Effectiveness of state trauma systems in reducing injury-related mortality: a national evaluation

The State of the Union: Trauma System Development in the United States

Injury is both a national and international epidemic that affects people of all age, race, religion, and socioeconomic class. Injury was the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (U.S.) in 2021 and results in an incalculable emotional and financial burden on our society. Despite this, when prevention fails, trauma centers allow communities to prepare to care for the traumatically injured patient. Using lessons learned from the military, trauma care has grown more sophisticated in the last 50 years. In 1966, the first civilian trauma center was established, bringing management of injury into the new age. Now, the American College of Surgeons recognizes 4 levels of trauma centers (I-IV), with select states recognizing Level V trauma centers. The introduction of trauma centers in the U.S. has been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality for the injured patient. However, despite the proven benefits of trauma centers, the U.S. lacks a single, unified, trauma system and instead operates within a "system of systems" creating vast disparities in the level of care that can be received, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In this review we present the history of trauma system development in the U.S, define the different levels of trauma centers, present evidence that trauma systems and trauma centers improve outcomes, outline the current state of trauma system development in the U.S, and briefly mention some of the current challenges and opportunities in trauma system development in the U.S. today.

Identification of major trauma using the simplified abbreviated injury scale to estimate the injury severity score: a diagnostic accuracy and validation study

BACKGROUND

The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) grade the severity of injuries and are useful for trauma audit and benchmarking. However, AIS coding is complex and requires specifically trained staff. A simple yet reliable scoring system is needed. The aim of this study was two-fold. First, to develop and validate a simplified AIS (sAIS) chart centred on the most frequent injuries for use by non-trained healthcare professionals. Second, to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the sAIS (index test) to calculate the simplified ISS (sISS) to identify major trauma, compared with the reference AIS (rAIS) to calculate the reference ISS (rISS).

METHODS

This retrospective study used data (2013-2014) from the Northern French Alps Trauma Registry to develop and internally validate the sAIS. External validation was performed with data from the Trauma Registry of Acute Care of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland (2019-2021). Both datasets comprised a random sample of 100 injured patients. Following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2015 guidelines, all patients completed the rAIS and the sAIS. The sISS and the rISS were calculated using the sAIS and the rAIS, respectively. Accuracy was evaluated with the mean difference between the sISS and the rISS and the Pearson correlation coefficient. A clinically relevant equivalence limit was set at ± 4 ISS points. Precision was analyzed using Bland-Altmann plots with 95% limits of agreement.

RESULTS

Accuracy was good. The mean ISS difference of 0.97 (95% CI, -0.03 to 1.97) in the internal validation dataset and - 1.77 (95% CI, - 3.04 to 0.50) in the external validation dataset remained within the equivalence limit. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.93 in the internal validation dataset (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) and 0.82 in the external validation dataset (95% CI, 0.75-0.88). The limits of agreement were wider than the predetermined relevant range.

CONCLUSIONS

The sAIS is accurate, but slightly imprecise in calculating the ISS. The development of this scale increases the possibilities to use a scoring system for severely injured patients in settings with a reduced availability of the AIS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered.

The differences in injury patterns and outcomes of thoracic trauma between rural and urban level two trauma centers in a single country

PURPOSE

Equal level trauma centers in the same country might have significant differences regarding their demographics and types of trauma. Understanding geographic variations in injury patterns are essential for optimal care. Here we describe the differences in injury patterns and associated outcomes of thoracic trauma patients between rural and urban level-II trauma centers in a single country.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of patients with thoracic trauma over a three-year period in a rural level-II and an urban level-II in Israel were compared. Demographics, mechanism of injury, prehospital care, transport, hospitalization course, discharge disposition, and outcomes were all analyzed.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the demography, mechanisms of injury, and sustained injuries. The urban population was older, with more pedestrians hit by motor vehicles, falls from standing or sitting, and penetrating injuries. The rural population suffered from more motor vehicle crashes and falls from heights, with injuries related to higher velocity mechanisms such as lung contusions, sternal fractures, and liver injuries. There was no significant difference in transportation time or injury severity scores. More advanced life support ambulances were utilized in the rural setting together with more transfers to a higher level of care, while more patients in the urban center were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the differences between geographic locations is crucial towards optimizing trauma care. The complexities of thoracic trauma patients are an important example of the variations between rural and urban trauma centers. Respecting these differences will help to improve preparedness and treatment for trauma patients.

Injuries Among Pediatric Age Group Children Attending the Emergency Department of Maternity and Children Hospital, Buraidah City

Background Pediatric age group injuries is one of the burdens on a nation's GDP and parents' income and productivity. Multiple factors cause such injuries, and some of them can be prevented by simple care from the parents and their knowledge and practice at the time of injury. This study aims to determine the prevalence of injuries and associations between demographic factors and other risk factors with the type of injuries and severity of injuries. Methodology A cross-sectional study was conducted among 391 parents of the pediatric age group children (0-14 years) at the Maternity and Children Hospital's emergency department using a validated questionnaire, a combination of interviews, and a self-administered questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained from each parent participant. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS software version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results The average age of injured children was five years with a standard deviation of 3.13 years, and 64.5% (n = 252) were males. About 76.5% (n = 299) of injuries occurred at home and 14.1% (n=55) required hospital admission. Around 91.3% (n = 357) of children recovered, while 8.4% (n = 33) received alternative care. Approximately 81.3% (n = 318) of parents were unaware of basic life support (BLS). Among the children, 9.4% (n = 25) of those under five years had burns compared to 3.2% (n = 4) of those over five years, with a statistically significant association between age and burns (p < 0.05). Conclusions Based on the study findings, three-fourths of pediatric injuries occurred at home, of which more than 90% of injuries recovered. Still, in one-tenth of injuries, parents opted for alternative care, and more than 80% were unaware of BLS. This study recommends that health administrators and policymakers create awareness regarding BLS training for the general population along with the importance of alternative care in injuries.

Synthesizing the Evidence Base to Enhance Coordination between Humanitarian Mine Action and Emergency Care for Casualties of Explosive Ordnance and Explosive Weapons: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Humanitarian mine action (HMA) stakeholders have an organized presence with well-resourced medical capability in many conflict and post-conflict settings. Humanitarian mine action has the potential to positively augment local trauma care capacity for civilian casualties of explosive ordnance (EO) and explosive weapons (EWs). Yet at present, few strategies exist for coordinated engagement between HMA and the health sector to support emergency care system strengthening to improve outcomes among EO/EW casualties.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted to identify records that described trauma care interventions pertinent to civilian casualties of EO/EW in resource-constrained settings using structured searches of indexed databases and grey literature. A 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) review on trauma systems components in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) was updated with additional eligible reports describing trauma care interventions in LMICs or among civilian casualties of EO/EWs after 2001.

RESULTS

A total of 14,195 non-duplicative records were retrieved, of which 48 reports met eligibility criteria. Seventy-four reports from the 2017 WHO review and 16 reports identified from reference lists yielded 138 reports describing interventions in 47 countries. Intervention efficacy was assessed using heterogenous measures ranging from trainee satisfaction to patient outcomes; only 39 reported mortality differences. Interventions that could feasibly be supported by HMA stakeholders were synthesized into a bundle of opportunities for HMA engagement designated links in a Civilian Casualty Care Chain (C-CCC).

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified trauma care interventions with the potential to reduce mortality and disability among civilian EO/EW casualties that could be feasibly supported by HMA stakeholders. In partnership with local and multi-lateral health authorities, HMA can leverage their medical capabilities and expertise to strengthen emergency care capacity to improve trauma outcomes in settings affected by EO/EWs.

Health service use in major trauma survivors: A population-based cohort study from Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how major trauma survivors access health services in the years following their injury. Our study sought to characterize patterns of health services use in trauma survivors following discharge from a provincial trauma center and to identify sociodemographic factors associated with service utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective case-control study using linked administrative data on trauma survivors' population-based controls between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2021. For each major trauma survivor, we matched four cases based on age and sex. The primary outcome was the composite rate (sum) of health service use episodes including outpatient visits to family physicians and specialists, emergency department visits, and acute care hospital admissions during the 5-year period following discharge from the trauma center. We used multivariate regression to compute rate ratios comparing the rates of health service use in trauma survivors versus controls and to assess for associations between sociodemographic variables and health services use.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of a total of 273,406 individuals: 55,060 trauma survivors and 218,346 controls. Trauma survivors were predominately males (71%) with a median age of 46 years (interquartile range, 26-65 years). Health service use in trauma survivors peaked within a year of hospital discharge but remained increased throughout the follow-up period. Trauma survivorship was associated with a 56% increase in overall health services use (adjusted rate ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-1.57), including an 88% increase in hospital admissions (adjusted rate ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-1.92). Male sex and rural residence were associated with a reduced overall use of health services but greater use of emergency department services.

