. These 712 cases were treated by an IH attending in 66.3% (n = 472) and an OC attending in 33.7% (n = 240). In the group of patients treated by an IH attending trauma surgeon, the overall mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 26); in the group treated by an OC attending, the overall mortality rate was 4.6% (n = 11; P = .599). Cause of death was traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 57.6%. No significant difference was found in the time between initial presentation at the trauma room and arrival in the operating theater.

CONCLUSION

In terms of trauma-related mortality during non-office hours, no benefit was demonstrated through IH trauma surgeons compared to OC trauma surgeons.

In-house versus on-call trauma surgeon coverage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented.

CONCLUSION

A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Penetrating Abdominal Aortic Injury: Comparison of ACS-Verified Level-I and II Trauma Centers

OBJECTIVES

Penetrating abdominal aortic injury (PAAI) is a highly acute injury requiring prompt surgical management. When compared to surgeons at level-II trauma centers, surgeons at level-I trauma centers are more likely to take in-house call, and may more often be available within 15 minutes of patient arrival. Thus, we hypothesized that level-I trauma centers would have a lower mortality rate than level-II trauma centers in patients with PAAI.

METHODS

We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database for patients with PAAI, and compared patients treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified level-I centers to those treated at ACS level-II centers.

RESULTS

PAAI was identified in 292 patients treated at level-I centers and 86 patients treated at level-II centers. Patients treated at the 2 center types had similar median age, injury severity scores and prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the frequency of additional intra-abdominal vascular injuries (p > 0.05). Median time to hemorrhage control (level-I: 40.8 vs level-II: 49.2 minutes, p = 0.21) was similar between hospitals at the 2 trauma center levels. We found no difference in the total hospital length of stay or post-operative complications (p > 0.05). When controlling for covariates, we found no difference in the risk of mortality between ACS verified level-I and level-II trauma centers (OR:1.01, CI:0.28-2.64, p = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Though the majority of PAAIs are treated at level-I trauma centers, we found no difference in the time to hemorrhage control, or the risk of mortality in those treated at level-I centers when compared to those treated at level-II trauma centers. This finding reinforces the ACS-verification process, which strives to achieve similar outcomes between level-I and level-II centers.

Impact of trauma level designation on survival of patients arriving with no signs of life to US trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Trauma level designation and verification are examples of healthcare regionalization aiming at improving patient outcomes. This study examines impact of Trauma Levels on survival of patients arriving with "no signs of life" to US trauma centers.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) 2015 dataset. A descriptive followed by a bivariate analysis was done comparing variables by the trauma designation levels. A multivariate analysis assessed the effect of the trauma designation on survival to hospital discharge after controlling for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

6160 patients without signs of life were included. The average age was 40.66 years (±19.96) with male predominance (77.3%). Most patients were transported using ground ambulance (83.5%) and were taken to Level I (57%) and Level II (32.4%) centers. Blunt injuries were the most common (56.9%). Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) (38.5%) and firearm (33.8%) were the most common mechanisms of injury. Survival to hospital discharge among patients with no signs of life ranged from 13.7% at Level I to 27.9% at Level III. After adjusting for confounders, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), higher survival was noted at Level II trauma centers compared to Level I.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting without signs of life to Level II trauma centers had higher survival to hospital discharge compared to Level I and Level III centers. These findings can guide future prehospital triage criteria of trauma patients in organized Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems and highlight the need for more outcome research on trauma systems.

Severely injured patients benefit from in-house attending trauma surgeons

INTRODUCTION

There is continuous drive to optimize healthcare for the most severely injured patients. Although still under debate, a possible measure is to provide 24/7 in-house (IH) coverage by trauma surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare process-related outcomes for severely injured patients before and after transition of attendance policy from an out-of-hospital (OH) on-call attending trauma surgeon to an in-house attending trauma surgeon.

METHODS

Retrospective before-and-after study using prospectively gathered data in a Level 1 Trauma Center in the Netherlands. All trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >24 presenting to the emergency department for trauma before (2011-2012) and after (2014-2016) introduction of IH attendings were included. Primary outcome measures were the process-related outcomes Emergency Department length of stay (ED-LOS) and time to first intervention.

RESULTS

After implementation of IH trauma surgeons, ED-LOS decreased (p =  0.009). Time from the ED to the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients directly transferred to the ICU was significantly shorter with more than doubling of the percentage of patients that reached the ICU within an hour. The percentage of patients undergoing emergency surgery within 30 min nearly doubled as well, with a larger amount of patients undergoing CT imaging before emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon led to improved process-related outcomes for the most severely injured patients. There is clear benefit of continuous presence of physicians with sufficient experience in trauma care in hospitals treating large numbers of severely injured patients.

Direct Supervision in Outpatient Psychiatric Graduate Medical Education

OBJECTIVE

The authors describe a stimulus case that led training staff to examine and revise the supervision policy of the adult and child and adolescent psychiatry clinics. To inform the revisions, the authors reviewed the literature and national policies.

