American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma Verification Review: does it really make a difference?

Nationwide Analysis of the Distribution of Level 1 and Level 2 Trauma Centers Per Population Growth and Motor Vehicle Collision Injuries/Fatalities Utilizing Geographic Information Systems Mapping Technology: Toward Optimizing Access to Trauma Care

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers (TCs) improve patient outcomes. Few investigations detail the US geographical distribution of Level 1 and 2 TCs (L1TCs, L2TCs) regarding motor vehicle collision (MVC) injuries/fatalities.

OBJECTIVE

We utilized Geographic Information Systems mapping to investigate the distribution of L1TCs and L2TCs in relation to population growth, MVC injuries, and MVC fatalities at the county and regional level to identify any disparities in access to trauma care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of L1TC and L2TC distribution, MVC injuries/fatalities, and population growth from 2010 to 2018. Information was gathered at the county and region level for young adults (aged 15-44), middle-aged adults (45-64), and elderly (≥65).

RESULTS

A total of 263 L1TCs across 46 states and 156 counties and 357 L2TCs across 44 states and 255 counties were identified. The mean distance between L1TCs and L2TCs is 28.3 miles and 31.1 miles, respectively. Seven counties were identified as being at-risk, all in the Western and Southern US regions that experienced ≥10% increase in population size, upward trends in MVC injuries, and upward trends MVC fatalities across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven US counties containing ≤2 ACSCOT-verified and/or state-designated L1TCs or L2TCs experienced a 10% increase in population, MVC injuries, and MVC fatalities across young, middle-aged and elderly adults from 2010 to 2018. This study highlights chronic disparities in access to trauma care for MVC patients. Evaluation of state limitations regarding the distribution of L1TCs and L2TCs, frequent evaluation of local and regional trauma care needs, and strategic interventions to improve access to trauma care may improve patient outcomes for heavily burdened counties.

Trauma outcomes for blunt and penetrating injuries by mode of transportation and day/night shift

BACKGROUND

Effective management of trauma patients is dependent on pre-hospital triage systems and proper in-hospital treatment regardless of time of admission. We aim to investigate any differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between day vs. night arrival for adult trauma patients who were transported to the hospital via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and to determine if care/outcomes are inferior when admitted during the night shift as compared to the day shift.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of adult blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring full team trauma activation at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT)-verified Level 1 trauma center from 2011 to 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square analyses, independent-sample t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests were performed. Primary measurement outcome was adjusted observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios utilizing TRISS methodology.

RESULTS

8370 patients with blunt injuries and 1216 patients with penetrating injuries were analyzed. There were no significant differences in day vs. night O/Es overall (blunt 0.65 vs. 0.59; p = 0.46) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.87; p = 0.97). There also were no significant differences when stratified by GEMS (blunt 0.64 vs. 0.55; p = 0.08) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 1.10; p = 0.09) and HEMS admissions (blunt 0.76 vs. 0.75; p = 0.91) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.91; p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

At an ACSCOT-verified Level 1 Trauma Center, care/outcomes of patients admitted during the night shift were not inferior to those admitted during the day shift. Trauma Center verification by the ACSCOT and multidisciplinary collaboration may allow for consistent care despite injury type and time of day.

A Re-Evaluation of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on the Early Risk of Death in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients

Background Studies show increased early and overall mortality at level II compared to level I trauma centers in hemodynamically unstable patients. We hypothesize there is no mortality difference between level I and level II centers applying more contemporary data. Study design Utilizing the 2017 Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File (TQP-PUF), we identified adult patients (age >14 years) who presented to an American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified level I or II center with hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mmHg). Logistic regression was performed to identify adjusted associations with mortality. Results A total of 7,264 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom most were males (4,924 [67.8%]) with blunt trauma (5,924 [81.6%]) being predominated. Mean admission SBP was 73.2 (±13.0) mmHg. There were 1,097 (15.1%) deaths. Level I admissions (4,931 (67.9%]) were more likely male (3,389 [68.7%] vs. 1,535 [65.8]; p=0.012), non-white (3,119 [63.3%] vs. 1,664 [71.3%]; p<0.001), a victim of penetrating trauma (933 [18.9%] vs. 385 [16.5%]; p=0.015), and more severely injured (mean Injury Severity Score: 19.3 [±15] vs. 16.7 [±13.7]; p<0.001). Level II admissions (2,333 [32.1%]) were older (46.8 [±18.5] vs. 50.3 [±20.1] years; p<0.001) with more co-morbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.43 [±2] vs. 1.77 [±2.2]; p<0.001). Adjusted mortality between level I and II admissions was similar (766 [15.5%] vs. 331 [14.2%]; p=0.918). Early hourly mortality also did not differ. Conclusion There is no overall or hourly mortality discrepancy between ACS-verified level I and II centers for patients presenting with hypotension. This potentially relates to the use of more contemporary data gathered after implementation of updated verification requirements.

