Evaluation of the interhospital patient transfer after implementation of a regionalized trauma care system (TraumaNetzwerk DGU®) in Germany

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate how many patients are being transferred between trauma centers and and their characteristics in the 2006 initiated TraumaNetzwerk DGU® (TNW). We further investigated the time point of transfer and differences in outcome, compared to patients not being transferred. We wanted to know how trauma centers judged the performance of the TNW in transfer.

Method

(1) We analyzed the data of the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) from 2014-2018. Included were patients that were treated in German trauma centers, maximum AIS (MAIS) >2 and MAIS 2 only in case of admission on ICU or death of the patient. Patients being transferred were compared to patients who were not. Characteristics were compared, and a logistic regression analysis performed to identify predictive factors. (2) We performed a survey in the TNW focussing on frequency, timing and communication between hospitals and improvement through TNW.

Results

Study I analyzed 143,195 patients from the TR-DGU. Their mean ISS was 17.8 points (SD 11.5). 56.4% were admitted primarily to a Level-I, 32.2% to a Level-II and 11.4% to a Level-III Trauma Center. 10,450 patients (7.9%) were transferred. 3,667 patients (22.7%) of the admitted patients of Level-III Center and 5,610 (12.6%) of Level-II Center were transferred, these patients showed a higher ISS (Level-III: 18.1 vs. 12.9; Level-II: 20.1 vs. 15.8) with more often a severe brain injury (AIS 3+) (Level-III: 43.6% vs. 13.1%; Level-II: 53.2% vs. 23.8%). Regression analysis showed ISS 25+ and severe brain injury AIS 3+ are predictive factors for patients needing a rapid transfer. Study II: 215 complete questionnaires (34%) of the 632 trauma centers. Transfers were executed within 2 h after the accident (Level-III: 55.3%; Level-II: 25.0%) and between 2-6 h (Level-III: 39.5%; Level-II: 51.3%). Most trauma centers judged that implementation of TNW improved trauma care significantly (Level III: 65.0%; Level-II: 61.4%, Level-I: 56.7%).

Conclusion

The implementation of TNW has improved the communication and quality of comprehensive trauma care of severely injured patients within Germany. Transfer is mostly organized efficient. Predictors such as higher level of head injury reveal that preclinical algorithm present a potential of further improvement.

[Optimization of criteria for activation of trauma teams : Avoidance of overtriage and undertriage]

INTRODUCTION

Severely injured patients are supposed to be admitted to hospital via the trauma room. Appropriate criteria are contained in the S3 guidelines on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries (S3-GL); however, some of these criteria require scarce hospital resources while the patients then often clinically present as uninjured. There are tendencies to streamline the trauma team activation criteria (TTAC); however, additional undertriage must be avoided. A study group of the emergency, intensive care medicine and treatment of the severely injured section (NIS) is in the process of optimizing the TTAC for the German trauma system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In order to solve the objective the following multi-step approach is necessary: a) definition of patients who potentially benefit from TTA, b) verification of the definition in the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU), c) carrying out a prospective, multicenter study in order to determine overtriage and undertriage, thereby validating the activation criteria and d) revision of the current TTAC.

RESULTS

This article summarizes the consensus criteria of the group assumed to be capable of identifying patients who potentially benefit from TTA. These criteria are used to test if TTA was justified in a specific case; however, as the TTCA of the S3-GL are not fully incorporated into the TR-DGU dataset and because cases must also be considered which were not subject to trauma room treatment and therefore were not included in the TR-DGU, it is necessary to perform a prospective full survey of all individuals in order to be able to measure overtriage and undertriage.

CONCLUSION

Currently, the TR-DGU can only provide limited evidence on the quality of the TTAC recommended in Germany. This problem has been recognized and will be solved by conducting a prospective DGU-supported study, the results of which can be used to improve the TR-DGU dataset in order to enable further considerations on the quality of care (e. g. composition and size of the trauma team).