METHODS

The authors conducted a literature review in PubMed using the following criteria: Supervision, Residents, Training, Direct, and Indirect and a supplemental review in Academic Psychiatry. The authors reviewed institutional and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident and fellow supervision policies to develop an outpatient and fellow supervision policy.

RESULTS

Research is limited in psychiatry with three experimental articles demonstrating positive impact of direct supervision and several suggesting different techniques for direct supervision. In other areas of medicine, direct supervision is associated with improved educational and patient outcomes. The authors present details of our new supervision policy including triggers for direct supervision.

CONCLUSIONS

The term direct supervision is relatively new in psychiatry and medical education. There is little published on the extent of implementation of direct supervision and on its impact on the educational experience of psychiatry trainees and other medical specialties. Direct supervision has been associated with improved educational and patient outcomes in nonpsychiatric fields of medicine. More research is needed on the implementation of, indications for, and effects of direct supervision on trainee education and on patient outcomes.

Relationship of trauma centre characteristics and patient outcomes: a systematic review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the relationship of trauma centre characteristics and trauma patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have documented the impact of trauma centre level, trauma centre verification, volume per centre and per surgeon or resource availability on outcomes among trauma patients. However, there continues to be debated about whether trauma care is comparable by these trauma centre characteristics.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified via electronic database searches, footnote chasing and contact with clinical experts. Quality of selected studies was assessed in terms of internal and external validity using 14 questions. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and whether each met the predefined criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies which met criteria were selected. Ten of 17 articles showed that level I trauma centres had better patient outcomes than level II centres. The achievement of trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State was beneficial to decreasing mortality and length of stay in 9 of 11 studies. High trauma admission volume was beneficial in 8 of 16 studies. The volume per trauma surgeon did not contribute to better patient outcomes in 4 of 5 studies. The availability of in-house trauma surgeon was beneficial to lower mortality and shorter length of stay in only 2 of 9 studies.

CONCLUSION

This review supports that achieving the trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State is definitely beneficial to patient outcomes. However, the benefit of level I centres compared with level II centres, and volume of annual trauma patients to outcomes is still debating. Further prospective study examining this relationship is required.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Understanding which characteristics of trauma centre provides the best prospect for improved outcomes depending on patient need and resource availability would allow further appreciation of the processes that foster such enhancement.

Intraabdominal vascular injury: are we getting any better?

BACKGROUND

Intraabdominal vascular injury (IAVI) as a result of penetrating and blunt trauma carries a high mortality rate. This study was performed to compare current mortality rates with a previously reported historic control.

METHODS

The experience at our institution from 1970 to 1981 was previously reported with an overall mortality rate of 32% in 112 patients with penetrating IAVI. In a retrospective analysis, this historic cohort was compared with 248 patients with penetrating and blunt IAVI during a 138-month interval ending in June 2007.

RESULTS

Overall mortality rate was 28.6%. The most commonly injured arteries were the iliac artery, aorta, and superior mesenteric artery. The most commonly injured veins were the inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and portal vein. Injury to the aorta, IVC, and portal vein had the highest mortality rates of 67.8%, 42.1%, and 66.6%, respectively. One hundred forty-four patients with one vessel injured had a mortality rate of 18.7%, whereas those with more than one vessel injured had a mortality rate of 48.7% (p < 0.001). A total of 46% of 117 patients in shock died compared with 9.6% of 104 patients not in shock (p < 0.001). Patients with a base deficit of less than -15 had a mortality rate of 72%, whereas those with a base deficit of 0 to -15 (p < 0.001) had a mortality rate of 18.9%. There was no difference in the overall mortality rate for penetrating trauma compared with the previous study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although over 20 years have passed, no significant changes have occurred in the mortality associated with IAVI. Patients presenting in shock with IAVI continue to have a high mortality rate.

The effect of a change in the surgeon response time mandate on outcomes within Ohio level III trauma centers: it is all about commitment

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma guidelines for trauma center verification stipulate that the responsible surgeon be present within 15 minutes of the arrival of a critically injured patient. Recently, these guidelines were liberalized, extending the response time to 30 minutes in level III trauma centers. This study evaluated the potential impact of this guideline change on the delivery of care at Ohio's level III trauma centers. We hypothesized that there would be no measurable difference in the emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), ED disposition, and facility mortality after enactment of this mandate, which extended the surgeon response time from 15 minutes to 30 minutes at level III trauma centers.