Effectiveness of trauma centre verification: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is a growing trend toward verification of trauma centres, but its impact remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of trauma centre verification.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, HealthStar, MEDLINE and ProQuest databases, as well as the websites of key injury organizations for grey literature, from inception to June 2019, without language restrictions. Our population consisted of injured patients treated at trauma centres. The intervention was trauma centre verification. Comparison groups comprised nonverified trauma centres, or the same centre before it was first verified or re-verified. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included adverse events, resource use and processes of care. We computed pooled summary estimates using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Of 5125 citations identified, 29, all conducted in the United States, satisfied our inclusion criteria. Mortality was the most frequently investigated outcome (n = 20), followed by processes of care (n = 12), resource use (n = 12) and adverse events (n = 7). The risk of bias was serious to critical in 22 studies. We observed an imprecise association between verification and decreased mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.06) in severely injured patients.

Conclusion

Our review showed mixed and inconsistent associations between verification and processes of care or patient outcomes. The validity of the published literature is limited by the lack of robust controls, as well as any evidence from outside the US, which precludes extrapolation to other health care jurisdictions. Quasiexperimental studies are needed to assess the impact of trauma centre verification.

Systematic reviews registration

PROSPERO no. CRD42018107083

Impact of trauma centre accreditation on mortality and complications in a Canadian trauma system: an interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Periodic external accreditation visits aiming to determine whether trauma centres are fulfilling the criteria for optimal care are part of most trauma systems. However, despite the growing trend towards accreditation of trauma centres, its impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. In addition, a recent systematic review found inconsistent results on the association between accreditation and patient outcomes, mostly due to the lack of robust controls. We aim to address these gaps by assessing the impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality and complications, using an interrupted time series (ITS) design.

METHODS

We included all major trauma admissions to five level I and four level II trauma centres in Quebec, Canada between 2008 and 2017. In order to perform ITS, we first obtained monthly and quarterly estimates of the proportions of in-hospital mortality and complications, respectively, for level I and level II centres. Prognostic scores were used to standardise these proportions to account for changes in patient case mix and segmented regressions with autocorrelated errors were used to estimate changes in levels and trends in both outcomes following accreditation.

RESULTS

There were 51 035 admissions, including 20 165 for major trauma during the study period. After accounting for changes in patient case mix and secular trend in studied outcomes, we globally did not observe an association between accreditation and patient outcomes. However, associations were heterogeneous across centres. For example, in a level II centre with worsening preaccreditation outcomes, accreditation led to -9.08 (95% CI -13.29 to -4.87) and -9.60 (95% CI -15.77 to -3.43) percentage point reductions in mortality and complications, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Accreditation seemed to be beneficial for centres that were experiencing a decrease in performance preceding accreditation.

Adherence to 20 Emergency General Surgery Best Practices: Results of a National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To examine national adherence to emergency general surgery (EGS) best practices.

BACKGROUND

There is a national crisis in access to high-quality care for general surgery emergencies. Acute care surgery (ACS), a specialty leveraging strengths of trauma systems, may ameliorate this crisis. A critical component of trauma care is adherence to clinical guidelines. We previously established best practices for EGS using RAND Appropriateness Methodology and pilot data.