CONCLUSION

Major trauma survivors have long-term health services needs that persist for years after discharge from the trauma center. Future research should focus on the understanding why trauma survivors have prolonged health services requirements and ensure that care needs are aligned with service delivery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Costs of Transfer From Nontrauma to Trauma Centers Among Patients With Minor Injuries

Importance

Nearly half the patients transferred from nontrauma centers to trauma centers have minor injuries, yet trauma center care is not associated with a difference in morality among patients with minor injuries. Consequently, reducing the frequency of such transfers has been postulated as a method to improve resource allocation. Currently, the economic implications of these transfers are not well understood.

Objective

To estimate health care costs associated with the transfer of patients with minor injuries from nontrauma to trauma centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Participants included individuals aged 16 years or older who were transferred to a trauma center after presenting to a nontrauma center with a minor injury (survival >24 hours, Injury Severity Score [ISS] <16, and absence of an American College of Surgeons-defined critical injury). Statistical analysis was conducted from March 2022 to June 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was total health care costs within 30 days of injury, standardized to 2015 Canadian dollars (CAD$). Propensity scoring was used to match transferred patients with controls admitted to nontrauma centers. Negative binomial models were used to estimate differences in costs between transferred patients and matched controls.

Results

Of the 14 557 patients with minor injuries transferred to a trauma center (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [20.9] years; 5367 female patients [36.9%]; median ISS, 4 [IQR, 2-5]), 12 652 (86.9%) were matched with a control. Thirty days after injury, mean health care costs among transferred patients were CAD$13 540 (95% CI, CAD$13 319-CAD$13 765), a 6.5% (95% CI, 4.4%-8.5%) increase relative to controls (CAD$12 719 [95% CI, CAD$12 582-CAD$12 857]). Half the transferred patients (54.9% [7994 of 14 557]) were admitted, while the remainder were discharged after evaluation in the trauma center emergency department. Among patients admitted to a trauma center, mean 30-day costs were CAD$19 602 (95% CI, CAD$19 294-CAD$19 915), a 54.6% (95% CI, 51.5%-57.8%) increase relative to controls.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of patients with minor injuries transferred from nontrauma centers to trauma centers found that the transfer of these patients was associated with increased costs to the health care system. Given the high prevalence of such transfers, these findings suggest that the development of systems to support the care of patients with minor injuries at their local hospitals is essential to the sustainability of trauma systems.

Unsupervised clustering analysis of trauma/non-trauma centers using hospital features including surgical care

BACKGROUND

Injuries are a leading cause of death in the United States. Trauma systems aim to ensure all injured patients receive appropriate care. Hospitals that participate in a trauma system, trauma centers (TCs), are designated with different levels according to guidelines that dictate access to medical and research resources but not specific surgical care. This study aimed to identify patterns of injury care that distinguish different TCs and hospitals without trauma designation, non-trauma centers (non-TCs).

STUDY DESIGN

We extracted hospital-level features from the state inpatient hospital discharge data in Washington state, including all TCs and non-TCs, in 2016. We provided summary statistics and tested the differences of each feature across the TC/non-TC levels. We then conducted 3 sets of unsupervised clustering analyses using the Partition Around Medoids method to determine which hospitals had similar features. Set 1 and 2 included hospital surgical care (volume or distribution) features and other features (e.g., the average age of patients, payer mix, etc.). Set 3 explored surgical care without additional features.

RESULTS

The clusters only partially aligned with the TC designations. Set 1 found the volume and variation of surgical care distinguished the hospitals, while in Set 2 orthopedic procedures and other features such as age, social vulnerability indices, and payer types drove the clusters. Set 3 results showed that procedure volume rather than the relative proportions of procedures aligned more, though not completely, with TC designation.

CONCLUSION

Unsupervised machine learning identified surgical care delivery patterns that explained variation beyond level designation. This research provides insights into how systems leaders could optimize the level allocation for TCs/non-TCs in a mature trauma system by better understanding the distribution of care in the system.

Association between geospatial access to trauma center care and motor vehicle crash mortality in the United States

BACKGROUND

Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a leading cause of preventable trauma death in the United States. Access to trauma center care is highly variable nationwide. The objective of this study was to measure the association between geospatial access to trauma center care and MVC mortality.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of MVC-related deaths that occurred in 3,141 US counties (2017-2020). American College of Surgeons and state-verified Level I to III trauma centers were mapped. Geospatial network analysis estimated the ground transport time to the nearest trauma center from the population-weighted centroid for each county. In this way, the exposure was the predicted access time to trauma center care for each county population. Hierarchical negative binomial regression measured the risk-adjusted association between predicted access time and MVC mortality, adjusting for population demographics, rurality, access to trauma resources, and state traffic safety laws.

RESULTS

We identified 92,398 crash fatalities over the 4-year study period. Trauma centers mapped included 217 Level I, 343 Level II, and 495 Level III trauma centers. The median county predicted access time was 47 minutes (interquartile range, 26-71 minutes). Median county MVC mortality was 12.5 deaths/100,000 person-years (interquartile range, 7.4-20.3 deaths/100,000 person-years). After risk-adjustment, longer predicted access times were significantly associated with higher rates of MVC mortality (>60 minutes vs. <15 minutes; mortality rate ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.40). This relationship was significantly more pronounced in urban/suburban vs. rural/wilderness counties ( p for interaction, <0.001). County access to trauma center care explained 16% of observed state-level variation in MVC mortality.

CONCLUSION

Geospatial access to trauma center care is significantly associated with MVC mortality and contributes meaningfully to between-state differences in road traffic deaths. Efforts to improve trauma system organization should prioritize access to trauma center care to minimize crash fatalities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological, Level III.

Rural Trauma Team Development Course Positively Impacts its Desired Objectives

BACKGROUND

The Rural Trauma Team Development Course (RTTDC) is designed to help rural hospitals better organize and manage trauma patients with limited resources. Although RTTDC is well-established, limited literature exists regarding improvement in the overall objectives for which the course was designed. The aim of this study was to analyze the goals of RTTDC, hypothesizing improvements in course objectives after course completion.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study from 2015 through 2021. All hospitals completing the RTTDC led by our Level 1, academic trauma hospital were included. Our institutional database was queried for individual patient data. Cohorts were delineated before and after RTTDC was provided to the rural hospital. Basic demographics were obtained. Outcomes of interest included: Emergency Department (ED) dwell time, decision time to transfer, number of total images/computed tomography scans obtained, and mortality. Chi square and non-parametric median test were used. Significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Sixteen rural hospitals were included with a total of 472 patients transferred (240 before and 232 after). Patient demographics were similar before and after RTTDC. ED dwell time was significantly reduced by 64 min (P = .003) and decision to transfer time was cut by 62 min (P = .004) after RTTDC. Mean total radiographic images and CT scans were significantly reduced (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively) after RTTDC. Mortality was unaffected by RTTDC completion (P = .941).

CONCLUSION

The RTTDC demonstrates decreased ED dwell time, decision time to transfer, and number of radiographic images obtained prior to transfer. More rural hospitals should be offered this course.

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

The impact of referring hospital resources on interfacility overtriage: A population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of patients transferred from non-trauma to trauma centres have minor injuries. The transfer of patients with minor injuries to trauma centres is not associated with any known patient benefit and represents an opportunity to reduce healthcare costs and improve patient experience. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between hospital resources and overtriage, with the objective of identifying targets for system-level intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study of adults, age ≥ 16, presenting with minor injuries to non-trauma centres in Ontario, Canada (2009-2020). The primary outcome was overtriage, defined as transfer to a trauma centre. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between hospital resources and a patient's likelihood of being overtriaged, adjusting for case-mix.

RESULTS

amongst 165,302 patients with minor injuries, 15,641 (9.5 %) were transferred to a trauma centre (overtriage). Presence of a CT scanner, surgical support, or intensive care unit had no impact on a patient's likelihood of overtriage. Relative to community hospitals, presentation to a teaching hospital was independently associated with greater odds of overtriage (OR 2.97, 95 % CI: 1.26-7.00). Accounting for case-mix and resources, the median difference in a patient's odds of overtriage varied 3.7-fold across non-trauma centres (MOR 3.76).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in overtriage across non-trauma centres, even after adjusting for case-mix and hospital resources. These finding suggests that some centres have developed processes to minimize overtriage independent of available resources. Broad implementation of these processes may represent an opportunity for system-wide quality improvement.

Establishing Consensus on Essential Resources for Musculoskeletal Trauma Care Worldwide: A Modified Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that formalized trauma systems enhance patient functional outcomes and decrease mortality rates, there remains a lack of such systems globally. Critical to trauma systems are the equipment, materials, and supplies needed to support care, which vary in availability regionally. The purpose of the present study was to identify essential resources for musculoskeletal trauma care across diverse resource settings worldwide.