METHODS

Data were collected from the trauma registries of 13 level III trauma centers in Ohio beginning 2 years before and ending 2 years after June 30, 2004, the day the response time was extended to 30 minutes. Statistical analyses were completed comparing the two groups in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics, surgeon response time, ED disposition, ED LOS, and facility mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,076 patients were treated during the 4-year period. The type of trauma, age, and Injury Severity Score were similar between the two groups. The mean (+/-SD) surgeon response times before and after the rule change were 14.8 minutes (+/-19.4 minutes) and 15.5 minutes (+/-22.3 minutes), respectively. The two groups also had similar ED LOS (mean = 2.9, median = 2.5 for both groups), rates of transfer to higher level centers (34.4% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.58), and facility mortality rates (10.0% vs. 11.2%; p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

The extension of the surgeon response time from 15 minutes to 30 minutes did not adversely affect the outcomes of trauma patients at Ohio's level III trauma centers. Furthermore, the surgeon response time was similar before and after the rule change.

Trauma Attending Physician Continuity: Does it Make a Difference?

Continuity of care is important in achieving optimal outcomes in trauma patients, but the optimal length of the trauma attending (TA) rotation is unknown. We hypothesize that longer TA rotations provide greater continuity, and therefore improve outcomes. We did a retrospective comparison of trauma patient outcomes from two consecutive 6-month periods during which we transitioned from a 1-month TA rotation to a 1-week TA rotation. The Wilcoxon rank sum test, and the χ2 were used for statistical analysis. Over the 12-month study period 1924 patients were admitted to the Trauma Service. The two groups were similar with regard to age, gender, injury mechanism, Injury Severity Score and Glasgow Coma Scale scores, and Abbreviated Injury Scores for the chest, abdomen, and extremities. Although mortality, patient charges, and violations of the standard of care were similar between the two groups, overall morbidity was lower (18.6% vs 23.2%), and hospital length of stay higher (9.07 days vs 8.41 days) in the 1-week TA group compared with the 1-month TA group. A one-week TA rotation was associated with a longer hospital length of stay, but improved morbidity. Longer TA rotations do not necessarily provide improved continuity or improved outcomes.

Let the surgeon sleep: trauma team activation for severe hypotension

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers must balance the need to bring the full resources of the trauma center to the sickest patients emphasizing a need for personnel resource allocation. Our level I academic trauma center changed the systolic blood pressure (SBP) requirement for trauma team activation (TTA) from 90 mm Hg to 80 mm Hg. This investigation was undertaken to determine the effects of such change.

METHODS

The hospital's trauma registry identified patients for two 18-month periods, pre and post the change in TTA criteria. Data elements included team activation level, emergency department length of stay, emergency department to operating room (OR) times, delay to OR, and Injury Severity Score.

RESULTS

Full TTA decreased as did the percentage of cases with TTA. Eleven patients were identified in the SBP <80 mm Hg group who would have had TTA before the change. All 11 had timely trauma surgery consults. No delays to OR were related to TTA. The percentage of cases with laparotomy occurring >2 hours after arrival was unchanged. One hundred ninety fewer TTA were called in an 18-month period. Inpatient mortality between the two groups was not significantly changed.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing criteria for TTA from SBP 90 mm Hg to <80 mm Hg preserves personnel without patient harm. Lowering the SBP for TTA is one method of preserving trauma surgery manpower.

Financial impact of in-house attending surgeon: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Current work hour restrictions have required some programs to have staff surgeons cover in-house call. Other programs have considered in-house staff coverage at night for the billable tasks performed during these hours. However, there have been no data published describing the load or value of work that an in-house team performs at night. Therefore, we prospectively recorded tasks performed in a pediatric surgery training center after staff had left for the night.

METHODS

Between April 2005 and March 2006, all services rendered from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM that would require staff presence were prospectively recorded by a pediatric surgical fellow on-call. Tasks performed while staff was in the hospital were excluded. Time of service was recorded and assigned to an hour of the night. Billing codes were identified for each task, and relative value units were assigned. The collectable amount for services was calculated using 2006 Medicare reimbursement. Data were analyzed in functional blocks (6:00-10:00 PM, 10:00 PM-4:00 AM, and 4:00-6:00 AM).

RESULTS

Data from 111 call nights were collected over the year. Attending staff was in-house 10 of those nights. Of the remaining 101 nights, peak hour of activity was from 12:00 AM to 1:00 AM (35 nights). In the 10:00 PM to 4:00 AM time block, service was rendered 80 nights considering all activity, 68 nights if trauma/burns were excluded, and 45 nights excluding trauma/burns and nonoperative admissions. The sum collectable for all overnight services for the year was $25,855.

CONCLUSION

The in-house resident team performs tasks through the middle of the night on most nights. However, billable revenue generated by these tasks is very small compared with revenue generated from the normal operative schedule.

Availability of trauma specialists in level I and II trauma centers: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Despite American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma's criteria, little data exists about the variability of practices in both the composition of trauma teams and timing of specialist availability across trauma centers. The purpose of the study was to determine the availability of trauma team personnel in Level I and II trauma centers across the United States.