METHOD

A hybrid (postal/electronic) questionnaire measuring adherence to 20 EGS best practices was administered to respondents overseeing EGS at all eligible adult acute care general hospitals across the US (N = 2811). Questionnaire responses were analyzed using bivariate methods and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

The response rate was 60.1%. Adherence ranged from 8.5% for having an EGS registry to 86.2% for auditing 30-day postoperative readmissions. Adherence was higher for practices not restricted to EGS (eg, auditing readmissions) compared to EGS-specific practices (eg, registry, activation system). Adopting an ACS model of care increased adherence to practices for deferring elective cases; tiering urgent operations; following National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; reversing anticoagulants; auditing returns to intensive care, time to evaluation, time to operation, and time to source control; and having transfer agreements to receive patients, ICU admission protocols, as well as EGS-specific activation systems, outpatient clinics, morbidity and mortality conferences, and registries.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial room for performance improvement, and adopting an ACS model predicts better performance. This novel overview of adherence to EGS best practices will enable surgeons and policymakers to address variations in EGS care nationally.

A Comparison of Pediatric Traumatic Injuries on Farms and Residences from 2009 to 2014

PURPOSE

Children injured on farms in the United States are hospitalized at 14 times the rate of children with injuries unrelated to farming. This study characterizes pediatric injuries occurring on farms compared to injuries in homes.

METHODS

We examined the National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2014 to identify children ages 0-17 with ICD-9 E-codes reflecting a farm or residential place of injury occurrence. Appropriate nonparametric tests were used to compare patient, injury, and hospitalization characteristics by injury locale. Mixed effects models for binary responses were used to examine the odds of an injury occurring on a farm versus at home, and we controlled for random effects of trauma center after adjustment for potential confounding variables including age, sex, and categorical injury severity.

FINDINGS

There were 2,776 injuries on farms, and 133,119 injuries at homes. Children injured on farms had a median age of 10 years compared to 4 years at homes (P < .001). Machinery injuries were 19 times more frequent on farms (P < .001), and injuries to multiple anatomic locations were twice as frequent on farms (P < .001). Children injured on farms required helicopter transport 4 times as often as those injured at home. Additionally, children injured on farms were nearly 2.5 times more likely to have a length of stay greater than 7 days.

CONCLUSION

Injuries occur during the course of childhood; however, injuries sustained in a farming environment are more severe and require greater clinical management than injuries which occur in the home.

Differences in trauma mortality between ACS-verified and state-designated trauma centers in the US

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury is a leading cause of deaths worldwide, and designated trauma centers are crucial to preventing these. In the US, trauma centers can be designated as level I-IV by states and/or the American College of Surgeons (ACS), reflecting the resources available for care. We examined whether state- and ACS-verified facilities of the same level (I-IV) had differences in mortality, complications, and disposition, and whether differences varied by center level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using all admissions reported to the National Trauma Data Bank 2010-2015, we estimated risk ratios for the association between current ACS verification (vs. state designation) and patient mortality and complications, adjusting for trauma level and facility, injury, and demographic characteristics. We tested the interaction between trauma level and ACS verification, stratifying by trauma level in the presence of significant statistical interaction.

RESULTS

Overall, patients admitted to ACS-verified vs state-designated facilities had similar adjusted mortality risk [RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.03] and lower risk of discharge to intermediate care facilities [RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.78]. However, Level III and IV facilities had lower adjusted mortality risk when ACS-verified, with much lower mortality risk in ACS-verified Level IV facilities [RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.54].

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest that while outcomes are similar between ACS-verified and state-designated Level I and II centers, state-designated Level III and particularly Level IV centers show poorer outcomes relative to their ACS-verified counterparts. Further research could explore mechanisms for these differences, or inform potential changes to state designation processes for lower-level centers.

The impact of individual physicians on outcomes after trauma: is it the system or the surgeon?

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking of mortality outcomes across the country has revealed major differences in survival based on the trauma center at which a patient receives care. The role of the individual surgeon in determining trauma outcomes is unknown. Most believe that differences in outcomes are primarily driven by system- and process-based variations. Our objective was to determine if variation in individual surgeon outcomes could help explain difference in survival after trauma.

