Outcome analysis of Pennsylvania trauma centers: factors predictive of nonsurvival in seriously injured patients

Accreditation of nutrition support teams: A new initiative by the Turkish Society of Clinical Enteral & Parenteral Nutrition

OBJECTIVES

Accreditation is a process to evaluate compliance of an institution or organization with predetermined performance standards, focusing on achieving continuous improvement strategies and optimal quality standards and motivating the accredited organization to do so. There is no established accreditation program for nutrition support teams (NSTs) at national and international levels. In order to increase the standards of NSTs, developing an accreditation program is being planned by the Turkish Society of Clinical Enteral & Parenteral Nutrition (KEPAN).

METHODS

Accreditation standards were developed by a study group under the organization of KEPAN. Minimum standards for composition, qualifications, physical requirements, workflow charts, medical records, and both patient and health care providers' safety measures in NSTs were specified. These standards were uploaded to a computer program, and the necessary infrastructure for a web-based management of accreditation processes was developed.

RESULTS

An organization applying for accreditation should fill in the application form on KEPAN website electronically. Eligibility criteria for accreditation include number of NST members, physical environment, patient monitoring requirements, research, and training. A total of 22 standards are surveyed under 13 sections. These standards contain 61 criteria. To be accredited, each of 22 standards must score >70 and each of 13 sections must score >80.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to increase the quality of nutritional care and improve patient outcomes, an accreditation program has been developed. This program principally sets the basic standards, organizational scheme, and responsibilities of NSTs.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Variation in additional testing and patient outcomes after stress echocardiography or myocardial perfusion imaging, according to accreditation status of testing site

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether patients receiving a stress echocardiogram or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) test have differences in subsequent testing and outcomes according to accreditation status of the original testing facility.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An all-payer claims dataset from Maine Health Data Organization from 2012 to 2014 was utilized to define two cohorts defined by an initial stress echocardiogram or MPI test. The accreditation status (Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), American College of Radiology (ACR) or none) of the facility performing the index test was known. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression were used to examine differences in subsequent diagnostic testing and cardiac outcomes. We observed 4603 index stress echocardiograms and 8449 MPI tests. Multivariate models showed higher odds of subsequent MPI testing and hospitalization for angina if the index test was performed at a non-accredited facility in both the stress echocardiogram cohort and the MPI cohort. We also observed higher odds of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13-2.50), if the initial MPI test was done in a non-accredited facility.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac testing completed in non-accredited facilities were associated with higher odds of subsequent MPI testing, hospitalization for angina, and PCI.

Pain management for casualties receiving lifesaving interventions in the prehospital scenario: Raising awareness of our human nature

BACKGROUND

Lifesaving interventions (LSIs) are the hallmark of medical care in trauma casualties, reducing mortality and morbidity. Analgesia is another essential treatment, which has been shown to improve outcomes and decrease long-term complications. However, oligoanalgesia is common, and information regarding its relation to the performance of LSIs is scarce. The purpose of this study was to assess the relation between the performance of LSIs and analgesia administration in the prehospital environment.

METHODS

A retrospective database-based study was performed, including all trauma casualties treated by Israeli Defense Forces physicians and paramedics during 2006 to 2017 and admitted to hospitals participating in the Israeli National Trauma Registry. Included LSIs were tourniquet application, administration of tranexamic acid and freeze-dried plasma, and administration of chest decompression. Casualties treated with endotracheal intubation or cricothyroidotomy were excluded.

RESULTS

In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, LSIs were associated with prehospital analgesia administration (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; confidence interval [CI], 2.56-5.08; p < 0.001). When assessing for the different LSIs, tourniquet application (OR, 2.83; CI, 1.89-4.27; p < 0.001) and tranexamic acid administration (OR, 4.307; CI, 2.42-8.04; p < 0.001) were associated with prehospital analgesia administration.

CONCLUSION

A positive association exists between performance of LSIs and administration of analgesia in the prehospital environment. Possible explanations may include cognitive and emotional biases affecting casualty care providers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective study, level IV.

A Leg to Stand on: Trauma Center Designation and Association with Rate of Limb Salvage in Patients Suffering Severe Lower Extremity Injury

BACKGROUND

Mangled extremities are one of the most difficult injuries for trauma surgeons to manage. We compare limb salvage rates for a limb-threatening lower extremity injuries managed at Level I vs Level II trauma centers (TCs).

STUDY DESIGN

We identified all adult patients with a limb-threatening injury who underwent primary amputation or limb salvage (LS) using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program database at ACS Level I vs II TCs between 2007 and 2017. A limb-threatening injury was defined as an open tibial fracture with concurrent arterial injury (Gustilo type IIIc). Multivariable analysis and propensity score matching were performed to minimize confounding by indication.

RESULTS

There were 712 records for analysis; 391 (54.9%) LS performed and 321 (45.1%) underwent amputation. The rate of LS was statistically higher among patients treated at Level I TCs vs those treated at Level II TCs (47.4% vs 34.8%; p = 0.01). Patients with penetrating injuries (13% vs 9.5%; p = 0.046) and tibial/peroneal artery injury (72.9% vs 50.4%; p < 0.001), as opposed to popliteal artery injury (30.8% vs 58.8%; p < 0.001), were more likely to have LS. The risk-adjusted odds of LS was 3.13 times higher at Level I TCs vs Level II TCs (95% CI, 1.59 to 6.34; p = 0.001). Limb salvage rates were significantly higher at Level I TCs compared with Level II TCs (53.0% vs 34.8%; p = 0.004), even after propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a mangled extremity, limb salvage rates are 50% higher at Level I TCs compared with Level II TCs, independent of case mix and injury severity.