METHODS

Two surveys were developed and mailed to trauma directors and coordinators in 450 centers. Responses were received from 254 directors (56%) and 218 coordinators (48%). The director survey was designed to collect data on trauma team composition and timeliness in response to a hypothetical scenario. The coordinator survey was designed to collect data on trauma center characteristics and general availability of trauma specialists.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of Level I and II centers had trauma surgeons available within 15 minutes of and 37% at patient admission. The in-house (IH) centers (60%) had a trauma surgeon at patient admission significantly more than on-call centers did (22%). The specialty surgeons, such as neurosurgeons (73%) and orthopedic surgeons (75%), were mostly available through the on-call system. An IH system, high volumes of trauma patients, and designation by American College of Surgeons were significantly associated with higher likelihood of trauma surgeons physically present at the bedside within 15 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a large variation in the availability of expertise at or shortly after a trauma admission. For centers with low patient volume, early triage, better notification systems based on advanced telecommunication technology, and compensation for IH call may be a solution to better use the trauma surgical specialties.

Trauma team activation and the impact on mortality

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers use injury mechanism, physiology, and anatomic criteria to determine the extent of trauma team activation (TTA). We examined whether physiologic variables in our three-tier TTA system stratified patients appropriately by injury severity and mortality.

METHODS

The trauma registry at our Level I trauma center was retrospectively reviewed for full (level 1 or L1), partial (level 2 or L2), and limited (level 3) adult TTA. Data were collected on age, injury severity score (ISS), hospital length of stay, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, respiratory rate (RR), Glasgow coma score (GCS), and intubation status. Penetrating injuries, traumatic arrests, and interfacility transfers were excluded. Data are median (25%75%). Statistical analysis included hazard ratios (HzR), Kruskal-Wallis, chi, and survival analyses. The p value overall was <0.05, and pair wise was <0.05 versus L1.

RESULTS

There were 494 adult TTAs for blunt injury from the scene out of 1,969 admissions. Variables associated with mortality (HzR; 95% confidence interval) by univariate analysis include SBP <90 (9.4; 4.2, 21.2), RR >29 or <10 (17.8; 4.8, 66.0), intubation status (4.5; 2.3, 8.9), and GCS <8 (9.7; 4.8, 19.9). When combined in a multivariate model to evaluate multiple predictors simultaneously, SBP <90 and GCS <8 appear to be the strongest predictors of mortality (RR and intubation were not significant in the presence of SBP and GCS). The three-tier system identified patients with increased ISS and early (< or =4 weeks) mortality risk. There was a statistically significant difference in survival between L1 and L2 at 38 days, but not for >38 days (p = 0.739).

CONCLUSIONS

TTA criteria selected patients with greater ISS and early mortality, but impact on long-term survival may not be appreciated. Full TTA criteria for blunt injury may be limited to GCS <8, SBP <90, RR >29 or <10, and intubation status.

Asistencia al paciente politraumatizado. Realidad actual desde la perspectiva de las unidades de cuidados intensivos

OBJECTIVE

To study the epidemiology and management of pediatric trauma patients as well as the organizational, human and technical resources dedicated to these children from the perspective of the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A standardized data collection form was sent to 43 PICUs in Spain. Items inquired about the existence of training courses, trauma clinical practice guidelines and trauma registers, and which physician was in charge of trauma patients. Data on casuistics, the age of trauma patients, and the availability of human and technical resources, were also recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-four PICUs completed the questionnaire. The PICU physician was responsible for trauma patient care in 66% of the hospitals. No training courses were available in 59% of the hospitals. No trauma register was available in 62% of the hospitals. Trauma patients represented 11% of PICU admissions, and most patients were aged up to 14 years old. An anesthetist was always at the hospital in 100% of the hospitals. A radiologist and traumatologist were always at the hospital in 91%, a neurosurgeon in 66% and a pediatric surgeon in 50%. The remaining surgical and medical specialties were on call. Continuous intracranial pressure monitoring was available in 87% of the PICUs, jugular venous saturation monitoring in 54% and continuous electroencephalogram and transcranial Doppler ultrasound in 50%. Computed tomography and ultrasound were available at all times in all hospitals. Magnetic nuclear resonance and echocardiography were available at all times in 44% of the hospitals, and arteriography in 42%.

CONCLUSION

In Spain, the organization of pediatric trauma management is based on pediatric teams under the supervision of a PICU physician. Some hospitals show a lack of technical and human resources. Therefore, the minimum criteria required to consider a hospital as a pediatric trauma center should be established. Trauma training courses are required.

Optimizing physician staffing and resource allocation: sine-wave variation in hourly trauma admission volume

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers are faced with the challenge of managing an increasing volume of patients in an era of fewer trauma care providers and fewer hospitals providing trauma care. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between hourly admission volume, injury severity, resource utilization, and outcomes.