METHODS

Analysis of trauma patients in the Florida State Inpatient Database from 2010 to 2014. The presence of unique physician identifiers, in addition to hospital identifiers, rendered this data set ideal for performance of multilevel analysis. The amount of the variation attributable to surgeon-level variation was calculated using multilevel random-effects models controlling for patient clinical factors (such as injury severity and comorbidities/age) and hospital-level factors, such as case mix and bed size.

RESULTS

There were 31 hospitals, 175 surgeons, and 65,706 admissions. The overall mortality rate was 5.6%. The average mortality rate across surgeons ranged from 0% to 17.4% (mean 0.4%, standard deviation 1.85). At the individual surgeon level, when controlling for clinical and hospital-level factors, 9% of this variation was attributable solely to the surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

At the state level, we found that differences in outcomes among trauma centers are impacted by individual surgeon-level variation. Implementation of protocolized, system-based trauma care is useful for improving the overall quality of care for injured patients but does not entirely negate surgeon-specific variations in management.

Management of Critical Burn Injuries: Recent Developments

Background

Burn injury and its subsequent multisystem effects are commonly encountered by acute care practitioners. Resuscitation is the major component of initial burn care and must be managed to restore and preserve vital organ function. Later complications of burn injury are dominated by infection. Burn centers are often called to manage problems related to thermal injury, including lightning and electrical injuries.

Methods

A selected review is provided of key management concepts as well as of recent reports published by the American Burn Association.

Results

The burn-injured patient is easily and frequently over resuscitated, with ensuing complications that include delayed wound healing and respiratory compromise. A feedback protocol designed to limit the occurrence of excessive resuscitation has been proposed, but no new “gold standard” for resuscitation has replaced the venerated Parkland formula. While new medical therapies have been proposed for patients sustaining inhalation injury, a paradigm-shifting standard of medical therapy has not emerged. Renal failure as a specific contributor to adverse outcome in burns has been reinforced by recent data. Of special problems addressed in burn centers, electrical injuries pose multisystem physiologic challenges and do not fit typical scoring systems.

Conclusion

Recent reports emphasize the dangers of over resuscitation in the setting of burn injury. No new medical therapy for inhalation injury has been generally adopted, but new standards for description of burn-related infections have been presented. The value of the burn center in care of the problems of electrical exposure, both manmade and natural, is demonstrated in recent reports.

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.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality at trauma centers

OBJECTIVES

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reports hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care as quality indicators. We hypothesized that compliance with CMS quality indicators would correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients.

METHODS

A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to measure observed-to-expected mortality ratios (O/E with 95% confidence interval) for Level I and II trauma centers using the National Trauma Data Bank data. Adult patients (>or=16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >or=3) were included (127,819 patients). Compliance with CMS quality indicators in four domains was obtained from Hospital Compare website: acute myocardial infarction (8 processes), congestive heart failure (4 processes), pneumonia (7 processes), surgical infections (3 processes). For each domain, a single composite score was calculated for each hospital. The relationship between O/E ratios and CMS quality indicators was explored using nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

There was no relationship between compliance with CMS quality indicators and risk-adjusted outcomes of trauma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CMS quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. Hence, there is a need to develop new trauma-specific process of care quality indicators to evaluate and improve quality of care in trauma centers.

Verified centers, nonverified centers, or other facilities: a national analysis of burn patient treatment location

BACKGROUND

Although comprehensive burn care requires significant resources, patients may be treated at verified burn centers, nonverified burn centers, or other facilities due to a variety of factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient and injury characteristics and treatment location using a national database.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed an analysis of all burn patients admitted to United States hospitals participating in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project over 2 years. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify patient and injury factors associated with the likelihood of treatment at designated burn care facilities. Definitive care facilities were categorized as American Burn Association-verified centers, nonverified burn centers, or other facilities.