METHODS

The modified Delphi method was utilized, with 3 rounds of electronic surveys. Respondents consisted of 1 surgeon with expertise in musculoskeletal trauma per country. Participants were identified with use of the AO Trauma, AO Alliance, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery networks. Respondents rated resources on a Likert scale from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). The "most essential" resources were classified as those rated ≤2 by ≥75% of the sampled group.

RESULTS

One hundred and three of 111 invited surgeons completed the first survey and were included throughout the subsequent rounds (representing a 93% response rate). Most participants were fellowship-trained (78%) trauma and orthopaedic surgeons (90%) practicing in an academic setting (62%), and 46% had >20 years of experience. Respondents represented low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs; 35%), upper-middle income countries (UMICs; 30%), and high-income countries (HICs; 35%). The initial survey identified 308 unique resources for pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of care, of which 71 resources achieved consensus as the most essential. There was a significant difference (p < 0.0167) in ratings between income groups for 16 resources, all of which were related to general trauma care rather than musculoskeletal injury management.

CONCLUSIONS

There was agreement on a core list of essential musculoskeletal trauma care resources by respondents from LMICs, UMICs, and HICs. All significant differences in resource ratings were related to general trauma management. This study represents a first step toward establishing international consensus and underscores the need to prioritize resources that are locally available. The information can be used to develop effective guidelines and policies, create best-practice treatment standards, and advocate for necessary resources worldwide.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study utilized the Delphi method representing expert opinion; however, this work did not examine patient management and therefore does not have a clinical Level of Evidence.

Disparities in trauma care education: An observational study of the ATLS course within a national trauma system

BACKGROUND

Disparities in trauma systems, including gaps between trauma center levels, affect patient outcomes. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) is a standard method of care that improves the performance of lower-level trauma systems. We sought to study potential gaps in ATLS education within a national trauma system.

METHODS

This prospective observational study examined the characteristics of 588 surgical board residents and fellows taking the ATLS course. The course is required for board certification in adult trauma specialties (general surgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology), pediatric trauma specialties (pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric surgery), and trauma consulting specialties (all other surgical board specialties). We compared the differences in course accessibility and success rates within a national trauma system which includes seven level 1 trauma centers (L1TC) and twenty-three non-level 1 hospitals (NL1H).

RESULTS

Resident and fellow students were 53% male, 46% employed in L1TC, and 86% were in the final stages of their specialty program. Only 32% were enrolled in adult trauma specialty programs. Students from L1TC had a 10% higher ATLS course pass rate than NL1H (p = 0.003). Trauma center level was associated with higher odds to pass the ATLS course, even after adjustment to other variables (OR = 1.925 [95% CI = 1.151 to 3.219]). Compared to NL1H, the course was two-three times more accessible to students from L1TC and 9% more accessible to adult trauma specialty programs (p = 0.035). The course was more accessible to students at early levels of training in NL1H (p < 0.001). Female students and trauma consulting specialties enrolled in L1TC programs were more likely to pass the course (OR = 2.557 [95% CI = 1.242 to 5.264] and 2.578 [95% CI = 1.385 to 4.800], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Passing the ATLS course is affected by trauma center level, independent of other student factors. Educational disparities between L1TC and NL1H include ATLS course access for core trauma residency programs at early training stages. Some gaps are more pronounced among consulting trauma specialties and female surgeons. Educational resources should be planned to favor lower-level trauma centers, specialties dealing in trauma care, and residents early in their postgraduate training.

American Trauma Care: A System of Systems

OBJECTIVE

The benefits of organized trauma systems have been well-documented during 50 years of trauma system development in the United States. Unfortunately, despite this evidence, trauma system development has occurred only sporadically in the 50 states.

METHODS

The relevant literature related to trauma system design and development was reviewed based on relevance to the study. Information from these sources was summarized into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis.

RESULTS

Strengths discovered were leadership brought forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and meaningful change generated from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report addressing the fractionation of the nation's trauma systems, whereas weaknesses included patient outcome disparities due to the lack of a national governing authority, undertriage, underresourced rural trauma, and underfunded trauma research. Opportunities included the creation of level IV trauma centers; telemedicine; the development of rural trauma management courses; air medical transport to bring high-intensity care to the patient, particularly in rural areas; trauma research; and trauma prevention through outreach and educational programs. The following threats were determined: mass casualty incidents, motor vehicle collisions because of the high rate of motor vehicle collision deaths in the United States relative to other developed countries, and underfunded trauma systems.

CONCLUSION

Much work remains to be done in the development of an American trauma system. Recommendations include implementation of trauma care governance at the federal level; national oversight and support of emergency medical services systems, particularly in rural areas with strict reporting processes for emergency medical services programs; national organization of our mass casualty response; increased federal and state funding allocated to trauma centers; a consistent model for trauma system development; and trauma research.

Re-triage moderates association between state trauma funding and lower mortality of trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Severely injured patients who are re-triaged (emergently transferred from an emergency department to a high-level trauma center) experience lower in-hospital mortality. Patients in states with trauma funding also experience lower in-hospital mortality. This study examines the interaction of re-triage, state trauma funding, and in-hospital mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

Severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) were identified from 2016 to 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases in five states (FL, MA, MD, NY, WI). Data were merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and state trauma funding data. Patients were linked across hospital encounters to determine if they were appropriately field triaged, field under-triaged, optimally re-triaged, or sub-optimally re-triaged. A hierarchical logistic regression modeling in-hospital mortality was used to quantify the effect of re-triage on the association between state trauma funding and in-hospital mortality, while adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 241,756 severely injured patients were identified. Median age was 52 years (IQR: 28, 73) and median ISS was 17 (IQR: 16, 25). Two states (MA, NY) allocated no funding, while three states (WI, FL, MD) allocated $0.09-$1.80 per capita. Patients in states with trauma funding were more broadly distributed across trauma center levels, with a higher proportion of patients brought to Level III, IV, or non-trauma centers, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (54.0% vs. 41.1%, p < 0.001). Patients in states with trauma funding were more often re-triaged, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). Patients who were optimally re-triaged in states with trauma funding experienced 0.67 lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (95% CI: 0.50-0.89), compared to patients in states without trauma funding. We found that re-triage significantly moderated the association between state trauma funding and lower in-hospital mortality (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured patients in states with trauma funding are more often re-triaged and experience lower odds of mortality. Re-triage of severely injured patients may potentiate the mortality benefit of increased state trauma funding.

Emergency preparedness capacity of a university hospital in Ghana: a cross-sectional study

Background

The health and safety of people are often endangered during emergencies and disasters. Efficient emergency management systems ensure that mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery actions exist to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Failure to carry out appropriate responses can have adverse consequences for both emergency responders and casualties; hence, the need for emergency preparedness. This study sought to assess the state of emergency preparedness capacity of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology hospital in Ghana.

Methods

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2018 and February 2019 using three guidelines developed respectively by the World Health Organization, the Ministry of Health-Ghana, and the Ghana Health Service. The hospital's emergency preparedness was assessed regarding the emergency policies, plan, protocol, equipment, and medications.

Results

Overall, the hospital's emergency preparedness level was weak (57.36%). Findings revealed that the hospital had inadequate emergency equipment, and supplies for emergency care delivery, especially during upsurge. It also did not have an emergency planning committee. There were noticeable deficiencies in some emergency resources such as chest tubes, basic airway supplies, and many emergency drugs. Other vital emergency tools such as pulse oximeter, thermometer, and emergency medications were inadequate. The hospital had a strong emergency plan and policies on assessment (77.8% and 78%) respectively.

Conclusion

The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology hospital is not prepared sufficiently for an emergency surge, and this poses a major health challenge. Emergency items must be made available, and the organization and planning of emergency service provisions must be improved to avoid preventable deaths during an emergency surge.

Assessing trauma center accessibility in the Southeastern region of the U.S. to improve healthcare efficacy using an anti-covering approach

Accessibility to trauma centers is vital for the patients of severe motor vehicle crashes. Many vehicle crash fatalities failed to reach the proper emergency medical services since the accident location was far away from trauma centers. The spatial discordance between the service coverage area of trauma centers and actual locations of motor vehicle accidents delays the definitive medical care and results in death or disability. Many fatalities would have been prevented if the patients had a chance to get proper treatment in time at Southeastern region of the U.S. Also, the accessibility to trauma centers from the actual locations of motor vehicle accidents is different in the Southeastern region. This research aimed to facilitate the accessibility to trauma centers for severe motor vehicle crash patients in the Southeastern region. The analyses are conducted to assess current trauma center accessibility and suggest the optimal locations of future trauma centers using the Anti-covering location model for trauma centers (TraCt model). This study found that existing trauma centers failed to serve many demands, and the actual coverages of the current locations of trauma centers over potential demands are highly different in each Southeastern state. TraCt model is applied to each Southeastern state, and its solutions provide better coverage for demand locations. However, the TraCt model for each state tends to choose too many facilities, with excessively supplied facilities across the Southeastern region. The excessive service supply issue is addressed by applying the TraCt Model to a broader spatial extent. TraCt model applied to the entire Southeastern region and most of the demand, over 98% covered by the service coverage of optimal facility locations with 15 additional facilities. This research proves that the GIS and TraCt model applied to the broader spatial extent works well with increasing trauma medical service beneficiaries while providing a minimum number of additional facilities.