METHODS

All patients in the National Trauma Data Bank admitted between 1999 and 2002 were selected. Analysis included demographics, temporal information, injury severity, and outcome parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 421,997 patients were admitted to participating centers. The 24-hour admission distribution described a sine-wave pattern with a trough at 6:00 am and a peak at 7:00 pm. The sine-wave pattern persisted regardless of the subgroup analyzed. Patients admitted between 12:00 am and 6:00 am were more likely to be severely injured, require intensive care unit admission, undergo emergent operation, and die during hospitalization when compared with patients admitted between 7:00 am and 12:00 pm.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma admissions conform to a sine-wave pattern with a 3.5-fold increase in admissions between morning and evening hours. This has significant implications for manpower and resource allocation with additional resources needed in the hours around 7:00 pm and later. Educational and administrative activities are best scheduled during low-volume morning hours. Nighttime admissions are higher risk and thus more likely to need senior-level expertise and consume hospital resources. Trauma centers should use these findings to improve outcomes by developing optimal staffing patterns and matching resource allocation to need as a function of time.

“Shift Work” Improves Survival and Reduces Intensive Care Unit Use in Seriously Injured Patients

We assessed whether a trauma service model with an emphasis on continuity of care by using “shift work” will improve trauma outcomes and cost. This was a case-control cohort study that took place at a university-affiliated Level I trauma center. All patients (n = 4283) evaluated for traumatic injuries between May 1, 2002 and April 30, 2004 were included. During Period I (May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003), a rotating off-service team provided initial management between 5:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The “day team” provided all other care and was responsible for continuity of care. In Period II (May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004), a dedicated trauma service consisting of two resident teams evaluated all injured patients. Variables included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation requirements, hospital mortality, and hospital care costs. Demographics and injury mechanism for both periods were similar, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) in Period II was greater (ISS, 8.2% vs 7.2%, P < 0.0001; ISS > 15, 18.5% vs 15.4%). In the more severely injured (ISS > 15), patients in Period II had shorter hospital LOS (8.6 vs 9.7 days, P = 0.98), a shorter ICU LOS (5.5 vs 7.7 days, P = 0.039), shorter mechanical ventilator requirements (5.5 vs 7.7 days, P = 0.32), improved hospital mortality rate (19.9% vs 26.8%, P = 0.029), and decreased hospital costs ($19,146 vs $21,274, P = 0.36). On multivariate analysis, factors affecting mortality and LOS included age, initial vital signs, injury type, and ISS. Overall, the two trauma service models resulted in similar outcomes. Although multivariate analysis revealed that treatment period did not affect mortality, our study revealed improved patient survival and reduction in LOS and cost for the severely injured in Period II.

Is There Evidence to Support the Need for Routine Surgeon Presence on Trauma Patient Arrival?

The trauma center certification requirements of the American College of Surgeons include the expectation that, whenever possible, general surgeons be routinely present at the emergency department arrival of seriously injured patients. The 2 historical factors that originally prompted this requirement, frequent exploratory laparotomies and emergency physicians without trauma training, no longer exist in most modern trauma centers. Research from multiple centers and in multiple varying formats has not identified improvement in patient-oriented outcomes from early surgeon involvement. Surgeons are not routinely present during the resuscitative phase of Canadian and European trauma care, with no demonstrated or perceived decrease in the quality of care. American trauma surgeons themselves do not consistently believe that their use in this capacity is either necessary or an efficient distribution of resources. There is not compelling evidence to support the assumption that trauma outcomes are improved by the routine presence of surgeons on patient arrival. Research is necessary to clarify which trauma patients require either emergency or urgent unique expertise of a general surgeon during the initial phase of trauma management. Individual trauma centers should be permitted the flexibility necessary to perform such research and to use such findings to refine and focus their secondary triage criteria.

In-house trauma attendings: is there a difference?

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes of patients who met trauma activation criteria were examined before and after implementation of in-house attending call.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes for the out-of-house period (OH) (February 1, 2001 to October 31, 2002) were compared with the in-house period (IH) (November 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004). Measures included overall mortality, length of stay (LOS) in the hospital, intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department, and preventable deaths.

RESULTS

A total of 2,019 trauma activations were studied (1,036 OH, 983 IH). The groups were equivalent on admission. There was no difference in hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ventilator days, or overall mortality. Preventable deaths occurred in 8.1% of the OH group and in 1.0% of the IH group (P < .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregate statistics and the use of surrogate markers to determine outcomes may not accurately portray the impact of attending surgeons on the quality of care. Implementation of in-house call resulted in a decreased incidence of preventable deaths.

The association between trauma system and trauma center components and outcome in a mature regionalized trauma system

BACKGROUND

Regionalized trauma systems have been shown repeatedly to improve the outcome of seriously injured patients. However, we do not have data regarding which components of these systems have the most impact on outcome and to what degree. The objective of this study was to understand the association between various components that make up a trauma system and outcome.