RESULTS

During the 2 years of the study, 29,971 burn patients were treated in 1,376 hospitals located in 19 participating states. A total of 6,712 (22%) patients were treated at verified centers, with 26% and 52% treated at nonverified or other facilities, respectively. Patients treated at verified centers were younger than those treated at nonverified or other facilities (33.1 years versus 33.7 years versus 41.9 years; p < 0.001) and had a higher rate of inhalation injury (3.4% versus 3.2% versus 2.2%; p < 0.001). Independent factors associated with treatment at verified centers include burns to the head or neck (relative risk [RR], 2.4; CI, 2.1 to 2.7), hand (RR, 1.8; CI, 1.6 to 1.9), electrical injury (RR, 1.4; CI, 1.2 to 1.7), and fewer comorbidities (RR, 0.55; CI, 0.5 to 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

More than two-thirds of significantly burned patients are treated at nonverified burn centers in the United States. Many patients meeting American Burn Association criteria for transfer to a burn center are being treated at nonburn center facilities.

Quality of Care Within a Trauma Center Is not Altered by Injury Type

BACKGROUND

: Previous studies have demonstrated variations in severity-adjusted mortality between trauma centers. However, it is not clear if outcomes vary by the type of injury being treated.

METHODS

: National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify patients 16 years or older with moderate to severe injuries (Abbreviated Injury score > or =3) treated at level I or II trauma centers (n = 127,439 patients, 105 centers). Observed-to-Expected mortality ratios (O/E ratios, 95% confidence interval [CI]) were calculated for each trauma center within each of the three injury types: blunt multisystem (two or more body regions; n = 27,980; crude mortality, 15%), penetrating torso (neck, chest, or abdomen; n = 9,486; crude mortality, 9%), and blunt single system (n = 89,973; crude mortality 5%). Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for age, gender, mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity (Glasgow Coma Scale, blood pressure). For each injury type, trauma centers' performance was ranked as high (O/E with 95% CI <1), low (O/E with 95% CI >1), or average performers (O/E overlapping 1).

RESULTS

: Almost three quarters of the trauma centers achieved the same performance rank in each of the three injury categories. There were 14 low-performing trauma centers in blunt multisystem injuries, six in penetrating torso injuries, and nine in the blunt single system injuries group. None of these centers achieved high performance in any other type of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

: Risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within trauma centers across different types of injuries, suggesting that quality improvement efforts should measure, analyze, and focus on hospital-wide systems of care, rather than on isolated quality domains related to specific types of injury.

The effect of burn center and burn center volume on the mortality of burned adults--an analysis of the data in the National Burn Repository

Regional variations of care, and improved outcomes with larger volumes, have been well described in the medical and surgical literature for a variety of conditions including heart surgery, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Burn care has not been recently subjected to such an analysis. The National Burn Repository (NBR) contains de-identified patient and burn center data to allow this analysis. The NBR was queried for adult burn patients admitted for an acute thermal burn injury. A multivariable regression analysis to identify risk of death was performed incorporating patient characteristics, de-identified burn center, and burn center volume. Patient characteristics such as age, size of burn, mechanism of burn, inhalation injury, race, and sex determine mortality. There is also a statistically significant difference in death rates when individual, de-identified centers are compared. This difference in care persists even when accounting for burn center volume. Analysis of registries like the NBR, insurance claims databases, and statewide hospital discharge databases may help identify opportunities to improve burn care. According to this analysis of data available in the NBR, burn mortality depends not only on patient characteristics but also where the patient is treated. Mortality does not linearly improve with burn center volume and plateaus with increasing burn center size. The optimal burn center size is a complicated and contentious question. Future discussions about burn center size and density should incorporate not only mortality but also the region's ability to absorb surges in volume, and the optimal "staffing" ratios for the multidisciplinary aspects of burn care.

Complication rates among trauma centers

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to examine the association between patient complications and admission to Level I trauma centers (TC) compared with nontrauma centers (NTC).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of data derived from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma (NSCOT). Patients were recruited from 18 Level I TCs and 51 NTCs in 15 regions encompassing 14 states. Trained study nurses, using standardized forms, abstracted the medical records of the patients. The overall number of complications per patient was identified, as was the presence or absence of 13 specific complications.