Current patterns of trauma center proliferation have not led to proportionate improvements in access to care or mortality after injury: An ecologic study

BACKGROUND

Timely access to high-level (I/II) trauma centers (HLTCs) is essential to minimize mortality after injury. Over the last 15 years, there has been a proliferation of HLTC nationally. The current study evaluates the impact of additional HLTC on population access and injury mortality.

METHODS

A geocoded list of HLTC, with year designated, was obtained from the American Trauma Society, and 60-minute travel time polygons were created using OpenStreetMap data. Census block group population centroids, county population centroids, and American Communities Survey data from 2005 and 2020 were integrated. Age-adjusted nonoverdose injury mortality was obtained from CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Geographically weighted regression models were used to identify independent predictors of HLTC access and injury mortality.

RESULTS

Over the 15-year (2005-2020) study period, the number of HLTC increased by 31.0% (445 to 583), while population access to HLTC increased by 6.9% (77.5-84.4%). Despite this increase, access was unchanged in 83.1% of counties, with a median change in access of 0.0% (interquartile range, 0.0-1.1%). Population-level age-adjusted injury mortality rates increased by 5.39 per 100,000 population during this time (60.72 to 66.11 per 100,000). Geographically weighted regression controlling for population demography and health indicators found higher median income and higher population density to be positively associated with majority (≥50%) HLTC population coverage and negatively associated with county-level nonoverdose mortality.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 15 years, the number of HLTC increased 31%, while population access to HLTC increased only 6.9%. High-level (I/II) trauma center designation is likely driven by factors other than population need. To optimize efficiency and decrease potential oversupply, the designation process should include population level metrics. Geographic information system methodology can be an effective tool to assess optimal placement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Train the Trainer in Bleeding Control: A Two-Year Pilot Study in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic hemorrhage represents a major cause of mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, LMICs can benefit from improvements to prehospital hemorrhage management. One strategy is implementation of a bleeding control course using the "train the trainer" model (TTT) to increase course availability. The Stop the Bleed (STB) campaign provides laypeople with basic knowledge and skills of hemorrhage control. While the feasibility and success of the STB course have been demonstrated in the United States, course dissemination in LMICs has been slower and its feasibility using the TTT model has not been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From December 2017 to January 2019, instructors from the International Surgical Health Initiative conducted seven surgical humanitarian trips and taught 10 index 1-h STB training sessions across six LMICs. LMIC instructors were encouraged to continue providing STB courses following departure of the visiting instructors. Course data were collected from sign-in sheets and analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Ten index courses conducted by United States-trained STB experts trained 35 LMIC instructors over 2 y. Six of 35 offered 12 additional courses, certifying 323 new trainees, an 823% increase from the initial cohort. Overall, implementation of the TTT model yielded 22 STB courses in six LMICs, producing 358 new trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows the STB TTT model was feasible and effective in expanding bleeding control trainer capacity in four of six LMICs. Use of the TTT model in LMICs may represent a means to increase STB course availability and is one strategy to improve prehospital hemorrhage control in LMICs.

Comparing health status after major trauma across different levels of trauma care

INTRODUCTION

Mortality due to trauma has reduced the past decades. Trauma network implementations have been an important contributor to this achievement. Besides mortality, patient reported outcome parameters should be included in evaluation of trauma care. While concentrating major trauma care, hospitals are designated with a certain level of trauma care following specific criteria.

OBJECTIVE

Comparing health status of major trauma patients after two years across different levels of trauma care in trauma networks.

METHODS

Multicentre observational study comprising a secondary longitudinal multilevel analysis on prospective cohorts from two neighbouring trauma regions in the Netherlands.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

patient aged ≥ 18 with an ISS > 15 surviving their injuries at least one year after trauma. Health status was measured one and two years after trauma by EQ-5D-5 L, added with a sixth health dimension on cognition. Level I trauma centres were considered as reference in uni- and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents admitted to a level I trauma centre scored less favourable EQ-US and EQ-VAS in both years (0.81-0.81, 71-75) than respondents admitted to a level II (0.88-0.87, 78-85) or level III (0.89-0.88, 75-80) facility. Level II facilities scored significantly higher EQ-US and EQ-VAS in time for univariate analysis (β 0.095, 95% CI 0.038-0.153, p = 0.001, and β 7.887, 95% CI 3.035-12.740, p = 0.002), not in multivariate analysis (β 0.052, 95% CI -0.010-0.115, p = 0.102, and β 3.714, 95% CI -1.893-9.321, p = 0.193). Fewer limitations in mobility (OR 0.344, 95% CI 0.156-0.760), self-care (OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.077-0.618), and pain and discomfort (OR 0.421, 95% CI 0.214-0.831) remained significant for level II facilities in multivariate analysis, whereas significant differences with level III facilities disappeared.

CONCLUSION

Major trauma patients admitted to level I trauma centres reported a less favourable general health status and more limitations compared to level II and III facilities scoring populations norms one to two years after trauma. Differences on general health status and limitations in specific health domains disappeared in adjusted analysis. Well-coordinated trauma networks offer homogeneous results for all major trauma patients when they are distributed in different centres according to their need of care.

Outcomes of basic versus advanced prehospital life support in severe pediatric trauma

OBJECTIVE

The role of basic life support (BLS) vs. advanced life support (ALS) in pediatric trauma is controversial. Although ALS is widely accepted as the gold standard, previous studies have found no advantage of ALS over BLS care in adult trauma. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ALS transport confers a survival advantage over BLS among severely injured children.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of data included in the Israeli National Trauma Registry from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020 was conducted. All the severely injured children (age < 18 years and injury severity score [ISS] ≥16) were included. Patient survival by mode of transport was analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3167 patients included in the study, 65.1% were transported by ALS and 34.9% by BLS. Significantly more patients transported by ALS had ISS ≥25 as well as abnormal vital signs at admission. The ALS and BLS cohorts were comparable in age, gender, mechanism of injury, and prehospital time. Children transported by ALS had higher in-hospital mortality (9.2% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001). Following risk adjustment, patients transported by ALS teams were significantly more likely to die than patients transported by BLS (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.05-5.41, p = 0.04). Patients with ISS ≥50 had comparable mortality rates in both groups (45.9% vs. 55.6%, p = 0.837) while patients with GCS <9 transported by ALS had higher mortality (25.9% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.019). Admission to a level II trauma center vs. a level I hospital was also associated with increased mortality (adjusted OR 2.78 (95% CI 1.75-4.55, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among severely injured children, prehospital ALS care was not associated with lower mortality rates relative to BLS care. Because of potential confounding by severity in this retrospective analysis, further studies are warranted to validate these results.

Geographic Disparities in Re-triage Destinations Among Seriously Injured Californians

Objective

To quantify geographic disparities in sub-optimal re-triage of seriously injured patients in California.

Summary of Background Data

Re-triage is the emergent transfer of seriously injured patients from the emergency departments of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers to, ideally, high-level trauma centers. Some patients are re-triaged to a second non-trauma or low-level trauma center (sub-optimal) instead of a high-level trauma center (optimal).

Methods

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of seriously injured patients, defined by an Injury Severity Score > 15, re-triaged in California (2009-2018). Re-triages within one day of presentation to the sending center were considered. The sub-optimal re-triage rate was quantified at the state, regional trauma coordinating committees (RTCC), local emergency medical service agencies, and sending center level. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression quantified the association of sub-optimality with the RTCC of the sending center. Geospatial analyses demonstrated geographic variations in sub-optimal re-triage rates and calculated alternative re-triage destinations.

Results

There were 8,882 re-triages of seriously injured patients and 2,680 (30.2 %) were sub-optimal. Sub-optimally re-triaged patients had 1.5 higher odds of transfer to a third short-term acute care hospital and 1.25 increased odds of re-admission within 60 days from discharge. The sub-optimal re-triage rates increased from 29.3 % in 2009 to 38.6 % in 2018. 56.0 % of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers had at least one sub-optimal re-triage. The Southwest RTCC accounted for the largest proportion (39.8 %) of all sub-optimal re-triages in California.

Conclusion

High population density geographic areas experienced higher sub-optimal re-triage rates.

