The association between level of trauma care and clinical outcome measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Norwegian national trauma registry: development process and essential data insights

BACKGROUND

Understanding trauma epidemiology, patient demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes is essential for optimising trauma systems. The Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) monitors and improves the Norwegian Trauma System, setting care standards and overseeing system development. The registry was officially recognised as a national register in 2013. This study outlines the establishment of the population-based national registry and provides an overview of selected data.

METHODS

Norway's trauma system includes trauma centres, acute care hospitals, and prehospital services. The registry collects injury details, clinical outcomes, and patient experiences. Local NTR databases that are linked to a central database are maintained at each hospital, and only certified data registrars can enter and validate data. This enables data linkages across hospitals. The NTR includes potentially severely injured patients but also includes undertriaged patients (defined as severely injured patients who are not met by a trauma team activation upon hospital arrival). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data from trauma patients registered between 2015 and 2023. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) from 2022 were also assessed.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2023, 78 275 trauma patients were recorded, with annual patient inclusion rising from 7586 in 2015 to 9759 in 2023. All 38 Norwegian hospitals contributed data in 2023. Median age was 41 years (IQR: 21-62), and 66.5% were men. The highest injury rate was among those aged 15-24 years. Penetrating injuries accounted for 4.6% of cases. Severely injured patients with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) ≥ 16 totalled 16 678 (21.3%), while 10 509 (13.4%) had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16. Polytrauma was identified in 3783 (4.9%) of patients using the Newcastle definition and in 2508 (3.2%) patients using the Berlin definition. In 2023, a trauma team was activated for 8731(89.4%) patients recorded in the registry. PROMs data from 2022 showed that 47.2% (1018/2157) of the patients reported anxiety or depression 12 months post-injury. Among those without physical injuries, 8.0% (11/138) were out of work or education. Of the severely injured patients (NISS ≥ 16) who were employed or in education prior to the injury, 26.4% (83/314) had not returned to work or education after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The Norwegian Trauma Registry has been successfully implemented in all trauma hospitals in Norway, enabling comprehensive data collection to support trauma care improvements and research.

Prehospital Care Post-Road-Crash: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence that supports best practice post-crash response emergency care.

STUDY DESIGN

The research questions to achieve the study objective were developed using the Patient, Intervention, Control, Outcome standard following which a systematic literature review (SLR) of research related to prehospital post-road-crash was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 89 papers were included in the analysis, presented according to the PRISMA guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This research explored and identified key insights related to emergency care post-road-crash response. The findings showed that interservice coordination and shared understanding of roles was recommended. Application of traditional practice of the "Golden Hour" has been explored and contested as a standard for all care. Notwithstanding this, timeliness of provision of care remains important to certain patient groups suffering certain injury types and is supported as part of a trauma system approach for patient care.

Simplified Chinese Trauma Advanced Practice Nurses' Core Competency Scale: A development and psychometric validation study

BACKGROUND

The core competency of trauma advanced practice nurses (APNs) is directly related to the quality of trauma nursing work.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an instrument to measure trauma APNs' core competency and examine its psychometric properties.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional psychometric validation study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 762 trauma nurses recruited from several tertiary hospitals in 14 different provinces of China between June 2023 and May 2024 provided valid data for analysis.

METHODS

The Simplified Chinese Trauma Advanced Practice Nurses' Core Competency Scale (TAPNCCS-SC) was developed through five steps. Step 1) Creation of the operational definition: Based on the onion model, an operational definition of core competencies for trauma nurses is proposed. Step 2) Item generation: Based on the theoretical model, literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation, a preliminary scale was developed. Step 3) Item content validation: 6 experts reviewed items for content validity; Step 4) Pilot study: 21 nurses were selected to test the readability of the preliminary scale; and Step 5) Psychometric evaluation: Item analysis, content validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and half-reliability were conducted.