METHODS

Surveys were administered to trauma directors at 59 hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. Data from the surveys were then linked with specific outcome variables obtained from a regionalized trauma database. Specific outcomes were assigned to trauma system- and in-hospital-based components after controlling for injury severity.

RESULTS

Over 4.8 years, 72,073 patients met inclusion criteria. Components found to affect survival after risk adjustment were prehospital notification (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) and the presence of a performance improvement program in that hospital (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94). Increased patient volume was associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). Tertiary trauma centers were also associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with both secondary and primary centers (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in outcome in a regionalized trauma system are secondary to a combination of elements, as well as to the interplay of these elements on each other. Prehospital notification protocols and performance improvement programs appear to be most associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of death.

Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether head-injured patients transferred to level I trauma centers have reduced mortality relative to transfers to level II trauma centers.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

Retrospective cohort study of 542 patients with head injury who initially presented to 1 of 31 rural trauma centers in Oregon and Washington, and were transferred from the emergency department to 1 of 15 level I or level II trauma centers, between 1991 and 1994.

STUDY DESIGN

A bivariate probit, instrumental variables model was used to estimate the effect of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers on 30-day postdischarge mortality. Independent variables included age, gender, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), other indicators of injury severity, and a dichotomous variable indicating transfer to a level I trauma center. The differential distance between the nearest level I and level II trauma centers was used as an instrument.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Patients transferred to level I trauma centers differ in unmeasured ways from patients transferred to level II trauma centers, biasing estimates based on standard statistical methods. Transfer to a level I trauma center reduced absolute mortality risk by 10.1% (95% confidence interval 0.3%, 22.2%) compared with transfer to level II trauma centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe head injuries transferred from rural trauma centers to level I centers are likely to have improved survival relative to transfer to level II centers.

[Personnel and structural requirements for the shock trauma room management of multiple trauma. A systematic review of the literature]

The aim of the study was the description of personal and structural preconditions essential for adequate diagnostic requirements and treatment in severely injured patients. Herein we give detailed information regarding both the composition and qualification of the trauma team and the activation criteria as well as instructions for the design of the emergency room and technical requirements. Clinical trials were systematically collected (MEDLINE, Cochrane, and hand searches) and classified into evidence levels (1 to 5 according to the Oxford system). The trauma team should consist of (trauma) surgeons, anesthesiologists, radiologists, and one to two nursing staff members of each department. The attending physician should be present within 20 min. Trauma team activation criteria are among others: high energy/velocity trauma, penetrating injuries, GCS < or =14, and intubation. The emergency room should be integrated in the emergency department with all technical equipment being permanently available for optimal diagnostic and therapeutic management. A CT scanner should be positioned nearby.Adequate management of severely injured patients requires optimal personal and structural conditions. High costs and additional personnel are justified by improved quality of treatment.

Intubation Alone Does Not Mandate Trauma Surgeon Presence on Patient Arrival to the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Current American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma criteria for major resuscitation include prehospital respiratory compromise or obstruction and/or intubation and mandate an attending trauma surgeon's presence on patient's arrival to the emergency department (ED). A substantial number of trauma patients arrive intubated, with no other physiologic compromise. We hypothesized that field or ED intubation in the absence of other major criteria does not require trauma surgeon presence on patient arrival.

METHODS

Data were collected from our trauma registry on all injured patients intubated in the field or on arrival to the ED over a 30-month period ending in June 2003. Patients meeting other American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma criteria (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg; gunshot wound to the neck, chest, or abdomen; and unstable patient transfers) were excluded.

RESULTS

During this period, 7,645 trauma patients were admitted to the ED; 834 were intubated, of whom 489 (59%) had no other criteria for major resuscitation. One was pronounced dead, 6 were admitted to the ward, 415 (85%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 67 (14%) were transferred directly to the operating room. Twenty-two (4%) required nonorthopedic or nonneurosurgical procedures, 11 (2%) of which were for hemorrhage control. Twelve of 16 stab wounds (75%) required emergent operation, 7 (44%) of which were for hemorrhage control. In contrast, 8 (3%) of 244 motor vehicle crashes required emergent operation, 4 (2%) of which were for hemorrhage control.

CONCLUSION

Intubated patients with central stab wounds represent a high-risk group and should mandate trauma surgeon presence on patient arrival. Excluding stab wounds, field or ED intubation alone rarely requires emergent surgical decision-making. Therefore, field or ED intubation alone should not mandate trauma surgeon presence on patient arrival.

The presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons does not improve management or outcome of critically injured patients

BACKGROUND

The presence of a surgeon at the initial assessment and care of the trauma patient has been the focal point of trauma center designation. However, for Level I verification, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma currently does not require the presence of an attending trauma surgeon in the hospital (IH), provided senior surgical residents are immediately available. Likewise, the state of Missouri does not mandate an IH presence of the attending trauma surgeon but requires senior (postgraduate year 4 or 5) level surgical residents to immediately respond, with a 20-minute response time mandated for the attending surgeon if IH or out of the hospital (OH). Nevertheless, some claim that IH coverage by attending surgeons provides better care for seriously injured patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed patient care parameters over the past 10 years on critically injured patients to detect any difference in outcome whether the surgeon was IH or OH at the time of the trauma team activation (cardiopulmonary instability, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score < 9, penetrating truncal injury). Patients were subcategorized into blunt/penetrating, shock (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) on arrival, GCS score < 9, Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, or ISS > 25. Response was examined from 8 am to 6 pm weekdays (IH) or 6 pm to 8 am weekdays and all weekends (OH). Patient care parameters examined were mortality, complications, time in the emergency department, time to the operating room, time to computed tomographic scanning, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS.

RESULTS

For all patients (n = 766), there was no significant difference in any parameters except intensive care unit LOS (IH, 4.90 +/- 7.96 days; OH, 3.58 +/- 7.69 days; p < 0.05). For blunt trauma (n = 369), emergency department time was shorter (99.71 +/- 88.26 minutes vs. 126.51 +/- 96.68 minutes, p < 0.01) and hospital LOS was shorter (8.04 +/- 1.02 days vs. 11.08 +/- 1.15 days, p < 0.05) for OH response. For penetrating trauma (n = 377), shock (n = 187), GCS score < 9 (n = 248), ISS > 15 (n = 363), and ISS > 25 (n = 230), there were no statistically significant differences in any patient care parameter between IH and OH response. For those in most need of urgent operation-penetrating injuries and shock-there were no differences in time to operating room or mortality for OH or IH response.

CONCLUSION

As long as initial assessment and care is provided by senior level IH surgical residents and as long as the attending surgeon responds in a defined period of time (if OH) to guide critical decision-making, the IH presence of an attending surgeon has not been shown in this retrospective study to improve care of the critically injured patient.

Quality of multiple trauma care in 33 German and Swiss trauma centers during a 5-year period: regular versus on-call service

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate process and outcome quality of severely injured patients admitted during on-call (OC) versus regular trauma service (RS).

METHODS

This was a prospective and multicentric analysis of the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society. Patients were evaluated if directly admitted from the scene of accident with an Injury Severity Score of > 15 and if alive on arrival at the emergency department.

RESULTS

Seventy percent of patients were admitted during OC; these patients were significantly younger. Blunt trauma predominated, with a 95% incidence. Falls from great heights were significantly more frequent during RS, whereas motor vehicle crashes predominated during OC. No differences were found for emergency department management (e.g., time to abdominal ultrasound, chest radiograph, or cranial computed tomography). However, time to admission to the intensive care unit was substantially longer during RS. No significant differences were found for outcome parameters such as length of intensive care unit stay, hospitalization time, incidence of organ failure, or mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a constant quality of care provided 24 hours per day, 7 days per week in the participating hospitals. Differences within individual trauma centers were not compared and need to be assessed by internal quality management.

In-house trauma surgeons do not decrease mortality in a level I trauma center

BACKGROUND

The value of an in-house trauma surgeon is debated. Previous studies focus on comparing in-house and on-call surgeons at different institutions or different periods in time. The purpose of this study was to simultaneously evaluate in-house and on-call trauma surgeons in a single Level I trauma center and to determine the impact of in-house trauma surgeons on the mortality of severely injured patients.

METHODS

All records were reviewed for patients classified as major resuscitations from July 1997 through November 1999. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality on the basis of trauma surgeon status (in-house vs. on-call) and response time, while controlling for Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Revised Trauma Score.

RESULTS

Of the 4,278 admissions, 537 were trauma codes. Mean ISS was 20.16 +/- 11.59. There was no difference between groups admitted by in-house surgeons versus on-call surgeons with respect to ISS or Revised Trauma Score. Mortality for the group was 24.8% (133 of 537); no statistical difference existed between observed and expected mortality by TRISS. The average response time was 3.96 minutes for the in-house group and 14.70 minutes for the on-call group (p < 0.001). Neither the call status nor the response time of the trauma surgeon significantly decreased emergency department or hospital mortality. There was a trend for improved outcome in those patients cared for by an in-house surgeon who were upgraded to a code, transferred into the institution, admitted during the night, or neurologically impaired. This trend did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

When the trauma surgeon was rapidly available (< 15 minutes), there was no difference in emergency department or hospital mortality between in-house and on-call trauma surgeons. Selected subgroups of severely injured patients may benefit from an in-house trauma surgeon. If trauma surgeons are not readily available in an institution, an in-house call policy may be necessary for the prompt resuscitation of critically ill patients.

Validation of new trauma triage rules for trauma attending response to the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma has suggested triage criteria for the immediate attendance of a trauma surgeon to an injured patient in the emergency department. This study validates the accuracy of these criteria in identifying high-risk trauma patients and assesses the impact of trauma surgeon response time.