Impact of the implementation of a trauma system on compliance with evidence-based clinical management guidelines in penetrating thoracic trauma

PURPOSE

Since 2014, a trauma system (TS) for the Provence-Alpes-Cote-d'Azur (PACA) region has been set up with protocols based on the European guidelines for the management of bleeding trauma patients. The present study aims to assess compliance with protocols in penetrating thoracic trauma on admission to a level I trauma centre and to determine whether compliance impacts morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

This multicentric pre-post study included all penetrating thoracic trauma patients referred to Marseille area level I centres between January 2009 and December 2019. On the basis of the European guidelines, eight objectively measurable recommendations concerning the in-hospital trauma care for the first 24 h were analysed. Per-patient and per-criterion compliance rates and their impact on morbidity and mortality were evaluated before and after TS implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 426 patients were included. No differences between the two groups (before and after 2014) were reported for demographics or injury severity. The median (interquartile range) per-patient compliance rate increased from 67% [0.50; 0.75] to 75% [0.67; 1.0] (p < 0.01) after implementation of a TS. The 30-day morbidity-mortality was, respectively, of 17% (30/173) and 13% (32/253) (p = 0.18) before and after TS implementation. A low per-patient compliance rate was associated with an increase in the 30-day morbidity-mortality rate (p < 0.01). Severity score-adjusted per-patient compliance rates were associated with decreased 30-day morbidity-mortality (odds ratio [IC 95%] = 0.98 [0.97; 0.99] p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a TS was associated with better compliance to European recommendations and better outcomes for severe trauma patients. These findings should encourage strict adherence to European trauma protocols to ensure the best patient outcomes.

Redefining trauma deserts: novel technique to accurately map prehospital transport time

Background

Prehospital transport time has been directly related to mortality for hemorrhaging trauma patients. 'Trauma deserts' were previously defined as being outside of a 5-mile radial distance of an urban trauma center. We postulated that the true 'desert' should be based on transport time rather than transport distance.

Methods

Using the Chicagoland area that was used to describe 'trauma deserts,' a sequential process to query a commercial travel optimization product to map transport times over coordinates that covered the entire urban area at a particular time of day. This produces a heat map representing prehospital transport times. Travel times were then limited to 15 minutes to represent a temporally based map of transport capabilities. This was repeated during high and low traffic times and for centers across the city.

Results

We demonstrated that the temporally based map for transport to a trauma center in an urban center differs significantly from the radial distance to the trauma center. Primary effects were proximity to highways and the downtown area. Transportation to centers were significantly different when time was considered instead of distance (p<0.001). We were further able to map variations in traffic patterns and thus transport times by time of day. The truly 'closest' trauma center by time changed based on time of day and was not always the closest hospital by distance.

Discussion

As the crow flies is not how the ambulance drives. This novel technique of dynamically mapping transport times can be used to create accurate trauma deserts in an urban setting with multiple trauma centers. Further, this technique can be used to quantify the potential benefit or detriment of adding or removing firehouses or trauma centers.

Improvements over time for patients following liver trauma: A 17-year observational study

Background

Centralisation of trauma care has been shown to be associated with improved patient outcomes. The establishment of Major Trauma Centres (MTC) and networks in England in 2012 allowed for centralisation of trauma services and specialties including hepatobiliary surgery. We aimed to investigate the outcomes for patients with hepatic injury over the last 17 years at a large MTC in England in relation to the MTC status of the centre.

Methods

All patients who sustained liver trauma between 2005 and 2022 were identified using the Trauma Audit and Research Network database for a single MTC in the East Midlands. Mortality and complications were compared between patients before and after establishment of MTC status. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for complications according to MTC status, accounting for the potentially confounding variables of age, sex, severity of injuries and comorbidities for all patients, and the subgroup with severe liver trauma (AAST Grade IV and V).

Results

There were 600 patients; the median age was 33 (IQR 22-52) years and 406/600 (68%) were male. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality or length of stay between the pre- and post-MTC patients. Multivariable logistic regression models showed both lower overall complications [OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.14, 0.39); p < 0.001] and lower liver-specific complications [OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.11, 0.39); p < 0.001] in the post-MTC period. This was also the case in the severe liver injury subgroup (p = 0.008 and p = 0.002 respectively).

Conclusions

Outcomes for liver trauma were superior in the post-MTC period even when adjusted for patient and injury characteristics. This was the case even though patients in this period were older with more comorbidities. These data support the centralisation of trauma services for those with liver injuries.

Pediatric trauma mortality in India and the United States: A comparison and risk-adjusted analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research comparing pediatric risk-adjusted trauma mortality between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. This limits identification of populations and injury patterns for targeted interventions. We aim to compare independent predictors of pediatric trauma mortality between India and the United States (US).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted for pediatric patients (age <18 years) in India's Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes (TITCO) project database and the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2013 to 2015. Demographic, injury, physiologic, anatomic and outcome data were analyzed. Multivariable regressions were used to determine independent predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

126,678 pediatric trauma patients were included (India 3,373; US 123,305). Pediatric patients in India were on average significantly younger, with a higher median injury severity score (ISS), had lower systolic blood pressure, and suffered a higher case fatality rate (13.0% vs. 1.0%). When controlling for demographic, mechanism, physiologic, and anatomic injury characteristics, sustaining an injury in India was the strongest predictor of mortality (OR 22.70, 95% CI 18.70-27.56). On subgroup analysis, the highest relative odds of mortality in India was seen in children with lower injury and physiologic severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-adjusted pediatric trauma-related mortality is significantly higher in India compared to the US. The comparative odds of mortality are highest among children with lower injury and physiologic severity. This suggests that low-cost targeted interventions focused on standard timely trauma care, protocols, training and early imaging could improve pediatric injury mortality in India.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective Prognosis Study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

A Novel Approach to Assessment of US Pediatric Trauma System Development

Importance

Mature trauma systems are critical in building and maintaining national, state, and local resilience against all-hazard disasters. Currently, pediatric state trauma system plans are not standardized and thus are without concrete measures of potential effectiveness.

Objective

To develop objective measures of pediatric trauma system capability at the state level, hypothesizing significant variation in capabilities between states, and to provide a contemporary report on the status of national pediatric trauma system planning and development.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A national survey was deployed in 2018 to perform a gap analysis of state pediatric trauma system capabilities. Four officials from each state were asked to complete the survey regarding extensive pediatric-related or specific trauma system parameters. Using these parameters, a panel of 14 individuals representing national stakeholder sectors in pediatric trauma care convened to identify the essential components of the ideal pediatric trauma system using Delphi methodology. Data analysis was conducted from March 16, 2019, to February 23, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Based on results from the national survey and consensus panel parameters, each state was given a composite score. The score was validated using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) fatal injury database.

Results

The national survey had less than 10% missing data. The consensus panel reached agreement on 6 major domains of pediatric trauma systems (disaster, legislation/funding, access to care, injury prevention/recognition, quality improvement, pediatric readiness) and was used to develop the Pediatric Trauma System Assessment Score (PTSAS) based on 100 points. There was substantial variation across states, with state scores ranging from 48.5 to 100. Based on US CDC WONDER data, for every 1-point increase in PTSAS, there was a 0.12 per 100 000 decrease in mortality (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.02; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that a more robust pediatric trauma system has a significant association with pediatric injury mortality. This study assessed the national landscape of capability and preparedness to provide pediatric trauma care at the state level. These parameters can tailor the maturation of children's interests within a state trauma system and assist with future state, regional, and national planning.

Do new trauma centers provide needed or redundant access? A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Our prior research has demonstrated that increasing the number of trauma centers (TCs) in a state does not reliably improve state-level injury-related mortality. We hypothesized that many new TCs would serve populations already served by existing TCs, rather than in areas without ready TC access. We also hypothesized that new TCs would also be less likely to serve economically disadvantaged populations.

METHODS

All state-designated adult TCs registered with the American Trauma Society in 2014 and 2019 were mapped using ArcGIS Pro (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA). Trauma centers were grouped as Level 1 or 2 (Lev12) or Level 3, 4 or 5 (Lev345). We also obtained census tract-level data (73,666 tracts), including population counts and percentage of population below the federal poverty threshold. Thirty-minute drive-time areas were created around each TC. Census tracts were considered "served" if their geographic centers were located within a 30-minute drive-time area to any TC. Data were analyzed at the census tract level.