RESULTS

The TAPNCCS-SC consists of 34 items and three dimensions (knowledge and skills, professional competencies, and occupational qualities). The explained variance of the 3-factor was 81.86 %. The CFA showed an acceptable-fitting 3-factor model (χ2/df = 3.653, RMSEA = 0.088, SRMR = 0.402, CFI = 0.920, IFI = 0.920, and TLI = 0.914). For convergent validity, AVE was 0.784-0.804 and CR was 0.974-0.980. The internal consistency and split-half reliability for the total scale were 0.991 and 0.945, respectively. The I-CVI ranged from 0.83 to 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed scale exhibits high reliability and validity and is suitable for assessing the core competency of trauma APNs, which can help nursing managers plan relevant training and enhance trauma care competency.

Impact of Trauma Verification Level on Management and Outcomes of Combined Traumatic Brain and Solid Organ Injuries: An NTDB Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Level-I and level-II trauma centers are required to offer equivalent resources since "The Orange Book." This study evaluates differences between level-I and level-II management of solid organ injury (SOI) with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Banks from 2013 to 2021 of adult (≥18 years), blunt trauma patients with both TBI and SOI treated at level-I or level-II trauma centers.

RESULTS

48,479 TBI and SOI patients were identified, 32,611 (67.3%) at level-I centers. Unadjusted incidence of laparotomy was higher at level I (14.5% vs 11.7%, P < 0.001), and angiography rates were similar (3.3% vs 3.4%, P 0.717). Sub-group analysis of stable patients (SBP ≥100) showed an increase in nonoperative management at level II (87.3% vs 88.7%, P < 0.001) and decrease in laparotomy (9.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.001). On logistic regression (LR), severe TBI, high-grade SOI, and level I trauma status were predictors of laparotomy. Logistic regression showed mild/moderate TBI with high-grade SOI and level II were associated with use of angiography. Unadjusted mortality rates were slightly different (14.8% vs 13.4%, P < 0.001), but there was no association with trauma level on LR.

DISCUSSION

Nonoperative management was seen more at level-II centers with laparotomy at level I. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in mortality in trauma levels. Matched patients for level I and II showed no statistical difference in management. Patients were treated similarly at both levels with similar outcomes and mortality.

PREDICTION OF TIME TO HEMODYNAMIC STABILIZATION OF UNSTABLE INJURED PATIENT ENCOUNTERS USING ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD DATA

ABSTRACT

Background : This study sought to predict time to patient hemodynamic stabilization during trauma resuscitations of hypotensive patient encounters using electronic medical record (EMR) data. Methods: This observational cohort study leveraged EMR data from a nine-hospital academic system composed of Level I, Level II, and nontrauma centers. Injured, hemodynamically unstable (initial systolic blood pressure, <90 mm Hg) emergency encounters from 2015 to 2020 were identified. Stabilization was defined as documented subsequent systolic blood pressure of >90 mm Hg. We predicted time to stabilization testing random forests, gradient boosting, and ensembles using patient, injury, treatment, EPIC Trauma Narrator, and hospital features from the first 4 hours of care. Results: Of 177,127 encounters, 1,347 (0.8%) arrived hemodynamically unstable; 168 (12.5%) presented to Level I trauma centers, 853 (63.3%) to Level II, and 326 (24.2%) to nontrauma centers. Of those, 747 (55.5%) were stabilized with a median of 50 min (interquartile range, 21-101 min). Stabilization was documented in 94.6% of unstable patient encounters at Level I, 57.6% at Level II, and 29.8% at nontrauma centers ( P < 0.001). Time to stabilization was predicted with a C-index of 0.80. The most predictive features were EPIC Trauma Narrator measures, documented patient arrival, provider examination, and disposition decision. In-hospital mortality was highest at Level I, 3.0% vs. 1.2% at Level II, and 0.3% at nontrauma centers ( P < 0.001). Importantly, nontrauma centers had the highest retriage rate to another acute care hospital (12.0%) compared to Level II centers (4.0%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Time to stabilization of unstable injured patients can be predicted with EMR data.

