Exclusive versus Inclusive Trauma System Model in High Volume Trauma Regions

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of In-Hospital Mortality between Dedicated Regional Trauma Centers and Emergency Medical Centers in the Republic of Korea

Background

In the Republic of Korea, a trauma care system was not created until 2012, at which point regional trauma centers (RTCs) were established nationwide. In accordance with the national emergency care system and legislation, regional and local emergency medical centers (EMCs) also treat patients presenting with trauma. The aim of the present study was to assess whether treatment in RTCs is truly associated with better patient outcomes than that in EMCs by means of propensity score-matched comparisons and to identify populations that would benefit from treatment in RTCs.

Methods

This study analyzed the data of patients with consecutive emergency visits between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, collected in the National Emergency Department Information System registry. Data from RTCs, designated regional EMCs, or local EMCs were included; data from smaller emergency departments were excluded because, in Korea, dedicated RTCs are established only in hospitals with regional or local EMCs. Propensity scores for treatment in RTCs or EMCs were estimated by logistic regression using linear terms. Mortality rates in RTCs and EMCs were compared between the matched samples.

Results

The in-hospital mortality rates in the matched cases treated in RTCs and EMCs were 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively. The odds ratio for in-hospital mortality in RTCs over EMCs was 0.984 (95% confidence interval: 0.813–1.191). Among the subgroups evaluated, the subgroup of patients with injuries involving the chest or lower limbs showed a significant difference in the in-hospital mortality rate.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the overall severity-adjusted mortality rate between patients treated in RTCs and EMCs. Treatment in an RTC might benefit those with injuries involving the chest or lower limbs.

Trauma Care in Nigeria: Time for an Integrated Trauma System

Traumatic injuries are a global health problem. Most first world countries have developed comprehensive trauma systems to provide optimal care for injured patients. A trauma system is a coordinated effort in a defined geographic area that attempts to deliver trauma care to all injured patients and is usually integrated with the local public health system.

The majority of low and middle income countries (LMIC) do not have functional trauma systems. This study aims to critique the status of trauma care in Nigeria and make a case for a re-organisation towards an inclusive trauma system.

The methodology was a review of published articles and available grey literature to assess current practices in Nigeria within the various components of a trauma system, viz., injury prevention, pre-hospital care, acute care, and rehabilitation.

The conclusions from this review suggest that integrating existing major trauma centres (MTCs) with smaller local hospitals within a region into an inclusive, interconnected region-based trauma system is the cheapest and most efficient way to improve Nigeria's trauma care and significantly reduce trauma mortality rates.

Development of the Saudi Arabian trauma system

A dedicated network-based trauma system ensures optimal care to injured patients. Considering the significant burden of trauma, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is striving to develop a nationwide trauma system. This article describes the recent design, development, and implementation of the Saudi Arabian trauma system in line with Vision 2030. The basis of our strategy was the find, organize, clarify, understand, select-plan, do, check, and act (FOCUS-PDCA) model, developed by engaging key stakeholders, including patients. More than 300 healthcare professionals and patients from around the Riyadh region assessed the current system with three solutions and roadmap workshops. Subsequently, the national clinical advisory group (CAG) for trauma was formed to develop the Saudi Arabian trauma system, and CAG members analyzed and collated internationally recognized trauma systems and guidelines. The guidelines' applicability in the kingdom was discussed and reviewed, and an interactive document was developed to support socialization and implementation. The CAG team members agreed on the guiding principles for the trauma pathway, identified the challenges, and finalized the new system design. They also developed a trauma care standard document to support and guide the rollout of new trauma networks across the kingdom. The CAG members and other stakeholders are at the forefront of implementing the trauma system across the Riyadh region. Recent trauma system development in Saudi Arabia is the first step in improving national trauma care and may guide development in other locations, regionally and internationally, to improve outcomes.