Regionalization of trauma care by operative experience: Does the volume of emergent laparotomy matter?

INTRODUCTION

The volume-outcome relationship led to the regionalization of trauma care. The relationship between trauma centers' injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between a trauma center's injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes in blunt and penetrating trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a (2017) analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We included adult (age, ≥18 years) blunt and penetrating trauma patients who required emergent laparotomies for hemorrhage control. Trauma centers were stratified based on their blunt and penetrating laparotomy volumes: high volume (HV), ≥25 cases per year; medium volume (MV), 13 to 24 cases per year; and low volume (LV), ≤12 cases per year. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 8,588 patients underwent emergent laparotomy for either blunt (4,936; 57.5%) or penetrating injuries (3,652; 42.5%). Overall, mean ± SD age was 40 ± 17 years, abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale was 3 (2-4), and Injury Severity Score was 26 (17-35). For American College of Surgeons (ACS) level I centers, 50% were HV; 29%, MV; and 21%, LV. For ACS level II centers, 7% were HV; 23%, MV; and 70%, LV. For ACS level III centers, 100% were LV. On multivariate regression analysis, admission of blunt and penetrating trauma patients to HV blunt and HV penetrating centers, respectively, was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality. High-volume blunt centers had a significantly lower time to laparotomy (72 [41-144] minutes) versus MV (81 [49-145] minutes) and LV (94 [56-158] minutes) centers (p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for HV penetrating trauma centers (35 [24-52] minutes) versus MV (46 [33-63] minutes) and LV (51 [38-69] minutes) centers (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring emergent laparotomy had higher survival when admitted to trauma centers with HV operative experience for their particular mechanism of injury. The regionalization of trauma care should be based on a thorough evaluation of trauma centers' injury-specific operative experience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, Level III; Therapeutic/Care management, Level IV.

Geriatric Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

BACKGROUND

Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs.

METHODS

The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013.

RESULTS

112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% (P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182).

DISCUSSION

Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.

A comparison of adolescent penetrating trauma patients managed at pediatric versus adult trauma centers in a mature trauma system

BACKGROUND

While there is little debate that pediatric trauma centers (PTC) are uniquely equipped to manage pediatric trauma patients, the extent to which adolescents benefit from treatment there remains controversial. We sought to elucidate differences in management approach and outcome between PTC and adult trauma centers (ATC) for the adolescent penetrating trauma population. We hypothesized that improved mortality would be observed at ATC for this subset of patients.

METHODS

Adolescent patients (age, 15-18 years), presenting to Pennsylvania-accredited trauma centers between 2003 and 2017 with penetrating injury, were queried from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Dead on arrival, transfer patients, and those admitted to a Level III or Level IV trauma center were excluded from analysis. Patient length of stay, number of complications, surgical intervention, and mortality were compared between ATC and PTC. Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models with trauma center as the clustering variable were used to assess the impact of center type (ATC/PTC) on management approach and mortality adjusted for appropriate covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 2,630 adolescent patients met inclusion criteria (PTC: n = 428 [16.3%]; ATC: n = 2,202 [83.7%]). Pediatric trauma centers had a lower adjusted odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.74; p = 0.006) and a lower adjusted odds of surgery (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.93; p = 0.016) than their ATC counterparts. There were no differences in complication rates (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.57-1.55; p = 0.793) or length of stay longer than 4 days (AOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.61-1.48; p = 0.812) between the PTCs and ATCs. There were also differences in penetrating injury type between PTC and ATC.

CONCLUSION

The adolescent penetrating trauma patient population treated at PTC had less surgery performed with improved mortality compared with ATC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level IV.

Severe trauma patient volume was associated with decreased mortality

BACKGROUND

The relationship between the severe trauma patient volume and outcomes is still being debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between severe trauma patient volume, hospital mortality, and door-to-definitive treatment time.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that used recorded data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank. We included severe trauma patients who had an Injury Severity Score greater than 16. Hospitals were categorized according to their annual severe trauma patient volume: low volume, 1-49 (reference), medium volume, 50-99, and high volume, ≥ 100]. The association of volume categories with in-hospital mortality was evaluated by use of a mixed-effects model adjusted for patient demographics and trauma severity. Additionally, the association of volume categories with in-hospital mortality among subgroups and with door-to-definitive treatment time were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 74,957 severe trauma patients from 213 hospitals were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 15.7%, 15.2%, and 12.8% in the low volume, medium volume, and high volume groups, respectively. High volume was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality compared to low volume (odds ratio = 0.757, 95% confidence interval = 0.626-0.916). However, medium volume was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality. Among subgroups, high volume was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality only in the probability of survival ≥ 0.5. Door-to-definitive treatment time was decreased in high volume, however, high volume was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality among the patients who underwent definitive treatment and the patients whose ps < 0.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe trauma patient volume was associated with decreased mortality by decreasing preventable trauma death.