The impact of alcohol misuse in trauma patients: A scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use is a contributing factor in many cases of traumatic injury. There is conflicting evidence on the impact of alcohol use at the time of physical trauma on severity of injury and hospital course. Similarly, the significance of alcohol use disorder on outcomes in hospitalized trauma patients is unclear. This scoping review aims to provide a concise overview of the current literature surrounding peri-trauma alcohol use and alcohol use disorder on injury severity, in-hospital complications, patient outcomes, and long-term health impact of alcohol use in trauma. We will also explore the associated healthcare costs of this patient population.

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library will be completed to extract all studies that meet our inclusion criteria from January 2000 onwards. Case reports will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen all citations, abstracts, and full text articles. A third reviewer will act as tiebreaker at each stage of the screening process. A narrative synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted and assessed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

DISCUSSION

This review will contribute to the literature by providing a concise overview of the current data on the impact of alcohol on outcomes following trauma. We will explore the overall themes in the literature, limitations, and future directions to focus forthcoming research in this patient population.

SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION

This project is registered via the Open Science Framework. The public registration is uniquely identified with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z84WK.

SUPPORT

There were no funders or sponsors involved in the development of this protocol.

In-hospital mortality after prehospital endotracheal intubation versus alternative methods of airway management in trauma patients. A cohort study from the TraumaRegister DGU®

PURPOSE

Prehospital airway management in trauma is a key component of care and is associated with particular risks. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the gold standard, while extraglottic airway devices (EGAs) are recommended alternatives. There is limited evidence comparing their effectiveness. In this retrospective analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®, we compared ETI with EGA in prehospital airway management regarding in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma.

METHODS

We included cases only from German hospitals with a minimum Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 2 and age ≥ 16 years. All patients without prehospital airway protection were excluded. We performed a multivariate logistic regression to adjust with the outcome measure of hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We included n = 10,408 cases of whom 92.5% received ETI and 7.5% EGA. The mean injury severity score was higher in the ETI group (28.8 ± 14.2) than in the EGA group (26.3 ± 14.2), and in-hospital mortality was comparable: ETI 33.0%; EGA 30.7% (27.5 to 33.9). After conducting logistic regression, the odds ratio for mortality in the ETI group was 1.091 (0.87 to 1.37). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.04 (1.01 to 1.07) in the ETI group and 1.1 (1.02 to 1.26) in the EGA group.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in mortality rates between the use of ETI or EGA, or the ratio of expected versus observed mortality when using ETI.

Management of pediatric renal trauma: Results from the American Association for Surgery and Trauma Multi-Institutional Pediatric Acute Renal Trauma Study

BACKGROUND

Pediatric renal trauma is rare and lacks sufficient population-specific data to generate evidence-based management guidelines. A nonoperative approach is preferred and has been shown to be safe. However, bleeding risk assessment and management of collecting system injury are not well understood. We introduce the Multi-institutional Pediatric Acute Renal Trauma Study (Mi-PARTS), a retrospective cohort study designed to address these questions. This article describes the demographics and contemporary management of pediatric renal trauma at Level I trauma centers in the United States.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected at 13 participating Level I trauma centers on pediatric patients presenting with renal trauma between 2010 and 2019. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to report on demographics, acute management, and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1,216 cases were included in this study. Of all patients, 67.2% were male, and 93.8% had a blunt injury mechanism. In addition, 29.3% had isolated renal injuries, and 65.6% were high-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grades III-V) injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score was 20.5. Most patients were managed nonoperatively (86.4%), and 3.9% had an open surgical intervention, including 2.7% having nephrectomy. Angioembolization was performed in 0.9%. Collecting system intervention was performed in 7.9%. Overall mortality was 3.3% and was only observed in patients with multiple injuries. The rate of avoidable transfer was 28.2%.