METHODS

A study group of trauma patients with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mm Hg, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 8, airway compromise managed with endotracheal intubation (ETI) or surgical airway, or gunshot wound (GSW) to the neck or torso were compared with a control group of patients meeting none of these criteria. Outcome measurements included Injury Severity Score (ISS), duration of hospitalization (length of stay [LOS]), intensive care unit (ICU) days, direct transfer to the ICU or operating room, and mortality. For the study group, trauma surgeon response times, < or = 15 minutes and > 15 minutes, were compared for age, ISS, LOS, ICU days, mortality, and direct transfer to the ICU or operating room. Statistical analysis was performed using the t test and the Yates-corrected chi(2) test (p < 0.05), with odds ratios calculated on the basis of trauma activation criteria and outcome measures. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the relation between the independent variables SBP, GCS, ETI, and GSW with direct transfer to the ICU or operating room and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 4,910 patients were identified, including 791 study group patients. The mean ISS, LOS, ICU days, and mortality were significantly higher in the study group (p < 0.01). Odds ratios of the study group for direct transfer to the ICU or operating room were 91 and 2 for ETI, 23 and 1.4 for GCS score < 8, 8 and 2.2 for GSW, and 7 and 1.6 for SBP < 90 mm Hg, respectively. The odds ratios for mortality were 39 for ETI, 104 for GCS score < 8, 12 for GSW, and 74 for SBP < 90 mm Hg. Regression analysis demonstrated that GSW, SBP < 90 mm Hg, and ETI predicted ICU admission; GSW, SBP < 90 mm Hg, and ETI predicted operative intervention; and GCS score < 8, SBP < 90 mm Hg, and ETI were associated with mortality. Trauma surgeon response times were available for 658 (83%) of the study group patients. No significant differences were found between the two response groups.

CONCLUSION

Trauma patients meeting the triage criteria proposed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma have more severe injuries, a higher mortality rate, and longer hospital and ICU stays than control patients. SBP < 90 mm Hg, ETI, and GSW are predictive of urgent operating room use and ICU admission. A significantly higher mortality rate is associated with SBP < 90 mm Hg, ETI, and GCS score < 8. Incorporating these criteria into trauma center triage rules to identify high-risk injured patients is warranted. However, trauma surgeon response time < or = 15 minutes was not associated with improved patient outcome, and optimal response time remains uncertain.

Impact of discontinuing a hospital-based air ambulance service on trauma patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of aeromedical transportation of injured patients in the civilian population has been debated. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of discontinuing a hospital-based helicopter transport program on trauma patient outcomes, with the hypothesis that the loss of an air ambulance would result in increased transport time and increased mortality among severely injured patients.

METHODS

Data on injury severity and patient outcomes were collected prospectively for the 12 months immediately preceding and 24 months following discontinuation of the helicopter ambulance service. Transport time, mortality rate, and hospital length of stay was compared.

RESULTS

The number of trauma patient admissions decreased 12%, with a 17% decrease in admissions of severely injured patients. Transport time decreased, with no change in mortality.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation of a hospital-based air ambulance service did not increase transport time or increase mortality for trauma patients.

Trauma Attending in the Resuscitation Room: Does it Affect Outcome?

Although there are no Class I data supporting the regionalization of trauma care the consensus is that trauma centers decrease morbidity and mortality. However, the controversy continues over whether trauma surgeons should be in-house or take call from home. The current literature does not answer the question because in all of the recent studies the attendings who took call from home were in the resuscitation room guiding the care. We believe the correct question is: Does the presence of the trauma attending in the resuscitation room make a difference? At a university-affiliated Level II trauma center data from the trauma registry, resuscitation room flowsheet, and dictated admission notes were reviewed on all patients over a 6-month period. Data points were: attending present in the resuscitation room, standard demographics, resuscitation room time, time to operating room (OR), time to CT scan, length of stay, complications, and mortality. A total of 943 patients were studied with 216 (23%) having the attending present in the resuscitation room and 727 (77%) without the attending present. The groups were similar in terms of age, sex, Injury Severity Score, percentage Injury Severity Score greater than 15 (16–17.1%), and mechanism of injury (24–29% penetrating). Of all the data points studied only time to the OR had a statistically significance difference ( P < 0.05) with it taking 43.8 minutes (±20.1) when the attending was present and 109.4 minutes (±107) when the attending was absent. There were also no missed injuries, delays to the OR, or inappropriate workups when the attendings were present. Only the time to the OR reached statistical significance. The time to the OR is indicative of the decisionmaking process in the resuscitation room, and it is in this area that the attendings’ presence is the most useful. Also, we believe that it is important that there were no missed injuries, delays to the OR, or inappropriate workups when the attendings were present in the resuscitation room. This again speaks to the decision-making process. We believe that these data support the need for the attending to be present in the resuscitation room to facilitate accurate and timely decisions regardless of whether they take the call from home or in-house.