RESULTS

A total of 2,140 TCs were identified in 2019, with 256 new TCs and 151 TC closures. Eighty-two percent of new TCs were Levels 3 to 5. Nationwide, coverage increased from 75.3% of tracts served in 2014 to 78.1% in 2019, representing an increased coverage from 76.0% to 79.4% of the population. New TC served 17,532 tracts, of which 87.3% were already served. New Lev12 TCs served 9,100 tracts, of which 91.2% were already served; new Lev345 TCs served 15,728 tracts, of which 85.9% were already served. Of 2,204 newly served tracts, those served by Lev345 TCs had higher mean percentage poverty compared with those served by Lev12 TCs (15.7% vs. 13.2% poverty, p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Overall, access to trauma care has been improving in the United States. However, the majority of new TCs opened in locations with preexisting access to trauma care. Nationwide, Levels 3, 4, and 5 TCs have been responsible for expanding access to underserved populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV.

The significance of direct transportation to a trauma center on survival for severe traumatic brain injury

INTRODUCTION

While timely specialized care can contribute to improved outcomes following traumatic brain injury (TBI), this condition remains the most common cause of post-injury death worldwide. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in mortality between regional trauma centers in Sweden (which provide neurosurgical services round the clock) and non-trauma centers, hypothesizing that 1-day and 30-day mortality will be lower at regional trauma centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data extracted from the Swedish national trauma registry and included adults admitted with severe TBI between January 2014 and December 2018. The cohort was divided into two subgroups based on whether they were treated at a trauma center or non-trauma center. Severe TBI was defined as a head injury with an AIS score of 3 or higher. Poisson regression analyses with both univariate and multivariate models were performed to determine the difference in mortality risk [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)] between the subgroups. As a sensitivity analysis, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to adjust for the effects of confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 3039 patients were included. Patients admitted to a trauma center had a lower crude 30-day mortality rate (21.7 vs. 26.4% days, p = 0.006). After adjusting for confounding variables, patients treated at regional trauma center had a 28% [adj. IRR (95% CI): 0.72 (0.55-0.94), p = 0.015] decreased risk of 1-day mortality and an 18% [adj. IRR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69-0.98)] reduction in 30-day mortality, compared to patients treated at a non-trauma center. After adjusting for covariates in the Poisson regression analysis performed after IPTW, admission and treatment at a trauma center were associated with a 27% and 17% reduction in 1-day and 30-day mortality, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients suffering a severe TBI, treatment at a regional trauma center confers a statistically significant 1-day and 30-day survival advantage over treatment at a non-trauma center.

National guideline for the field triage of injured patients: Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2021

This work details the process of developing the updated field triage guideline, the supporting evidence, and the final version of the 2021 National Guideline for the Field Triage of Injured Patients.

A characterization of trauma laparotomies in a scandinavian setting: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite treatment advances, trauma laparotomy continuous to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most of the literature originates from high volume centers, whereas patient characteristics and outcomes in a Scandinavian setting is not well described. The objective of this study is to characterize treatments and outcomes of patients undergoing trauma laparotomy in a Scandinavian setting and compare this to international reports.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in the Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet (CUHR). All patients undergoing a trauma laparotomy within the first 24 h of admission between January 1st 2019 and December 31st 2020 were included. Collected data included demographics, trauma mechanism, injuries, procedures performed and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1713 trauma patients were admitted to CUHR of which 98 patients underwent trauma laparotomy. Penetrating trauma accounted for 16.6% of the trauma population and 66.3% of trauma laparotomies. Median time to surgery after arrival at the trauma center (TC) was 12 min for surgeries performed in the Emergency Department (ED) and 103 min for surgeries performed in the operating room (OR). A total of 14.3% of the procedures were performed in the ED. A damage control strategy (DCS) approach was chosen in 18.4% of cases. Our rate of negative laparotomies was 17.3%. We found a mortality rate of 8.2%. The total median length of stay was 6.1 days.

CONCLUSION

The overall rates, findings, and outcomes of trauma laparotomies in this Danish cohort is comparable to reports from similar Western European trauma systems.

Defining Referral Regions for Inpatient Trauma Care: The Utility of a Novel Geographic Definition

INTRODUCTION

Geographic variation is an inherent feature of the US health system. Despite efforts to account for geographic variation in trauma system strengthening, it remains unclear how trauma "regions" should be defined. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility of a novel definition of Trauma Referral Regions (TRR) for assessing geographic variation in inpatient trauma across the age span of hospitalized trauma patients.

METHODS

Using 2016-2017 State Inpatient Databases, we assessed the extent of geographic variability in three common metrics of hospital use (localization index, market share index, net patient flow) among TRRs and, as a comparison, trauma regions alternatively defined based on Hospital Referral Regions, Hospital Service Areas, and counties.

RESULTS

A total of 860,593 admissions from 102 TRRs, 127 Hospital Referral Regions, 884 Hospital Service Areas, and 583 counties were included. Consistent with expectations for distinct trauma regions, TRR presented with high average localization indices (mean [standard deviation]: 83.4 [11.7%]), low market share indices (mean [standard deviation]: 11.9 [7.0%]), and net patient flows close to 1.00. Similar results were found among stratified pediatric, adult, and older adult patients. Associations between TRRs and variations in important demographic features (e.g., travel time by road to the nearest Level I or II Trauma Center) suggest that while indicative of standalone trauma regions, TRRs are also able to simultaneously capture critical variations in regional trauma care.

CONCLUSIONS

TRRs offer a standalone set of geographic regions with minimal variation in common metrics of hospital use, minimal geographic clustering, and preserved associations with important demographic factors. They provide a needed, valid means of assessing geographic variation among trauma systems.

Weather and prehospital predictors of trauma patient mortality in a rural American state

Introduction

In rural settings, factors like weather and location can significantly impact total prehospital time and survival after injury. We sought to determine what prehospital conditions affect mortality and morbidity in severely injured patients.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively evaluated adult trauma patients that were admitted to our level 1 trauma center with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS≤ 9), hypotension (SBP≤ 90 mmHg), or both. Weather and prehospital conditions on patient outcomes were evaluated. Weather data was extracted from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration public database. Prediction models were done using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 442 subjects were captured, Median time on the scene was 15 min  [IQR =10, 20.5], with median time to definitive care 129 min  [IQR= 61, 247]. Hypotension in the field was the greatest predictor of ED mortality (OR=11, P = 0.004), and field hypoxia (OR=3, P = 0.007) was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Patients with field GCS ≤ 9 had higher odds of ICU admission (OR=2, P = 0.029). Among transfers, increasing prehospital time correlated with ED mortality while injury during warmer weather showed lower odds (OR =0.94, P = 0.019) of mortality. No weather condition predicted mortality for patients that presented directly from the field.

Conclusion

Among severely injured patients being injured during cold weather was associated with higher in-hospital mortality among trauma transfer patients. Prehospital hypotension, hypoxia, and GCS≤9 are also independent predictors of mortality. Future analysis will explore factors impacting transport and field time in order to improve outcomes.

Performance-Based Assessment of Trauma Systems: Estimates for the State of Ohio

OBJECTIVES

There are no widely accepted metrics to determine the optimal number and geographic distribution of trauma centers (TCs). We propose a Performance-based Assessment of Trauma System (PBATS) model to optimize the number and distribution of TCs in a region using key performance metrics.

METHODS

The proposed PBATS approach relies on well-established mathematical programming approach to minimize the number of level I (LI) and level II (LII) TCs required in a region, constrained by prespecified system-related under-triage (srUT) and over-triage (srOT) rates and TC volume. To illustrate PBATS, we collected 6002 matched (linked) records from the 2012 Ohio Trauma and EMS registries. The PBATS-suggested network was compared to the 2012 Ohio network and also to the configuration proposed by the Needs-Based Assessment of Trauma System (NBATS) tool.

RESULTS

For this data, PBATS suggested 14 LI/II TCs with a slightly different geographic distribution compared to the 2012 network with 21 LI and LII TC, for the same srUT≈.2 and srOT≈.52. To achieve UT ≤ .05, PBATS suggested 23 LI/II TCs with a significantly different distribution. The NBATS suggested fewer TCs (12 LI/II) than the Ohio 2012 network.

CONCLUSION

The PBATS approach can generate a geographically optimized network of TCs to achieve prespecified performance characteristics such as srUT rate, srOT rate, and TC volume. Such a solution may provide a useful data-driven standard, which can be used to drive incremental system changes and guide policy decisions.

Care of the older trauma patient following low-energy transfer trauma-highlighting a research void

BACKGROUND

in high-income countries trauma patients are becoming older, more likely to have comorbidities, and are being injured by low-energy mechanisms. This systematic review investigates the association between higher-level trauma centre care and outcomes of adult patients who were admitted to hospital due to injuries sustained following low-energy trauma.

METHODS

a systematic review was conducted in January 2021. Studies were eligible if they reported outcomes in adults admitted to hospital due to low-energy trauma. In the presence of study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was pre-specified.