CONCLUSION

The management and outcomes of pediatric renal trauma lack data to inform evidence-based guidelines. Nonoperative management of bleeding following renal injury is a well-established practice. Intervention for renal trauma is rare. Our findings reinforce differences from the adult population and highlights opportunities for further investigation. With data made available through Mi-PARTS, we aimed to answer pediatric specific questions, including a pediatric-specific bleeding risk nomogram, and better understanding indications for interventions for collecting system injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Breaking barriers in trauma research: A narrative review of opportunities to leverage veterinary trauma for accelerated translation to clinical solutions for pets and people

Trauma is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in humans and companion animals. Recent efforts in procedural development, training, quality systems, data collection, and research have positively impacted patient outcomes; however, significant unmet need still exists. Coordinated efforts by collaborative, translational, multidisciplinary teams to advance trauma care and improve outcomes have the potential to benefit both human and veterinary patient populations. Strategic use of veterinary clinical trials informed by expertise along the research spectrum (i.e., benchtop discovery, applied science and engineering, large laboratory animal models, clinical veterinary studies, and human randomized trials) can lead to increased therapeutic options for animals while accelerating and enhancing translation by providing early data to reduce the cost and the risk of failed human clinical trials. Active topics of collaboration across the translational continuum include advancements in resuscitation (including austere environments), acute traumatic coagulopathy, trauma-induced coagulopathy, traumatic brain injury, systems biology, and trauma immunology. Mechanisms to improve funding and support innovative team science approaches to current problems in trauma care can accelerate needed, sustainable, and impactful progress in the field. This review article summarizes our current understanding of veterinary and human trauma, thereby identifying knowledge gaps and opportunities for collaborative, translational research to improve multispecies outcomes. This translational trauma group of MDs, PhDs, and DVMs posit that a common understanding of injury patterns and resulting cellular dysregulation in humans and companion animals has the potential to accelerate translation of research findings into clinical solutions.

Admission to a Verified Pediatric Trauma Center is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Severely Injured Children

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown improved survival for severely injured adult patients treated at American College of Surgeons verified level I/II trauma centers compared to level III and undesignated centers. However, this relationship has not been well established in pediatric trauma centers (PTCs). We hypothesize that severely injured children will have lower mortality at verified level I/II PTCs compared to centers without PTC verification.

METHODS

All patients 1-15 years of age with ISS >15 in the 2017-2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Programs (ACS TQP) dataset were reviewed. Patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest, burns, and those transferred out for ongoing inpatient care were excluded. Logistic regression models were used to assess the effects of pediatric trauma center verification on mortality.

RESULTS

16,301 patients were identified (64 % male, median ISS 21 [17-27]), and 60 % were admitted to verified PTCs. Overall mortality was 6.0 %. Mortality at centers with PTC verification was 5.1 % versus 7.3 % at centers without PTC verification (p < 0.001). After controlling for injury mechanism, sex, age, pediatric-adjusted shock index (SIPA), ISS, arrival via interhospital transfer, and adult trauma center verification, pediatric level I/II trauma center designation was independently associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.61-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment at ACS-verified pediatric trauma centers is associated with improved survival in critically injured children. These findings highlight the importance of PTC verification in optimizing outcomes for severely injured pediatric patients and should influence trauma center apportionment and prehospital triage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV - Retrospective review of national database.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) successfully used in interhospital transport

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is primarily utilized in traumatic noncompressible torso hemorrhage as a temporary approach to buying time until a definite intervention could be obtained. REBOA is mostly reported in inhospital or prehospital settings. Its interhospital transfer use remains controversial. In this report, we present a case with pelvic fracture and hemorrhagic shock who underwent REBOA placement and was transferred from a local hospital to a trauma center successfully for further surgical intervention.

Merging of two level-1 trauma centers in Amsterdam: premerger demand in integrated acute trauma care

PURPOSE

Availability of adequate and appropriate trauma care is essential. A merger of two Dutch academic level-1 trauma centers is upcoming. However, in the literature, volume effects after a merger are inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the premerger demand for level-1 trauma care on integrated acute trauma care and evaluate the expected demand on the system.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted between 1-1-2018 and 1-1-2019 in two level-1 trauma centers in the Amsterdam region using data derived from the local trauma registries and electronic patient records. All trauma patients presented at both centers' Emergency Departments (ED) were included. Patient- and injury characteristics and data concerning all prehospital and in-hospital-delivered trauma care were collected and compared. Pragmatically, the demand for trauma care in the post-merger setting was considered a sum of care demand for both centers.

