Time to OR for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds: A potential process measure to assess the quality of trauma care?

Outcomes by time-to-OR for penetrating abdominal trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

Time-To-OR is a critical process measure for trauma performance. However, this measure has not consistently demonstrated improvement in outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Using TQIP, we identified facilities by 75th percentile time-to-OR to categorize slow, average, and fast hospitals. Using a GEE model, we calculated odds of mortality for all penetrating abdominal trauma patients, firearm injuries only, and patients with major complication by facility speed. We additionally estimated odds of mortality at the patient level.

RESULTS

Odds of mortality for patients at slow facilities was 1.095; 95% CI: 0.746, 1.608; p = 0.64 compared to average. Fast facility OR = 0.941; 95% CI: 0.780, 1.133; p = 0.52. At the patient-level each additional minute of time-to-OR was associated with 1.5% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.985; 95% CI:0.981, 0.989; p < 0.001). For firearm-only patients, facility speed was not associated with odds of in-hospital mortality (p-value = 0.61). Person-level time-to-OR was associated with 1.8% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.982; 95% CI: 0.977, 0.987; p < 0.001) with each additional minute of time-to-OR. Similarly, failure-to-rescue analysis showed no difference in in-hospital mortality at the patient level (p = 0.62) and 0.4% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality with each additional minute of time-to-OR at the patient level (OR 0.996; 95% CI: 0.993, 0.999; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Despite the use of time-to-OR as a metric of trauma performance, there is little evidence for improvement in mortality or complication rate with improved time-to-OR at the facility or patient level. Performance metrics for trauma should be developed that more appropriately approximate patient outcome.

Getting out of the bay faster: Assessing trauma team performance using trauma video review

BACKGROUND

Minutes matter for trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock. How trauma team function impacts time to the next phase of care has not been rigorously evaluated. We hypothesized better team performance scores to be associated with decreased time to the next phase of trauma care.

METHODS

This retrospective secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter observational study included hypotensive trauma patients at 19 centers. Using trauma video review, we analyzed team performance with the validated Non-Technical Skills for Trauma scale: leadership, cooperation and resource management, communication, assessment/decision making, and situational awareness. The primary outcome was minutes from patient arrival to next phase of care; deaths in the bay were excluded. Secondary outcomes included time to initiation and completion of first unit of blood and inpatient mortality. Associations between team dynamics and outcomes were assessed with a linear mixed-effects model adjusting for Injury Severity Score, mechanism, initial blood pressure and heart rate, number of team members, and trauma team lead training level and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 441 patients were included. The median Injury Severity Score was 22 (interquartile range, 10-34), and most (61%) sustained blunt trauma. The median time to next phase of care was 23.5 minutes (interquartile range, 17-35 minutes). Better leadership, communication, assessment/decision making, and situational awareness scores were associated with faster times to next phase of care (all p < 0.05). Each 1-point worsening in the Non-Technical Skills for Trauma scale score (scale, 5-15) was associated with 1.6 minutes more in the bay. The median resuscitation team size was 12 (interquartile range, 10-15), and larger teams were slower ( p < 0.05). Better situational awareness was associated with faster completion of first unit of blood by 4 to 5 minutes ( p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Better team performance is associated with faster transitions to next phase of care in hypotensive trauma patients, and larger teams are slower. Trauma team training should focus on optimizing team performance to facilitate faster hemorrhage control.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Emergency department versus operating room intubation of patients undergoing immediate hemorrhage control surgery

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhage control surgery is an essential trauma center function. Airway management of the unstable bleeding patient in the emergency department (ED) presents a challenge. Premature intubation in the ED can exacerbate shock and precipitate extremis. We hypothesized that ED versus operating room intubation of patients requiring urgent hemorrhage control surgery is associated with adverse outcomes at the patient and hospital-levels.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hemorrhage control within 60 minutes of arrival at level 1 or 2 trauma centers were identified (National Trauma Data Bank 2017-2019). To minimize confounding, patients dead on arrival, undergoing ED thoracotomy, or with clinical indications for intubation (severe head/neck/face injury or Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤8) were excluded. Two analytic approaches were used. First, hierarchical logistic regression measured the risk-adjusted association between ED intubation and mortality. Secondary outcomes included ED dwell time, units of blood transfused, and major complications (cardiac arrest, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, sepsis). Second, a hospital-level analysis determined whether hospital tendency ED intubation was associated with adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 9,667 patients who underwent hemorrhage control surgery at 253 trauma centers. Patients were predominantly young men (median age, 33 years) who suffered penetrating injuries (71%). The median initial Glasgow Coma Scale and systolic blood pressure were 15 and 108 mm Hg, respectively. One in five (20%) of patients underwent ED intubation. After risk-adjustment, ED intubation was associated with significantly increased odds of mortality, longer ED dwell time, greater blood transfusion, and major complications. Hospital-level analysis identified significant variation in use of ED intubation between hospitals not explained by patient case mix. After risk adjustment, patients treated at hospitals with high tendency for ED intubation (compared with those with low tendency) were significantly more likely to suffer in-hospital cardiac arrest (6% vs. 4%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.03).

CONCLUSION

Emergency department intubation of patients who require urgent hemorrhage control surgery is associated with adverse outcomes. Significant variation in ED intubation exists between trauma centers not explained by patient characteristics. Where feasible, intubation should be deferred in favor of rapid resuscitation and transport to the operating room.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.