RESULTS

three studies were included from 2,898 unique records. The studies' risk of bias was moderate-to-serious. All studies compared outcomes in trauma centres verified by the American College of Surgeons in the USA. The mean/median ages of patients in the studies were 73.4, 74.5 and 80 years. The studies reported divergent results. One demonstrated improved outcomes in level 3 or 4 trauma centres (Observed: Expected Mortality 0.973, 95% CI: 0.971-0.975), one demonstrated improved outcomes in level 1 trauma centres (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.91), and one demonstrated no difference between level 1 or 2 and level 3 or 4 trauma centre care (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

the few relevant studies identified provided discordant evidence for the value of major trauma centre care following low-energy trauma. The main implication of this review is the paucity of high-quality research into the optimum care of patients injured in low-energy trauma. Further studies into triage, interventions and research methodology are required.

Disparities in Insurance Status are Associated With Outcomes But Not Timing of Trauma Care

INTRODUCTION

Patient factors influence outcomes after injury. Delays in care have a crucial impact. We investigated the associations between patient characteristics and timing of transfer from the emergency department to definitive care.

METHODS

This was a review of adult trauma patients treated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Bivariate analyses were used to build Cox proportional hazards models. We built separate logistic and negative binomial regression models for secondary outcomes using mixed-step selection to minimize the Akaike information criterion c.

RESULTS

A total of 1219 patients were included; 68.5% were male, 56.8% White, 11.2% Black, and 7.8% Asian/Pacific Islander. The average age was 51 ± 21 y. Overall, 13.7% of patients were uninsured. The average length of stay was 5 d and mortality was 5.9%. Shorter transfer time out of the emergency department was associated with higher tier of activation (relative risk [RR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.77; P = 0.0074), Injury Severity Score between 16 and 24 points (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.04-2.32; P = 0.0307) or ≥25 (RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.45-5.94; P = 0.0001), and penetrating injury. Longer time to event was associated with Glasgow coma scale score ≥14 points (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.85; P = 0.0141). Uninsured patients were less likely to be admitted (odds ratio 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.48; P = 0.0001) and more likely to experience shorter length of stay (incidence rate ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.51; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Injury characteristics and insurance status were associated with patient outcomes in this retrospective, single-center study. We found no disparity in timing of intrafacility transfer, perhaps indicating that initial management protocols preserve equity.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Assessing Trauma Center Accessibility for Healthcare Equity Using an Anti-Covering Approach

Motor vehicle accidents are one of the most prevalent causes of traumatic injury in patients needing transport to a trauma center. Arrival at a trauma center within an hour of the accident increases a patient's chances of survival and recovery. However, not all vehicle accidents in Tennessee are accessible to a trauma center within an hour by ground transportation. This study uses the anti-covering location problem (ACLP) to assess the current placement of trauma centers and explore optimal placements based on the population distribution and spatial pattern of motor vehicle accidents in 2015 through 2019 in Tennessee. The ACLP models seek to offer a method of exploring feasible scenarios for locating trauma centers that intend to provide accessibility to patients in underserved areas who suffer trauma as a result of vehicle accidents. The proposed ACLP approach also seeks to adjust the locations of trauma centers to reduce areas with excessive service coverage while improving coverage for less accessible areas of demand. In this study, three models are prescribed for finding optimal locations for trauma centers: (a) TraCt: ACLP model with a geometric approach and weighted models of population, fatalities, and spatial fatality clusters of vehicle accidents; (b) TraCt-ESC: an extended ACLP model mitigating excessive service supply among trauma center candidates, while expanding services to less served areas for more beneficiaries using fewer facilities; and (c) TraCt-ESCr: another extended ACLP model exploring the optimal location of additional trauma centers.

"Trauma-the forgotten pandemic?"

Global annual deaths from Trauma are greater than any other single cause in the global working population, and, more than all contagious diseases added together including COVID-19. The number of people injured, either temporarily or permanently, is greater than any other medical condition. This problem affects Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) disproportionately. The numbers are so great as to cause "zone out" and present a human rights issue. This is a particular issue as Trauma presently receives less than 1% of global healthcare funding. This article will highlight and discuss many of the issues and raise some uncomfortable arguments showing that improvement is needed, necessary and achievable.

Comparing trauma mortality of injured patients in India and the USA: a risk-adjusted analysis

Objectives

Comparisons of risk-adjusted trauma mortality between high-income countries and low and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be used to identify specific patient populations and injury patterns for targeted interventions. Due to a paucity of granular patient and injury data from LMICs, there is a lack of such comparisons. This study aims to identify independent predictors of trauma mortality and significant differences between India and the USA.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of two trauma databases was conducted. Demographic, injury, physiologic, anatomic and outcome data were analyzed from India’s Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes project database and the US National Trauma Data Bank from 2013 to 2015. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant independent predictors of mortality.

Results

687 407 adult trauma patients were included (India 11 796; USA 675 611). Patients from India were significantly younger with greater male preponderance, a higher proportion presented with physiologic abnormalities and suffered higher mortality rates (23.2% vs. 2.8%). When controlling for age, sex, physiologic abnormalities, and injury severity, sustaining an injury in India was the strongest predictor of mortality (OR 13.85, 95% CI 13.05 to 14.69). On subgroup analyses, the greatest mortality difference was seen in patients with lower Injury Severity Scores.

Conclusion

After adjusting for demographic, physiologic abnormalities, and injury severity, trauma-related mortality was found to be significantly higher in India. When compared with trauma patients in the USA, the odds of mortality are most notably different among patients with lower Injury Severity Scores. While troubling, this suggests that relatively simple, low-cost interventions focused on standard timely trauma care, early imaging, and protocolized treatment pathways could result in substantial improvements for injury mortality in India, and potentially other LMICs.

Level of evidence

Level 3, retrospective cohort study.

Review of the requirements for effective mass casualty preparedness for trauma systems. A disaster waiting to happen?

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are diverse, unpredictable, and increasing in frequency, but preparation is possible and necessary. The nature of MCIs requires a trauma response but also requires effective and tested disaster preparedness planning. From an international perspective, the aims of this narrative review are to describe the key components necessary for optimisation of trauma system preparedness for MCIs, whether trauma systems and centres meet these components and areas for improvement of trauma system response. Many of the principles necessary for response to MCIs are embedded in trauma system design and trauma centre function. These include robust communication networks, established triage systems, and capacity to secure centres from threats to safety and quality of care. However, evidence from the current literature indicates the need to strengthen trauma system preparedness for MCIs through greater trauma leader representation at all levels of disaster preparedness planning, enhanced training of staff and simulated disaster training, expanded surge capacity planning, improved staff management and support during the MCI and in the post-disaster recovery phase, clear provision for the treatment of paediatric patients in disaster plans, and diversified and pre-agreed systems for essential supplies and services continuity. Mass casualty preparedness is a complex, iterative process that requires an integrated, multidisciplinary, and tiered approach. Through effective preparedness planning, trauma systems should be well-placed to deliver an optimal response when faced with MCIs.

Interfacility Transfers for Isolated Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: Perspectives of the Facial Trauma Surgeon

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary overtriage is a burden to the medical system. Unnecessary transfers overload trauma centers, occupy emergency transfer resources, and delay definitive patient care. Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) trauma, especially in isolation, is a frequent culprit.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the perspectives of facial trauma surgeons regarding the interfacility transfer of patients with isolated CMF trauma.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was developed using Likert-type scale and open-ended response systems. Internal consistency testing among facial trauma surgeons yielded a Cronbach's α calculation of .75. The survey was distributed anonymously to the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, the North American Division of AO Craniomaxillofacial, and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Statistical significance in response plurality was determined by nonoverlapping 99.9% confidence intervals (P < .001). Sum totals were reported as means with standard deviations and z scores with P values of less than .05 considered significant.

RESULTS

The survey yielded 196 responses. Seventy-seven percent of respondents did not believe that most isolated CMF transfers required emergency surgery and roughly half (49%) thought that most emergency transfers were unnecessary. Fifty-four percent of respondents agreed that most patients transferred could have been referred for outpatient management and 87% thought that transfer guidelines could help decrease unnecessary transfers. Twenty-seven percent of respondents had no pre-transfer communication with the referring facility. Perspectives on the transfer of specific fracture patterns and their presentations were also collected.

CONCLUSION

Most facial trauma surgeons in this study believe that emergent transfer for isolated CMF trauma is frequently unnecessary. Such injuries rarely require emergent surgery and can frequently be managed in the outpatient setting without activating emergency transfer services. The fracture-specific data collected are a representation of the national, multidisciplinary opinion of facial trauma surgeons and correlate with previously published data on which specific types of facial fractures are most often transferred unnecessarily. The results of this study can serve as the foundation for interfacility transfer guidelines, which may provide a valuable resource in triaging transfers and decreasing associated health-care costs.