RESULTS

In total, 8277 trauma patients were presented at both EDs, 4996 (60.4%) at location A and 3281 (39.6%) at location B. Overall, 462 patients were considered severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16). In total, 702 emergency surgeries (< 24 h) were performed, and 442 patients were admitted to the ICU. The sum care demand of both centers resulted in a 167.4% increase in trauma patients and a 151.1% increase in severely injured patients. Moreover, on 96 occasions annually, two or more patients within the same hour would require advanced trauma resuscitation by a specialized team or emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

A merger of two Dutch level-1 trauma centers would, in this scenario, result in a more than 150% increase in the post-merger setting's demand for integrated acute trauma care.

Identifying the severely injured benefitting from a specific level of trauma care in an inclusive network: A multicentre retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Defining major trauma (MT) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 has limitations. This threshold is used for concentrating MT care in networks with multiple levels of trauma care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify subgroups of severely injured patients benefiting on in-hospital mortality and non-fatal clinical outcome measures in an optimal level of trauma care.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective cohort study on data of the Dutch National Trauma Registry, region South West, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patients ≥ 16 years admitted within 48 h after trauma transported with (H)EMS to a level I trauma centre (TC) or a non-level I trauma facility with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≥ 3 were included. Patients with burns or patients of ≥ 65 years with an isolated hip fracture were excluded. Logistic regression models were used for comparing level I with non-level I. Subgroup analysis were done for MT patients (ISS > 15) and non-MT patients (ISS 9-14).

RESULTS

A total of 7,493 records were included. In-hospital mortality of patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility did not differ significantly from patients admitted to the level I TC (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-1.30). This was also applicable for MT patients (OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.73-1.53) and non-MT patients (OR: 1.30; 95% CI (0.56-3.03). Hospital and ICU LOS were significantly shorter for patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facilities, and patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility were more likely to be discharged home. Findings were confirmed for MT and non-MT patients, per injured body region.

CONCLUSION

All levels of trauma care performed equally on in-hospital mortality among severely injured patients (MAIS ≥ 3), although patients admitted to the level I TC were more severely injured. Subgroups of patients by body region or ISS, with a survival benefit or more favorable clinical outcome measures were not identified. Subgroups analysis on clinical outcome measures across different levels of trauma care in an inclusive trauma network is too simplistic if subgroups are based on injuries in specific body region or ISS only.

[Indicators to measure the performance of emergency trauma care]

The objective of this paper was to identify the main indicators used to measure the performance in emergency trauma care. A literature review was carried out in the electronic databases: PubMEd, LILACS and Epistemónikos, including publications between January 2011 and December 31, 2021, in Spanish, English and Portuguese. A total of 962 publications were identified. When reviewing the full text, 48 articles were included. The indicators were classified in the dimensions of process and results. 100 different indicators were identified to analyze the performance of emergency trauma care. 71% were process indicators, including service time and triage. In the results dimension 29 indicators were identified; mortality was the indicator most analyzed as well as length of stay. Six indicators on the disability of injured people and 14 indicators related to satisfaction were identified, the most frequent being complaints. Various indicators have been used to assess the performance of emergency trauma care. In the results dimension, the indicators related to satisfaction and disability after injuries have been little explored. Decision-makers and those responsible for emergency care must promote performance evaluation exercises to learn about their current situation using appropriate and sensitive indicators with the available data.

Pediatric vs Adult or Mixed Trauma Centers in Children Admitted to Hospitals Following Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023.

Study Selection

Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI).

Results

A total of 56 studies with 286 051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.

Mortality after hospital admission for trauma in Norway: A retrospective observational national cohort study

BACKGROUND

National quality data for trauma care in Norway have not previously been reported. We have therefore assessed crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality in trauma cases after primary hospital admission on national and regional levels for 36 acute care hospitals and four regional trauma centres.

METHODS

All patients in the Norwegian Trauma Registry in 2015-2018 were included. Crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was assessed for the total cohort and for severe injuries (Injury Severity Score ≥16), and individual and combined effects of health region, hospital level, and hospital size were studied.