Patients with gunshot wounds to the torso differ in risk of mortality depending on treating hospital

Previous studies have had conflicting results when comparing risk of mortality in patients with gunshot wounds (GSWs) treated at Level-I and II trauma centers. However, the populations studied were restricted geographically. We hypothesized that patients presenting after a GSW to the torso at Level-I centers would have a shorter time to surgical intervention (exploratory laparotomy or thoracotomy) and a lower risk of mortality, compared to Level-IIs in a national database. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients presenting to Level-I or II trauma center after a GSW to the torso. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. From 17,965 patients with GSWs, 13,812 (76.8%) were treated at Level-Is and 4153 (23.2%) at Level-IIs. There was no difference in the injury severity score (ISS) (p = 0.55). The Level-I cohort had a higher rate of laparotomy (38.9% vs. 36.5%, p < 0.001) with a shorter median time to laparotomy (49 vs. 55 min, p < 0.001) but no difference in rate (p = 0.14) and time to thoracotomy (p = 0.62). After adjusting for covariates, only patients undergoing thoracotomy (OR = 0.66, CI = 0.47-0.95, p = 0.02) or those undergoing non-operative management (NOM) (OR = 0.85, CI = 0.74-0.98, p = 0.03) at a Level-I center had lower risk for death, compared to Level-II. Patients with torso GSWs managed with thoracotomy or NOM at a Level-I center have a lower risk of mortality, compared to a Level-II. Future prospective studies examining variations in practice, resources available and surgeon experience to account for these differences are warranted.

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter.

RESULTS

Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of -0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO registration ID CRD42017056729.

Variability in management of blunt liver trauma and contribution of level of American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification status on mortality

BACKGROUND

Patients who sustain blunt liver trauma and are treated at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma-verified Level I trauma center have an overall lower risk of mortality compared with patients admitted to a level II trauma center. However, elements contributing to these differences are unknown. We hypothesize that practice variation exists between trauma centers in management of blunt liver injury. Our objective is to identify practice variations and their effect on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data from a statewide collaborative quality initiative for trauma were used. The data set contains information from 29 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verified Levels I and II trauma centers from 2011 to 2016. Propensity score matching was used to create cohorts of patients treated at Levels I or II trauma centers. The 1:1 matched cohorts were used to compare in-hospital mortality, management strategy, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and failure to rescue.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-four patients with grade 3 or higher blunt liver injury were included. Patients treated at level II trauma centers had higher in-hospital mortality than those treated at Level I trauma centers (15.4% vs 8.8%, p = 0.03). Level II trauma centers used angiography less compared with Level I centers (p = 0.007) and admitted significantly fewer patients to the ICU (p = 0.002). The ICU status was associated with reduced mortality (7.2% vs 23.9%, p < 0.001). Despite a lower rate of overall complications, Level II trauma centers were more likely to fail in rescuing their patients (p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Admission with a high-grade liver injury to a Level II trauma center is associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Level II trauma centers were less likely to use angiography or admit high-grade liver injuries to the ICU. This variation in practice may lead to the inability to rescue critically ill patients. Future research should investigate contributors to underutilization of resources for patients with high-grade liver injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, level IV.

Association of Trauma Alert Response Charges With Volume and Hospital Ownership Type in Florida

Objective:

The purpose was to analyze the association of trauma volume and hospital trauma center (TC) ownership type with trauma alert (TA) response charges, which are billed for activation of the trauma team to the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

All Florida ED and inpatients who were billed a TA charge from 2012 to 2014 were included (62 974 observations). Multiple linear regression, controlling for patient and hospital factors, was used to identify associations between TA charges and trauma volume and hospital ownership type. Severity elasticity of trauma response charges was calculated by ownership type.

Results:

Trauma volume had a significant, inverse relationship with TA charges. For-profit (FP) hospitals had significantly higher TA charges and government-owned hospitals had significantly lower TA charges relative to private not-for-profits. For-profit trauma response charges were inelastic to severity, that is, charges did not change with changes in severity.

Conclusion:

Higher TA charges were associated with lower patient volumes, as well as at FP TCs. Further, only FP TCs used alert charges that were not associated with injury severity. Adding new TCs that reduce volume at existing TCs is expected to increase TA charges, especially if they are FP TCs.

Evaluating quality indicators of tertiary care hospitals for trauma care in Japan

Objective

This study examined the associations between trauma mortality and quality of care indicators currently used in Japan.

Design

This is a retrospective two-level discrete-time survival analysis. Quality indicators were derived from the 2012-2013 annual hospital survey conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Trauma mortality data were derived from the Japan Trauma Data Bank for the period of April 2012 to March 2013.

Setting

Tertiary care centers designated as emergency and critical care centers (ECCCs) in Japan.

Participants

The analysis included 12 378 patients aged ≥15 years with blunt trauma and an Injury Severity Score ≥9, registered to the data bank from 91 ECCCs.

Intervention

Quality of care indicators examined in the annual hospital survey.

Main Outcome Measures

Deaths within 30 days.

Results

Of the 12 378 patients, 660 (5%) died within 30 days. Higher indicator score was significantly associated with lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] for the second, third and fourth quartiles vs. lowest quartile 0.61, 0.55 and 0.52, respectively). Factors significantly associated with lower mortality risk were, higher patient volume (HR for the highest vs. lowest quartile, 0.74), director's qualification as specialist (HR 0.57) or consultant (HR 0.58), review of patient arrival process (HR 0.68), triage functions (HR 0.69), availability of psychiatrists (HR 0.75) and operating room being ready 24-h (HR 0.81).

Conclusions

The study identified certain indicators associated with trauma patient mortality. Further refinement of indicators is required to specifically identify what needs changing.

The "mortality ascent": Hourly risk of death for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients at Level II versus Level I trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Severely injured trauma patients have higher in-hospital mortality at Level II versus Level I trauma centers (TCs). To better understand these differences, we sought to determine if there were any periods during which hemodynamically unstable trauma patients are at higher risk of death at Level II versus Level I TCs within the first 24 hours postadmission.

STUDY DESIGN

Trauma patients aged 18 years to 64 years, with Injury Severity Score of 15 or greater, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at admission, and treated at Level II or Level I TCs, were identified using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. Burn patients, transfers, and patients dead on arrival were excluded. Log-binomial regression models, adjusted for patient- and hospital-level confounders, were used to compare mortality at Level II versus Level I TCs over the first 24 hours postadmission.