Management of severe trauma worldwide: implementation of trauma systems in emerging countries: China, Russia and South Africa

As emerging countries, China, Russia, and South Africa are establishing and/or improving their trauma systems. China has recently established a trauma system named “the Chinese Regional Trauma Care System” and covered over 200 million populations. It includes paramedic-staffed pre-hospital care, in-hospital care in certified trauma centers, trauma registry, quality assurance, continuous improvement and ongoing coverage of the entire Chinese territory. The Russian trauma system was formed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Pre-hospital care is region-based, with a regional coordination center that determines which team will go to the scene and the nearest hospital where the victim should be transported. Physician-staffed ambulances are organized according to three levels of trauma severity corresponding to three levels of trauma centers where in-hospital care is managed by a trauma team. No national trauma registry exists in Russia. Improvements to the Russian trauma system have been scheduled. There is no unified trauma system in South Africa, and trauma care is organized by public and private emergency medical service in each province. During the pre-hospital care, paramedics provide basic or advanced life support services and transport the patients to the nearest hospital because of the limited number of trauma centers. In-hospital care is inclusive with a limited number of accredited trauma centers. In-hospital care is managed by emergency medicine with multidisciplinary care by the various specialties. There is no national trauma registry in South Africa. The South African trauma system is facing multiple challenges. An increase in financial support, training for primary emergency trauma care, and coordination of private sector, need to be planned.

Pre-hospital trauma care in Switzerland and Germany: do they speak the same language?

PURPOSE

Swiss and German (pre-)hospital systems, distribution and organization of trauma centres differ from each other. It is unclear if outcome in trauma patients differs as well. Therefore, this study aims to determine differences in characteristics, therapy and outcome of trauma patients between both German-speaking countries.

METHODS

The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) was used. Patients with Injury Severity Score ≥ 9 admitted to a level 1 trauma centre between 01/2009 and 12/2017 were included if they required ICU care or died. Trauma pattern, pre-hospital procedures and outcome were compared between Swiss (CH, n = 4768) and German (DE, n = 66,908) groups.

RESULTS

Swiss patients were older than German patients (53 vs. 50 years). ISS did not differ between groups (CH 23.8 vs. DE 23.0 points). There were more low falls < 3 m (34% vs. 21%) at the expense of less traffic accidents (37% vs. 52%) in the Swiss population. In Switzerland 30% of allocations were done without physician involvement, whereas this occurred in 4% of German cases. Despite a comparable number of patients with a GCS ≤ 8 (CH 29.6%; DE 26.4%), differences in pre-hospital intubation rates occurred (CH 31% vs. DE 40%). Severe traumatic brain injuries were diagnosed most frequently in Switzerland (CH 62% vs. DE 49%). Admission vital signs were similar, and standardized mortality ratios were close to one in both countries.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that patients' age, trauma patterns and pre-hospital care differ between Germany and Switzerland. However, adjusted mortality was almost similar. Further benchmarking studies are indicated to optimize trauma care in both German-speaking countries.

Is more better? Do statewide increases in trauma centers reduce injury-related mortality?

OBJECTIVES

Trauma centers are inconsistently distributed throughout the United States. It is unclear if new trauma centers improve care and decrease mortality. We tested the hypothesis that increases in trauma centers are associated with decreases in injury-related mortality (IRM) at the state level.

METHODS

We used data from the American Trauma Society to geolocate every state-designated or American College of Surgeons-verified trauma center in all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2014 to 2018. These data were merged with publicly available IRM data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We used geographic information systems methods to map and study the relationships between trauma center locations and state-level IRM over time. Regression analysis, accounting for state-level fixed effects, was used to calculate the effect of total statewide number of trauma center on IRM and year-to-year changes in statewide trauma center with the IRM (shown as deaths per additional trauma center per 100,000 population, p value).

RESULTS

Nationwide between 2014 and 2018, the number of trauma center increased from 2,039 to 2,153. Injury-related mortality also increased over time. There was notable interstate variation, from 1 to 284 trauma centers. Four patterns in statewide trauma center changes emerged: static (12), increased (29), decreased (5), or variable (4). Of states with trauma center increases, 26 (90%) had increased IRM between 2014 and 2017, while the remaining 3 saw a decline. Regression analysis demonstrated that having more trauma centers in a state was associated with a significantly higher IRM rate (0.38, p = 0.03); adding new trauma centers was not associated with changes in IRM (0.02, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

Having more trauma centers and increasing the number of trauma center within a state are not associated with decreases in state-level IRM. In this case, more is not better. However, more work is needed to identify the optimal number and location of trauma centers to improve IRM.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic, level III; Care management, level III.

Regionalization of Critical Care in the United States: Current State and Proposed Framework From the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force of the Society of the Critical Care Medicine

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened its Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine taskforce on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a series of consensus papers with toolkits for advancing critical care organizations in North America. The goal of this article is to propose a framework based on the expert opinions of critical care organization leaders and their responses to a survey, for current and future critical care organizations, and their leadership in the health system to design and implement successful regionalization for critical care in their regions.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Members of the workgroup convened monthly via teleconference with the following objectives: to 1) develop and analyze a regionalization survey tool for 23 identified critical care organizations in the United States, 2) assemble relevant medical literature accessed using Medline search, 3) use a consensus of expert opinions to propose the framework, and 4) create groups to write the subsections and assemble the final product.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The most prevalent challenges for regionalization in critical care organizations remain a lack of a strong central authority to regulate and manage the system as well as a lack of necessary infrastructure, as described more than a decade ago. We provide a framework and outline a nontechnical approach that the health system and their critical care medicine leadership can adopt after considering their own structure, complexity, business operations, culture, and the relationships among their individual hospitals. Transforming the current state of regionalization into a coordinated, accountable system requires a critical assessment of administrative and clinical challenges and barriers. Systems thinking, business planning and control, and essential infrastructure development are critical for assisting critical care organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the value-based paradigm, the goals are operational efficiency and patient outcomes. Health systems that can align strategy and operations to assist the referral hospitals with implementing regionalization will be better positioned to regionalize critical care effectively.

A tale of three pandemics: Shining a light on a hidden problem

An “epidemic” is an event in which a disease, infectious or non-infectious, is actively spreading within a population and designated area. The term “pandemic” is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has not been seen since the outbreak of Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the early eighties. But there is another unseen pandemic running alongside the current COVID-19 pandemic, which affects a vast number of people, crossing international boundaries and occurring in every single country worldwide. The pandemic of traumatic injuries.

Traumatic injuries account for 11% of the current Global Burden of Disease, resulting in nearly 5 million deaths annually and is the third-leading cause of death worldwide. For every trauma-related death, it is estimated that up to 50 people sustain permanent or temporary disabilities. Furthermore, traumatic injuries occur at disproportionately higher rates in low- and middle-income countries, with approximately 90% of injuries and more than 90% of global deaths from injury occurring these countries.

Injuries are increasing worldwide, crossing international boundaries and affecting a large number of people, in the same manner Human Immunodeficiency Virus did in the 1980's and COVID-19 is today. The tremendous global effort to tackle the COVID-19 and Human Immunodeficiency Virus pandemics has occurred whilst ignoring the comparable pandemic of injury. Without change and future engagement with policy makers and international donors this disparity is likely to continue.

Inter-hospital transfer of polytrauma and severe traumatic brain injury patients: Retrospective nationwide cohort study using data from the Swiss Trauma Register

Introduction

Polytrauma and traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are among the most vulnerable patients in trauma care and exhibit increased morbidity and mortality. Timely care is essential for their outcome. Severe TBI with initially high scores on the Glasgow Coma (GCS) scores is difficult to recognise on scene and referral to a Major Trauma Center (MTC) might be delayed. Therefore, we examined current referral practice, injury patterns and mortality in these patients.

Materials and methods

Retrospective, nationwide cohort study with Swiss Trauma Register (STR) data between 01/012015 and 31/12/2018. STR includes patients ≥16 years with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) for head >2. We performed Cox proportional hazard models with injury type as the primary outcome and mortality as the dependent variable. Secondary outcomes were inter-hospital transfer and age.

Results

9,595 patients were included. Mortality was 12%. 2,800 patients suffered from isolated TBI. 69% were men. Median age was 61 years and median ISS 21. Two thirds of TBI patients had a GCS of 13–15 on admission to the Emergency Department (ED). 26% of patients were secondarily transferred to an MTC. Patients with isolated TBI and those aged ≥65 years were transferred more often. Crude analysis showed a significantly elevated hazard for death of 1.48 (95%CI 1.28–1.70) for polytrauma patients with severe TBI and a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.82 (95%CI 1.58–2.09) for isolated severe TBI, compared to polytrauma patients without TBI. Patients directly admitted to the MTC had a significantly elevated HR for death of 1.63 (95%CI 1.40–1.89), compared to those with secondary transfer.

Conclusions

A high initial GCS does not exclude the presence of severe TBI and triage to an MTC should be seriously considered for elderly TBI patients.