RESULTS

28,415 trauma cases were included. Crude mortality was 3.1% for the total cohort and 14.5% for severe injuries, with no statistically significant difference between regions. Risk-adjusted survival was lower in acute care hospitals than in trauma centres (0.48 fewer excess survivors per 100 patients, P<0.0001), amongst severely injured patients in the Northern health region (4.80 fewer excess survivors per 100 patients, P = 0.004), and in hospitals with <100 trauma admissions per year (0.65 fewer excess survivors than in hospitals with ≥100 admissions, P = 0.01). However, the only statistically significant effects in a multivariable logistic case mix-adjusted descriptive model were hospital level and health region. Case-mix adjusted odds ratio for survival for severely injured patients directly admitted to a trauma centre vs. an acute care hospital was 2.04 (95% CI 1.04-4.00, P = 0.04), and if admitted in the Northern health region vs. all other health regions was 0.47 (95% CI 0.27-0.84, P = 0.01). The proportion of cases admitted directly to the regional trauma centre in the sparsely populated Northern health region was half of that in the other regions (18.4% vs. 37.6%, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Differences in risk-adjusted survival for severe injuries can to a large extent be attributed to whether patients are directly admitted to a trauma centre. This should have implications for planning of transport capacity in remote areas.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

Association between major trauma centre care and outcomes of adult patients injured by low falls in England and Wales

BACKGROUND

Disability and death due to low falls is increasing worldwide and disproportionately affects older adults. Current trauma systems were not designed to suit the needs of these patients. This study assessed the association between major trauma centre (MTC) care and outcomes in adult patients injured by low falls.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Trauma Audit and Research Network on adult patients injured by falls from <2 m between 2017 and 2019 in England and Wales. 30-day survival, length of hospital stay and discharge destination were compared between MTCs and trauma units or local emergency hospitals (TU/LEHs) using an adjusted multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

127 334 patients were included, of whom 27.6% attended an MTC. The median age was 79.4 years (IQR 64.5-87.2 years), and 74.2% of patients were aged >65 years. MTC care was not associated with improved 30-day survival (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96, p<0.001). Transferred patients had a significant impact on the results. After excluding transferred patients, MTC care was associated with greater odds of 30-day survival (AOR 1.056, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.113, p=0.044). MTC care was also associated with greater odds of 30-day survival in the most severely injured patients (AOR 1.126, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, p=0.002), but not in patients aged >65 years (AOR 1.038, 95% CI 0.982 to 1.097, p=0.184).

CONCLUSION

MTC care was not associated with improved survival compared with TU/LEH care in the whole cohort. Patients who were transferred had a significant impact on the results. In patients who are not transferred, MTC care is associated with greater odds of 30-day survival in the whole cohort and in the most severely injured patients. Future research must determine the optimum means of identifying patients in need of higher-level care, the components of care which improve patient outcomes, develop patient-focused outcomes which reflect the characteristics and priorities of contemporary trauma patients, and investigate the need for transfer in specific subgroups of patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

INCLUSION CRITERIA

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Rehabilitation outcomes based on service provision and geographical location for patients with multiple trauma: A mixed-method systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has highlighted the benefit of regionalised trauma networks in relation to decreased mortality. However, patients who now survive increasingly complex injuries continue to navigate the challenges of recovery, often with a poor view of their experiences of the rehabilitation journey. Geographical location, unclear rehabilitation outcomes and limited access to the provision of care are increasingly noted by patients as negatively influencing their view of recovery.

STUDY DESIGN

This mixed-methods systematic review included research that addresses the impact of service provision and geographical location of rehabilitation services for multiple trauma patients. The primary aim of the study was to analyse functional independence measure (FIM) outcomes. The secondary aim of the research was to examine the rehabilitation needs and experiences of multiple trauma patients by identifying themes around the barriers and challenges to rehabilitation provision. Finally, the study aimed to contribute to the gap in literature around the rehabilitation patient experience.

METHODS

An electronic search of seven databases was undertaken against pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was utilised for quality appraisal. Following data extraction, both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods were utilised. In total, 17,700 studies were identified and screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria (five quantitative, four qualitative, two mixed method).