RESULTS

Of 13,846 hemodynamically unstable patients, 4,212 (30.4%) were treated at 149 Level II TCs, and 9,634 (69.6%) at 116 Level I TCs. Within the first 24 hours, 3,059 (22.1%) patients died. In risk-adjusted models, mortality risk was significantly elevated at Level II versus Level I TCs during the 24 hours postadmission (relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16). Hourly mortality risk was significantly different between Level II and Level I TCs during 4 hours to 7 hours postadmission, with a maximal difference at 7 hours (relative risk, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36) and comparable mortality risk beyond 7 hours postadmission.

CONCLUSION

The 4-hour to 7-hour time window postadmission is critical for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. Variations in available treatment modalities may account for higher relative mortality at Level II TCs during this time. Further investigation to elucidate specific risk factors for mortality during this period may lead to reductions in in-hospital mortality among hemodynamically unstable trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Impact of hospital volume on mortality in patients with severe torso injury

BACKGROUND

Whether a positive volume-outcome relationship exists in the context of trauma remains controversial. Heterogeneity in the definition of hospital volume in previous studies is one of the main reasons for this inconclusiveness. We investigated whether hospital volume is associated with mortality in patients with severe torso injury using two different definitions of hospital volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan. Patients who were admitted to tertiary emergency centers with severe torso injury and underwent emergency surgery or interventional radiology treatment for the torso injury upon admission from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2014 were included. Hospital volume was defined as the annual number of admissions with severe torso injury (HV-torso) or the annual number of total trauma admissions (HV-all). The main outcome was 28-d mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate relationships between hospital volume and 28-d mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 7725 patients were included. The 28-d mortality rate was 15.3%. The HV-torso was significantly associated with reduced 28-d mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval = 0.44-0.79). However, there was no significant association between the HV-all and mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

The HV-torso was significantly associated with reduced mortality in patients with severe torso injury. In contrast, the HV-all had no significant relationship with their mortality. Regionalization of trauma care for severe torso injury may be beneficial for patients with severe torso injury.

Does my high blood pressure improve your survival? Overall and subgroup learning curves in health

Learning curves in health are of interest for a wide range of medical disciplines, healthcare providers, and policy makers. In this paper, we distinguish between three types of learning when identifying overall learning curves: economies of scale, learning from cumulative experience, and human capital depreciation. In addition, we approach the question of how treating more patients with specific characteristics predicts provider performance. To soften collinearity problems, we explore the use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression as a variable selection method and Theil-Goldberger mixed estimation to augment the available information. We use data from the Belgian Transcatheter Aorta Valve Implantation (TAVI) registry, containing information on the first 860 TAVI procedures in Belgium. We find that treating an additional TAVI patient is associated with an increase in the probability of 2-year survival by about 0.16%-points. For adverse events like renal failure and stroke, we find that an extra day between procedures is associated with an increase in the probability for these events by 0.12%-points and 0.07%-points, respectively. Furthermore, we find evidence for positive learning effects from physicians' experience with defibrillation, treating patients with hypertension, and the use of certain types of replacement valves during the TAVI procedure.

The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study Risk-Adjusted Mortality Model: Results of a Statewide Benchmarking Program

Trauma centers need objective feedback on performance to inform quality improvement efforts. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program recently published recommended methodology for case mix adjustment and benchmarking performance. We tested the feasibility of applying this methodology to develop risk-adjusted mortality models for a statewide trauma system. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥16 years old at Pennsylvania trauma centers from 2011 to 2013 (n = 100,278). Our main outcome measure was observed-to-expected mortality ratios (overall and within blunt, penetrating, multisystem, isolated head, and geriatric subgroups). Patient demographic variables, physiology, mechanism of injury, transfer status, injury severity, and pre-existing conditions were included as predictor variables. The statistical model had excellent discrimination (area under the curve = 0.94). Funnel plots of observed-to-expected identified five centers with lower than expected mortality and two centers with higher than expected mortality. No centers were outliers for management of penetrating trauma, but five centers had lower and three had higher than expected mortality for blunt trauma. It is feasible to use Trauma Quality Improvement Program methodology to develop risk-adjusted models for statewide trauma systems. Even with smaller numbers of trauma centers that are available in national datasets, it is possible to identify high and low outliers in performance.

Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review

Purpose

– Accreditation and external peer review play important roles in assessing and improving healthcare quality worldwide. Evidence on the impact on the quality of care remains indecisive because of programme features and methodological research challenges. The purpose of this paper is to create a general methodological research framework to design future studies in this field.

Design/methodology/approach

– A literature search on effects of external peer review and accreditation was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Three researchers independently screened the studies. Only original research papers that studied the impact on the quality of care were included. Studies were evaluated by their objectives and outcomes, study size and analysis entity (hospitals vs patients), theoretical framework, focus of the studied programme, heterogeneity of the study population and presence of a control group.

Findings

– After careful selection 50 articles were included out of an initial 2,025 retrieved references. Analysis showed a wide variation in methodological characteristics. Most studies are performed cross-sectionally and results are not linked to the programme by a theoretical framework.

Originality/value

– Based on the methodological characteristics of previous studies the authors propose a general research framework. This framework is intended to support the design of future research to evaluate the effects of accreditation and external peer review on the quality of care.

Inhaled, nebulized sodium nitrite protects in murine and porcine experimental models of hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation by limiting mitochondrial injury

OBJECTIVE

The cellular injury that occurs in the setting of hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation (HS/R) affects all tissue types and can drive altered inflammatory responses. Resuscitative adjuncts hold the promise of decreasing such injury. Here we test the hypothesis that sodium nitrite (NaNO2), delivered as a nebulized solution via an inhalational route, protects against injury and inflammation from HS/R.

METHODS

Mice underwent HS/R to a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 20 or 25 mmHg. Mice were resuscitated with Lactated Ringers after 90-120 min of hypotension. Mice were randomized to receive nebulized NaNO2 via a flow through chamber (30 mg in 5 mL PBS). Pigs (30-35 kg) were anesthetized and bled to a MAP of 30-40 mmHg for 90 min, randomized to receive NaNO2 (11 mg in 2.5 mL PBS) nebulized into the ventilator circuit starting 60 min into the hypotensive period, followed by initial resuscitation with Hextend. Pigs had ongoing resuscitation and support for up to four hours. Hemodynamic data were collected continuously.

RESULTS

NaNO2 limited organ injury and inflammation in murine hemorrhagic shock. A nitrate/nitrite depleted diet exacerbated organ injury, as well as mortality, and inhaled NaNO2 significantly reversed this effect. Furthermore, NaNO2 limited mitochondrial oxidant injury. In porcine HS/R, NaNO2 had no significant influence on shock induced hemodynamics. NaNO2 limited hypoxia/reoxia or HS/R-induced mitochondrial injury and promoted mitochondrial fusion.

CONCLUSION

NaNO2 may be a useful adjunct to shock resuscitation based on its limitation of mitochondrial injury.

Association between volume of severely injured patients and mortality in German trauma hospitals

BACKGROUND

The issue of patient volume related to trauma outcomes is still under debate. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between number of severely injured patients treated and mortality in German trauma hospitals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU® (2009-2013). The inclusion criteria were patients in Germany with a severe trauma injury (defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 16), and with data available for calculation of Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) II score. Patients transferred early were excluded. Outcome analysis (observed versus expected mortality obtained by RISC-II score) was performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 39,289 patients were included. Mean(s.d.) age was 49.9(21.8) years, 27,824 (71.3 per cent) were male, mean(s.d.) ISS was 27.2(11.6) and 10,826 (29.2 per cent) had a Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8. Of 587 hospitals, 98 were level I, 235 level II and 254 level III trauma centres. There was no significant difference between observed and expected mortality in volume subgroups with 40-59, 60-79 or 80-99 patients treated per year. In the subgroups with 1-19 and 20-39 patients per year, the observed mortality was significantly greater than the predicted mortality (P < 0.050). High-volume hospitals had an absolute difference between observed and predicted mortality, suggesting a survival benefit of about 1 per cent compared with low-volume hospitals. Adjusted logistic regression analysis (including hospital level) identified patient volume as an independent positive predictor of survival (odds ratio 1.001 per patient per year; P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The hospital volume of severely injured patients was identified as an independent predictor of survival. A clear cut-off value for volume could not be established, but at least 40 patients per year per hospital appeared beneficial for survival.

An inventory of Canadian trauma systems: opportunities for improving access to trauma care

Objective:

Despite evidence that patients suffering major traumatic injuries have improved outcomes when cared for within an organized system, the extent of trauma system development in Canada is limited. We sought to compile a detailed inventory of trauma systems in Canada as a first step toward identifying opportunities for improving access to trauma care.

Methods:

We distributed a nationwide online and mail survey to stakeholders intended to evaluate the extent of implementation of specific trauma system components. Targeted stakeholders included emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, trauma program medical directors and program managers, prehospital providers, and decision makers at the regional and provincial levels. A “snowball” approach was used to expand the sample base of the survey. Descriptive statistics were generated to quantify the nature and extent of trauma system development by region.

Results:

The overall response rate was 38.7%, and all levels of stakeholders and all provinces/territories were represented. All provinces were found to have designated trauma centres; however, only 60% were found to have been accredited within the past 10 years. Components present in 50% or fewer provinces included an inclusive trauma system model, interfacility transfer agreements, and a mechanism to track bed availability within the system.

Conclusion:

There is significant variability in the extent of trauma system development in Canada. Although all provinces have designated trauma centres, opportunities exist in many systems to implement additional components to improve the inclusiveness of care. In future work, we intend to quantify the strength of the relationship between different trauma system components and access to definitive trauma care.

Trauma center staffing, infrastructure, and patient characteristics that influence trauma center need

INTRODUCTION

The most effective use of trauma center resources helps reduce morbidity and mortality, while saving costs. Identifying critical infrastructure characteristics, patient characteristics and staffing components of a trauma center associated with the proportion of patients needing major trauma care will help planners create better systems for patient care.

METHODS

We used the 2009 National Trauma Data Bank-Research Dataset to determine the proportion of critically injured patients requiring the resources of a trauma center within each Level I-IV trauma center (n=443). The outcome variable was defined as the portion of treated patients who were critically injured. We defined the need for critical trauma resources and interventions ("trauma center need") as death prior to hospital discharge, admission to the intensive care unit, or admission to the operating room from the emergency department as a result of acute traumatic injury. Generalized Linear Modeling (GLM) was used to determine how hospital infrastructure, staffing Levels, and patient characteristics contributed to trauma center need.

RESULTS

Nonprofit Level I and II trauma centers were significantly associated with higher levels of trauma center need. Trauma centers that had a higher percentage of transferred patients or a lower percentage of insured patients were associated with a higher proportion of trauma center need. Hospital infrastructure characteristics, such as bed capacity and intensive care unit capacity, were not associated with trauma center need. A GLM for Level III and IV trauma centers showed that the number of trauma surgeons on staff was associated with trauma center need.

CONCLUSION

Because the proportion of trauma center need is predominantly influenced by hospital type, transfer frequency, and insurance status, it is important for administrators to consider patient population characteristics of the catchment area when planning the construction of new trauma centers or when coordinating care within state or regional trauma systems.

The relationship between patient volume and mortality in American trauma centres: a systematic review of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise published and unpublished findings examining the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume or trauma patient volume per surgeon and mortality.

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the relationship between patient volume and survival in trauma patients is inconclusive in the literature and remains controversial.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1976 and 2013 via MEDLINE (Pubmed) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EbscoHost) as well as footnote chasing. Abstracts from appropriate conferences and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were also searched. Inclusion criteria required studies to be original research published in English that examined the relationship between mortality and either institutional or per surgeon volume in American trauma centres. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement checklist and flowchart. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Of 1392 studies reviewed, 19 studies met defined inclusion criteria; all studies were retrospective. The definition of volume was heterogeneous across the studies. Patient population and analysis methods also varied across the studies. Sixteen studies (84%) examined the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume and mortality. Of the 16 studies, 12 examined the volume of severely injured patients and eight examined overall trauma patient volume. High institutional volume was associated with at least somewhat improved mortality in ten of 16 studies (63%); however, nearly half of these studies found only some subpopulations experienced benefits. In the remaining six studies, volume was not associated with any benefits. Four studies (25%) analysed the impact of surgeon volume on mortality. High volume per surgeon was associated with improved mortality in only one of four studies (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

The studies were extremely heterogeneous, thus definitive conclusions cannot be drawn regarding optimal volume before a clear advantage in survival is observed. A prospective study defining volume as a continuous variable is warranted to support current admission criteria for American trauma patients.

Developing process guidelines for trauma care in the Netherlands for severely injured patients: results from a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

In organised trauma systems the process of care is the key to quality. Nevertheless, the optimal process of trauma care remains unclear due to lack of or inconclusive evidence. Because monitoring and improving the performance of a trauma system is complex, this study aimed to develop consensus-based process guidelines for trauma care in the Netherlands for severely injured patients.

METHODS

A five-round Delphi study was conducted with 141 participants that represent all professions involved in trauma care. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate whether consensus extended across all professions and to detect possible bias.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 21 guidelines within 4 categories: timeliness, actions, competent teams and interdisciplinary process. Timeliness guidelines set specific critical limits and definitions for 10 time intervals in the time period from an emergency call until the patient leaves the trauma room. Action guidelines reflect aspects of appropriate care and strongly rely on the international Advanced Trauma Life Support principles. Competence guidelines include flow charts to assess the competence of prehospital and emergency department teams. Essential to competent teams are education and experience of all team members. The interdisciplinary process guideline focuses on cooperation, communication and feedback within and between all professions involved. Consensus was extended across all professions and no bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Delphi study, a large expert panel agreed on a set of guidelines describing the optimal process of care for severely injured trauma patients in the Netherlands. In addition to time intervals and appropriate actions, these guidelines emphasise the importance of team competence and interdisciplinary processes in trauma care. The guidelines can be seen as a description of a best practice and a new field standard in the Netherlands. The next step is to implement the guidelines and monitor the performance of the Dutch trauma system based on the guidelines.

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

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

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

Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature

AIMS

To systematically identify and synthesise health service accreditation literature.

METHODS

A systematic identification and narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature published prior to 2012 were conducted. The search identified 122 empirical studies that examined either the processes or impacts of accreditation programmes. Study components were recorded, including: dates of publication; research settings; levels of study evidence and quality using established rating frameworks; and key results. A content analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of key themes and subthemes examined in the literature and identify knowledge-gaps requiring research attention.

RESULTS

The majority of studies (n=67) were published since 2006, occurred in the USA (n=60) and focused on acute care (n=79). Two thematic categories, that is, 'organisational impacts' and 'relationship to quality measures', were addressed 60 or more times in the literature. 'Financial impacts', 'consumer or patient satisfaction' and 'survey and surveyor issues' were each examined fewer than 15 times. The literature is limited in terms of the level of evidence and quality of studies, but highlights potential relationships among accreditation programmes, high quality organisational processes and safe clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limitations of the literature, it is not prudent to make strong claims about the effectiveness of health service accreditation. Nonetheless, several critical issues and knowledge-gaps were identified that may help stimulate and inform discussion among healthcare stakeholders. Ongoing effort is required to build upon the accreditation evidence-base by using high quality experimental study designs to examine the processes, effectiveness and financial value of accreditation programmes and their critical components in different healthcare domains.

In a mature trauma system, there is no difference in outcome (survival) between Level I and Level II trauma centers

BACKGROUND

The state of Pennsylvania (PA) has one of the oldest, most well-established trauma systems in the country. The requirements for verification for Level I versus Level II trauma centers within PA differ minimally (only in the requirement for patient volume, residency, and research). We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcome at Level I versus Level II trauma centers.

METHODS

Odds of mortality for 16 Level I and 11 Level II hospitals in PA over a 5-year period (2004-2008) was computed using a random effects logistic regression model. Overall adjusted mortality rates at Level I versus Level II hospitals were compared using the nonparametric Wilcoxon's rank sum test. The crude mortality rates for 140,691 patients over the 5-year period were similar (5.07% Level II vs. 5.48% Level I), but statistically significant (odds ratio mortality at Level I = 1.084, p = 0.002 Fisher's exact test).

RESULTS

Although Level I centers had on average crude mortality rates that were higher than those of Level II centers, median adjusted mortality rates were not different for the two types of centers (Wilcoxon's rank sum test). Performance of Level I versus Level II shows considerable variability among centers (basic random effects model, age, blunt/penetrating, and Injury Severity Score [ISS]). However, Level II centers seem no different from Level I.

CONCLUSION

As trauma systems mature, the distinction between Level I and Level II trauma centers blurs. The hierarchal descriptors "Level I" or "Level II" in a mature trauma system is pejorative and implies in those hospitals labeled "Level II" as inferior, and as such should be replaced with nonhierarchal descriptors.

Long-lasting performance improvement after formalization of a dedicated trauma service

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated intrainstitutional improvement of trauma care. We hypothesized that the formalization of a dedicated multidisciplinary trauma service in a major Scandinavian trauma center in 2005 would result in improved outcome.

METHODS

Institutional trauma registry data for 7,243 consecutive patients from the years 2002-2008 were retrospectively evaluated using variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) as one of several performance indicators. VLAD is a refinement of the cumulative sum method that adjusts death and survival by each patient's risk status (probability of survival) and provides a graphical display of performance over time. Probability of survival was calculated according to Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology with National Trauma Data Bank 2005 coefficients.

RESULTS

VLAD demonstrated a sharp increase in cumulative survival starting at the beginning of 2005 and continuing linearly throughout the study period, amounting to 68 additional saved lives. The increase was mainly caused by improved survival among the critically injured (injury severity score 25-75). A cutoff point t0 for analysis of differences between time periods was set at January 1, 2005, coinciding with the formalization of a dedicated trauma service. Mortality in the whole trauma population showed a 33% decrease after t0. W-statistics confirmed the increased survival to be significant. There were no significant changes in age, gender, or injury mechanism. Injury severity score decreased, but differences in case mix were adjusted for in the survival prediction model.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that the start of the long-lasting performance improvement coincided with formalization of a dedicated trauma service, providing increased multidisciplinary focus on all aspects of trauma care.

Impact of accreditation on the quality of healthcare services: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Accreditation is usually a voluntary program in which trained external peer reviewers evaluate a healthcare organization's compliance and compare it with pre-established performance standards. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of accreditation programs on the quality of healthcare services

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the impact of accreditation programs on the quality of healthcare services. Several databases were systematically searched, including Medline, Embase, Healthstar, and Cinhal.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies evaluating the impact of accreditation were identified. The majority of the studies showed general accreditation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), trauma, ambulatory surgical care, infection control and pain management; and subspecialty accreditation programs to significantly improve the process of care provided by healthcare services by improving the structure and organization of healthcare facilities. Several studies showed that general accreditation programs significantly improve clinical outcomes and the quality of care of these clinical conditions and showed a significant positive impact of subspecialty accreditation programs in improving clinical outcomes in different subspecialties, including sleep medicine, chest pain management and trauma management.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent evidence that shows that accreditation programs improve the process of care provided by healthcare services. There is considerable evidence to show that accreditation programs improve clinical outcomes of a wide spectrum of clinical conditions. Accreditation programs should be supported as a tool to improve the quality of healthcare services.

Application of a trauma intensivist model to a Level II community hospital trauma program improves intensive care unit throughput

BACKGROUND

Critical care-trained trauma surgeons are the ideal care provider for severely injured patients. This "captain of the ship" (COS) assumes complete responsibility of the patient, from initial resuscitation to eventual discharge. Unlike American College of Surgeons-verified Level I centers, many nonacademic, community hospital trauma centers use a more fragmented approach, with care in the intensive care unit (ICU) delegated to a committee of multiple specialists. We hypothesized that dedicated trauma intensivists as COS in a community hospital could improve ICU outcome.

METHOD

Beginning from September 2005, dedicated full-time trauma intensivists, without any resident coverage, assumed primary responsibility of all trauma patients admitted to a Level II Pennsylvania state verified trauma center. The ICU care was uninterrupted 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Subspecialty consultations, for recommendations in care only, were selectively obtained as clinically indicated. We compared the 3 years before the implementation of the COS model (PRE: 2003-2005) with the 3 years after the model (POST: 2006-2008). A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There were equal numbers of patients admitted to the ICU setting in both the periods. In the PRE and POST periods, both age (46.9 years vs. 52.4 years; p < 0.001) and Injury Severity Score (16.1 vs. 16.7; p = 0.01) were of significance. We observed significant differences in ventilator days (mean, 8 days vs. 6 days; p = 0.002) and mean ICU days (4.9 days vs. 4.4 days; p < 0.001) across the study periods. Days to tracheostomy also achieved statistical significance (9.1 vs. 8.1; p = 0.03). The number of medical consults decreased by 19% in the POST group (p < 0.001). Hospital stay days were not statistically different (7.4 vs. 7.2; p = 0.18). After adjusting for higher age and Injury Severity Score in the POST period, we noted no difference in the expected mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

A trauma intensivist-driven model can be successfully adopted in a nonacademic community trauma program, without the need for a residency program. A decentralized ICU care model produces inefficiencies, diminishes the role of the trauma service, and decreases the overall throughput of trauma patients.

Initial presentation of older injured patients to high-volume hospitals is not associated with lower 30-day mortality in Medicare data

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether survival of older patients with severe injuries is positively associated with initial presentation to high-volume trauma hospitals.

DESIGN

Historical cohort study.

SETTING

We analyzed Medicare fee-for-service records. Cases were classified by maximum Abbreviated Injury Score (AISmax); those with isolated hip fractures or AISmax <3 were excluded. The initial hospital (emergency department or inpatient) for each case was classified by its number of included inpatient cases.

PATIENTS

Patients aged >or=65 with principal injury diagnoses (ICD-9 800-959, excluding 905, 930-939, 958) admitted to hospitals or who died in emergency departments during 1999.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was determined using Medicare denominator data and modeled as a function of hospital volume, AISmax, age, gender, and comorbidity. We found that 95,867 patients (74,894 AISmax = 3; 17,932 AISmax = 4; 3,041 AISmax = 5) were managed in 4,391 hospitals. More than 90% of the interhospital transfers were from emergency departments, mostly from low-volume to high-volume hospitals, and were more frequent with greater severity. Regression models showed no difference in 30-day survival between patients taken first to low-volume hospitals (and possibly transferred) vs. patients taken directly to high-volume hospitals. Prior studies showing a positive or negative effect of hospital volume on survival of older patients could be replicated but their findings could not be generalized.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing systems of trauma care result in similar survival for older patients with serious injuries seen first at low-volume or high-volume hospitals.

A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Volume of surgery and specialization may affect patient outcome. Articles examining the effects of one or more of three variables (hospital volume of surgery, surgeon volume and specialization) on outcome (measured by length of hospital stay, mortality and complication rate) were analysed. Reviews, opinion articles and observational studies were excluded. The methodological quality of each study was assessed, a correlation between the variables analysed and the outcome accepted if it was significant.

RESULTS

The search identified 55,391 articles published between 1957 and 2002; 1075 were relevant to the study, of which 163 (9,904,850 patients) fulfilled the entry criteria. These 163 examined 42 different surgical procedures, spanning 13 surgical specialities. None were randomized and 40 investigated more than one variable. Hospital volume was reported in 127 studies; high-volume hospitals had significantly better outcomes in 74.2 per cent of studies, but this effect was limited in prospective studies (40 per cent). Surgeon volume was reported in 58 studies; high-volume surgeons had significantly better outcomes in 74 per cent of studies. Specialization was reported in 22 studies; specialist surgeons had significantly better outcomes than general surgeons in 91 per cent of studies. The benefit of high surgeon volume and specialization varied in magnitude between specialities.

CONCLUSION

High surgeon volume and specialization are associated with improved patient outcome, while high hospital volume is of limited benefit.

The impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcome

Trauma centre accreditation originated as a North American initiative in the 1970's with the aim of standardising and improving care for injured patients. This system of grading a hospital's ability to receive serious trauma has subsequently spread, most notably to Australasia. Many studies have focussed on determing whether this accreditation results in improved patient outcomes. We review the evidence to date, which suggests significant mortality reductions albeit from mainly Class III studies and reflect on the future sustainability of this initiative given mounting financial pressures.

Evaluation of a 15-year experience with splenic injuries in a state trauma system

BACKGROUND

The management of splenic injuries has evolved with a greater emphasis on nonoperative management. Although several institutions have demonstrated that nonoperative management of splenic injuries can be performed with an increasing degree of success, the impact of this treatment shift on outcome for all patients with splenic injuries remains unknown. We hypothesized that outcomes for patients with splenic injuries have improved as the paradigm for splenic injury treatment has shifted.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from 1987 to 2001 with splenic injuries who were entered into a state trauma registry were reviewed. Demographic variables, injury characteristics, and outcome data were collected.

RESULTS

The number of patients who were diagnosed with splenic injuries increased from 1987 through 2001, despite a stable number of institutions submitting data to the registry. The number of minor injuries and severe splenic injuries remained stable, and the number of moderately severe injuries significantly increased over time. Overall mortality rate improved but primarily reflected the decreased mortality rates of moderately severe injuries; the mortality rate for severe splenic injuries was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Trauma centers are seeing increasing numbers of splenic injuries that are less severe in magnitude, although the number of the most severe splenic injuries is stable. The increased proportion of patients with less severe splenic injuries who are being admitted to trauma centers is a significant factor in the increased use and success rate of nonoperative management.

Impact of patient volume on the mortality rate of adult intensive care unit patients

OBJECTIVE

Expert task forces have proposed that adult critical care medicine services should be regionalized in order to improve outcomes. However, it is currently unknown if high intensive care unit (ICU) patient volumes are associated with reduced mortality rate. The objective was to investigate whether high-volume ICUs have better mortality outcomes than low-volume ICUs.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study analyzing the association between ICU volume and in-hospital mortality using Project IMPACT (a clinical outcomes database created by the Society of Critical Care Medicine).

PATIENTS

The analyses were based on 70,757 patients admitted to 92 ICUs between 2001 and 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to examine the volume-outcome association. The median (interquartile range) ICU volume was 827 (631-1,234) patient admissions per year. The overall mortality rate was 14.6%. After controlling for patient risk factors and ICU characteristics, and clustering, there was evidence that patients admitted to high-volume ICUs had improved outcomes (p = .025). However, this mortality benefit was seen only in high-risk patients treated at ICUs treating high volumes of high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that high ICU patient volumes are associated with lower mortality rates in high-risk critically ill adults.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcome of Severely Injured Patients Treated in Trauma Centers Following the Establishment of Trauma Systems

BACKGROUND

The establishment of trauma systems was anticipated to improve overall survival for the severely injured patient. We systematically reviewed the published literature to assess if outcome from severe traumatic injury is improved for patients following the establishment of a trauma system.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of all population-based studies that evaluated trauma system performance was conducted. A qualitative analysis of each study's design and methodology and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the evidence to date of trauma system effectiveness.

RESULTS

A search of the literature yielded 14 published articles. Trauma systems demonstrated improved odds of survival in 8 of the 14 reports. The overall quality-weighted odds ratio was 0.85 lower mortality following trauma system implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the meta-analysis showed a 15% reduction in mortality in favor of the presence of a trauma system. Evaluation of trauma system effectiveness must remain an uncompromising commitment to optimal outcome for the injured patient.