RESULTS

Patients treated in TCs were more likely to have any complication compared with patients in NTCs, with an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.03, 1.74). For individual complications, only the urinary tract infection RR of 1.94 (95% CI, 1.07, 3.17) was significantly higher in TCs. TC patients were more likely to have 3 or more complications (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.16, 2.90). Treatment variables that are surrogates for markers of injury severity, such as use of pulmonary artery catheters, multiple operations, massive transfusions (> 2,500 mL packed red blood cells), and invasive brain catheters, occurred significantly more often in TCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma centers have a slightly higher incidence rate of complications, even after adjusting for patient case mix. Aggressive treatment may account for a significant portion of TC-associated complications. Pulmonary artery catheter use and intubation had the most influence on overall TC complication rates. Additional study is needed to provide accurate benchmark measures of complication rates and to determine their causes.

Management of burn injuries--recent developments in resuscitation, infection control and outcomes research

Introduction

Burn injury and its subsequent multisystem effects are commonly encountered by acute care practitioners. Resuscitation is the major component of initial burn care and must be managed to restore and preserve remote organ function. Later complications of burn injury are dominated by infection. Burn centers are often called to manage soft tissue problems outside thermal injury including soft tissue infection and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.

Methods

A selected review of recent reports published by the American Burn Association is provided.

Results

The burn-injured patient is easily and frequently over resuscitated with complications including delayed wound healing and respiratory compromise. A feedback protocol is designed to limit the occurrence of excessive resuscitation has been proposed but no new "gold standard" for resuscitation has replaced the Parkland formula. Significant additional work has been included in recent guidelines identifying specific infectious complications and criteria for these diagnoses in the burn-injured patient. While new medical therapies have been proposed for patients sustaining inhalation injury, a new standard of medical therapy has not emerged. Renal failure as a contributor to adverse outcome in burns has been reinforced by recent data generated in Scandinavia. Of special problems addressed in burn centers, soft tissue infections and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis have been reviewed but new treatment strategies have not been identified. The value of burn centers in management of burns and other soft tissue problems is supported in several recent reports.

Conclusion

Recent reports emphasize the dangers of over resuscitation in the setting of burn injury. No new medical therapy for inhalation injury exists but new standards for description of burn-related infections have been presented. The value of the burn center in care of soft tissue problems including Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and soft tissue infections is supported in recent papers.

The challenges of developing a trauma system for Indigenous people

Trauma systems have been shown to provide the best trauma care for injured patients. A trauma system developed for Indigenous people should take into account many factors including geographical remoteness and cultural diversity. Indigenous people suffer from a significant intentional and non-intentional burden of injury, often greater than non-Indigenous populations, and a public health approach in dealing with trauma can be adopted. This includes transport issues, prevention and control of intentional violence, cultural sensitization of health providers, community emergency responses, community rehabilitation and improving resilience. The ultimate aim is to decrease the trauma burden through a trauma system with which indigenous people can fully identify.

Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes

PURPOSE

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1).

RESULTS

Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers.

CONCLUSIONS

The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.

Analysis of admissions and outcomes in verified and nonverified burn centers

The American Burn Association instituted a burn center verification process to ensure optimal care for patients with burn injury. Limited data exist regarding differences in admissions and outcomes between verified (VC) and nonverified burn centers (NVC). The study purpose was to compare demographics, treatment, and outcomes of VC and NVC. The five VC were compared with the 12 NVC using data from California's discharge database for the year 2003. A total of 2867 patients were admitted to a burn center, 1645 to NVC (132/center), and 1222 (244/center) to VC. NVC admitted 1496 (91%) of their patients from local area and 118 (7%) from other acute care hospitals; in contrast, 948 (78%) of VC patients were local and 253 (21%) were transfers from other acute care hospitals. VCs admitted twice as many burns > or =80% total body surface area as NVC. VCs admitted more patients with face burns (18% VC vs 14% NVC, P < .001), had more patients on mechanical ventilation (12.4% VC vs 9.9% NVC P < .04), and performed fewer operations (61% VC vs 66% NVC, P < .006). Mortality rate was 3% in NVC and 4% in VC. During the study period verified centers in California admitted more patients per center and treated more severely injured patients than nonverified centers. Despite these differences, VC had mortality rates comparable to their nonverified counterparts. These findings support the need for additional studies evaluating the impact of verification on burn care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of trauma systems on motor vehicle occupant mortality: A comparison between states with and without a formal system

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies using a "before-and-after" methodology report a reduction in motor vehicle collision mortality with implementation of statewide trauma systems (TS). However, concurrent improvements in roads, cars, restraint systems, and changes in rates of drunk driving, socioeconomics, speed limits, urban or rural mix, and traffic density may also be responsible for the progressive reduction in mortality rates. We hypothesized that a statewide TS independently reduces injury mortality, irrespective of other factors.

METHODS

Data were acquired from several federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), and the United States Census Bureau. Age-adjusted motor vehicle occupant (MVO) death rates per 100,000 population were compared in states with and without a TS. Negative binomial regression was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) comparing mortality in TS and non-TS states after adjusting for effects of gender, race, primary seat belt laws, seat belt use, alcohol use, miles traveled, population density, per capita income, types of registered vehicles, and rural or urban mix.

RESULTS

: The number of states with a TS increased from 7 in 1981 to 36 in 2002. Concurrently, nationwide MVO death rates decreased by 2.6 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval 1.2-3.9; p < 0.001). Income, primary seat belt laws, restraint use, speed limits, and rural or urban population distribution (p < 0.05 for all), were independent predictors of MVO mortality, but not presence of a TS (RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.23; p = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

MVO death rates have declined over time, and are lower in TS states. However, the cause is multi-factorial, and cannot be attributed solely to presence of TS. Further studies are needed to identify beneficial components of a statewide trauma system.

Massive transfusion practices around the globe and a suggestion for a common massive transfusion protocol

BACKGROUND

Massive transfusion, the administration of 10 to more than 100 units of red blood cells (RBC) in less than 24 hours, can be a life saving therapy in the treatment of severe injury. The rapid administration of large numbers of RBC, along with sufficient plasma and platelets to treat or prevent coagulopathy, is frequently a disorderly process. Patient care and collaborative research might be aided with a common protocol.

METHODS

The authors polled trauma organizations and trauma centers to find examples of massive transfusion protocols. The goals and ease of use of these protocols were evaluated.

RESULTS

Massive transfusion protocols exist at a relatively small number of large and well-organized trauma centers. Most of these protocols are designed to treat pre-existing and/or ongoing coagulopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence would suggest that prevention of coagulopathy is superior to its treatment. Simple ratios such as 1:1:1 RBC:plasma:platelets have the benefit of ease of use and the relatively higher plasma and platelet doses appear to be associated with improved outcome. Such a standard protocol can foster multicenter research on resuscitation and hemorrhage control. The fixed volume ratios might allow the number and rate of administered units of RBC to be used as surrogates for blood loss and primary treatment effect.

Monitoring performance: longterm impact of trauma verification and review

BACKGROUND

This study documents how the verification process at a Level I pediatric trauma center affected patient care through changes in care indicators (CIs) from predesignation through four postverification time frames. An important component of any verification program is its effectiveness, not only at the time of verification but during the time between "examinations." To date, few data exist describing the interval periods and the progression and maturation of a trauma program after initial verification.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty-seven distinct CIs were monitored monthly through data generated from the trauma registry. Six distinct time periods were identified. PRE (January, June, October 1997), trauma care without monitoring; VER (November 1999 to September 2000), preparation for verification; and four postverification periods: P1 (January to June 2001), P2 (July to December 2001), P3 (January to June 2002), and P4 (July to September 2002).

RESULTS

Between 1997 and 2002, trauma admissions increased from 200 per year to 313 per year. Mortality rate and Injury Severity Score distributions remained unaltered. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) quantitative and qualitative changes were observed in numbers (percent) of patients reaching clinical criteria. These included prehospital, emergency department, and hospital-based trauma competencies. Trauma patient evaluation (including radiology) and disposition out of the emergency department (<120 minutes) improved in each study section and remained high during the postverification time period. There was a strong pair-wise correlation (p < 0.005, Cronbach alpha 0.8) between CNS charting and acquisition of head CAT scans. Pediatric ICU duration of stay increased in both the (summer) P2 and P4 time periods. Prehospital and emergency department fluid monitoring remained unsatisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant changes in patient care indicators were noted to improve during the trauma center designation process, and other key deficiencies were identified and addressed. Maintaining these improvements requires constant monitoring or performance may revert below accepted levels.