RESULTS

FIM scores showed no significant difference in all studies after long-term follow-up. However, statistically significantly less FIM improvement was noted in those with unmet needs. Patients with physiotherapist assessed unmet rehabilitation needs were statistically less likely to improve than patients whose needs were reportedly met. In contrast, there was a differing opinion regarding the success of structured therapy input, communication and coordination, long-term support and planning for home. Common qualitative themes revealed lack of rehabilitation post-discharge, often with long waiting times.

CONCLUSION

Stronger communication pathways and coordination within a trauma network, particularly when repatriating outside of a network catchment area is recommended. This review has exposed the many rehabilitation variations and complexities a patient may experience following trauma. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of arming clinicians with the tools and expertise to improve patient outcomes.

Interfacility Emergency Department Transfer for Midface Fractures in the United States

PURPOSE

Interfacility hospital transfer for isolated midfacial fractures is common but rarely clinically necessary. The purpose of this study was to generate nationally representative estimates regarding the incidence, risk factors, and cost of transfer for isolated midface fractures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample 2018 to identify patients with isolated midface fractures. The primary predictor variable was hospital trauma center designation (Level I, Level II, Level III, and nontrauma center). The primary outcome variable was hospital transfer. Total emergency department (ED) charges were also assessed. Covariates were demographic, medical, injury-related, and hospital characteristics. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple logistic regression statistics were used to evaluate the incidence and predictors of interfacility transfer.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 161,022 ED encounters with a midface fracture as primary diagnosis, of which 5,680 were transferred (3.53%). In an unadjusted analysis, evaluation at a nontrauma center, level III trauma center, nonteaching hospital, and numerous demographic, medical, and injury-related variables were associated with transfer (P ≤ .001). In the adjusted model, the strongest independent predictors for hospital transfer were evaluation at a nontrauma center (odds ratio [OR] = 16.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6-19.4), level III trauma center (OR = 13.4, 95% CI = 11.1-16.1) or level II trauma center (OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 2.66-3.98), any Le Fort fracture (OR = 12.0, 95% CI = 10.4-14.0), orbital floor fracture (OR = 3.73, 95% CI = 3.48-4.00), history of cerebrovascular event (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = 2.18-3.45), and cervical spine injury (OR = 5.87, 95% CI = 4.79-7.20) (P ≤ .001). The average ED charge per encounter was $7,206 ± 9,294 for a total nationwide charge of approximately 1.16 billion dollars. Transferred subjects had total ED charges of $97 million, not including additional charges at the recipient hospital.

CONCLUSION

Isolated midface fractures are transferred infrequently, but given the high incidence have substantial healthcare costs. Predictors of transfer were mixed rather than clustered within one variable type, although it is likely that transfers are driven in part by lack of access to maxillofacial specialists given the predominance of hospital covariates. Programs evaluating necessity of transfer and facilitating specialist evaluation in the outpatient setting may reduce healthcare expenditures for these injuries.

Severe isolated injuries have a high impact on resource use and mortality: a Dutch nationwide observational study

PURPOSE

The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with the presence of physiological risk factors (PRFs). Severe isolated injuries (SII) are excluded from the BPD. This study describes the characteristics, resource use and outcomes of patients with SII according to their injured body region, and compares them with those included in the BPD.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Dutch National Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2019. SII patients were defined as those with an injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 4 in one body region, with at most minor additional injuries (AIS ≤ 2). We performed an SII subgroup analysis per AIS region of injury. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for SII subgroup patient outcomes, and resource needs.

RESULTS

A total of 10.344 SII patients were included; 47.8% were ICU admitted, and the overall mortality was 19.5%. The adjusted risk of death was highest for external (2.5, CI 1.9-3.2) and for head SII (2.0, CI 1.7-2.2). Patients with SII to the abdomen (2.3, CI 1.9-2.8) and thorax (1.8, CI 1.6-2.0) had a significantly higher risk of ICU admission. The highest adjusted risk of disability was recorded for spine injuries (10.3, CI 8.3-12.8). The presence of ≥ 1 PRFs was associated with higher mortality rates compared to their poly-trauma counterparts, displaying rates of at least 15% for thoracic, 17% for spine, 22% for head and 49% for external SII.

CONCLUSION

A severe isolated injury is a high-risk entity and should be recognized and treated as such. The addition of PRFs to the isolated anatomical injury criteria contributes to the identification of patients with SII at risk of worse outcomes.

Trauma Prevalence and Resource Utilization during 4 COVID-19 “Surges”: A National Analysis of Trauma Patients from 92 Trauma Centers

Introduction

We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographics & outcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019.

Results

The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home.

Conclusions

Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

Association of traumatic brain injury severity and time to definitive care in three low-middle-income European countries

BACKGROUND

Low-middle-income countries experience among the highest rates of traumatic brain injury in the world. Much of this burden may be preventable with faster intervention, including reducing the time to definitive care. This study examines the relationship between traumatic brain injury severity and time to definitive care in major trauma hospitals in three low-middle-income countries.

METHODS

A prospective traumatic brain injury registry was implemented in six trauma hospitals in Armenia, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova for 6 months in 2019. Brain injury severity was measured using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at admission. Time to definitive care was the time from injury until arrival at the hospital. Cox proportionate hazards models predicted time to care by severity, controlling for age, sex, mechanism, mode of transportation, location of injury and country.

RESULTS

Among 1135 patients, 749 (66.0%) were paediatric and 386 (34.0%) were adults. Falls and road traffic were the most common mechanisms. A higher proportion of adult (23.6%) than paediatric (5.4%) patients had GCS scores indicating moderate (GCS 9-11) or severe injury (GCS 0-8) (p<0.001). Less severe injury was associated with shorter times to care, while more severe injury was associated with longer times to care (HR=1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). Age interacted with time to care, with paediatric cases receiving faster care.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of standard triage and transport protocols may reduce mortality and improve outcomes from traumatic brain injury, and trauma systems should focus on the most severe injuries.

Primary admission and secondary transfer of trauma patients to Dutch level I and level II trauma centers: predictors and outcomes

PURPOSE

The importance and impact of determining which trauma patients need to be transferred between hospitals, especially considering prehospital triage systems, is evident. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between mortality and primary admission and secondary transfer of patients to level I and II trauma centers, and to identify predictors of primary and secondary admission to a designated level I trauma center.

METHODS

Data from the Dutch Trauma Registry South West (DTR SW) was obtained. Patients ≥ 18 years who were admitted to a level I or level II trauma center were included. Patients with isolated burn injuries were excluded. In-hospital mortality was compared between patients that were primarily admitted to a level I trauma center, patients that were transferred to a level I trauma center, and patients that were primarily admitted to level II trauma centers. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders. A subgroup analysis was done including major trauma (MT) patients (ISS > 15). Predictors determining whether patients were primarily admitted to level I or level II trauma centers or transferred to a level I trauma center were identified using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 17,035 patients were included. Patients admitted primarily to a level I center, did not differ significantly in mortality from patients admitted primarily to level II trauma centers (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-1.06) and patients transferred to level I centers (OR: 0.99; 95%CI 0.57-1.71). Subgroup analyses confirmed these findings for MT patients. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that age (OR: 0.96; 95%CI 0.94-0.97), GCS (OR: 0.81; 95%CI 0.77-0.86), AIS head (OR: 2.30; 95%CI 2.07-2.55), AIS neck (OR: 1.74; 95%CI 1.27-2.45) and AIS spine (OR: 3.22; 95%CI 2.87-3.61) are associated with increased odds of transfers to a level I trauma center.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study showed no differences in in-hospital mortality between general trauma patients admitted primarily and secondarily to level I trauma centers. The most prominent predictors regarding transfer of trauma patients were age and neurotrauma. These findings could have practical implications regarding the triage protocols currently used.

Dutch trauma system performance: Are injured patients treated at the right place?

BACKGROUND

The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS).

METHODS

Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC.

RESULTS

Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% - 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements.