Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age.

RESULTS

Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Escaping the Silos: Utilization of a Pediatric Trauma Escape Room to Promote Interprofessional Education and Collaboration

BACKGROUND

Millions of children are treated annually for trauma-related injuries but comprise a smaller proportion of emergency department visits than adults. As a result, emergency department teams may not have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to care for pediatric patients, and specialty teams may not interact enough as an interprofessional team to provide high-quality patient care.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this project is to describe a novel interprofessional simulation-based education initiative to assist pediatric trauma team readiness.

METHODS

An escape room was designed to provide an interactive educational environment focused on pediatric trauma education. Using an interprofessional dyad of a trauma nursing specialist and a pediatric nursing expert, the escape room was designed as a series of clues to improve pediatric skills and interprofessional collaboration between specialty teams. The escape room training was conducted (from February to March, 2023) in a large Southeastern U.S. Level II adult trauma center.

RESULTS

Twenty-one registered nurses from different specialty teams participated in the simulation exercises with overwhelmingly positive feedback. Colleagues reported this was a unique way to deliver education that resulted in innovative team building and enriched collegiality between the specialty teams.

CONCLUSIONS

The escape room educational format was positively received, and future events are planned across disciplines and various topics. Trauma centers with lower pediatric volumes seeking to provide engaging team-based education may use this format as a unique and innovative way to develop teams for clinical success.

Does lower extremity fracture fixation technique influence neurologic outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury? The EAST Brain vs. Bone multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether lower extremity fracture fixation technique and timing (≤24 vs. >24 hours) impact neurologic outcomes in TBI patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted across 30 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of >2, and a diaphyseal femur or tibia fracture requiring external fixation (Ex-Fix), intramedullary nailing (IMN), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The analysis was conducted using analysis of variamce, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable regression models. Neurologic outcomes were measured by discharge Ranchos Los Amigos Revised Scale (RLAS-R).

RESULTS

Of the 520 patients enrolled, 358 underwent Ex-Fix, IMN, or ORIF as definitive management. Head AIS was similar among cohorts. The Ex-Fix group experienced more severe lower extremity injuries (AIS score, 4-5) compared with the IMN group (16% vs. 3%, p = 0.01) but not the ORIF group (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.1). Time to operative intervention varied between the cohorts with the longest time to intervention for the IMN group (median hours: Ex-Fix, 15 [8-24] vs. ORIF, 26 [12-85] vs. IMN, 31 [12-70]; p < 0.001). The discharge RLAS-R score distribution was similar across the groups. After adjusting for confounders, neither method nor timing of lower extremity fixation influenced the discharge RLAS-R. Instead, increasing age and head AIS score were associated with a lower discharge RLAS-R score (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.03 and OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.75-3.22), and a higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score on admission (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) was associated with higher RLAS-R score at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Neurologic outcomes in TBI are impacted by severity of the head injury and not the fracture fixation technique or timing. Therefore, the strategy of definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures should be dictated by patient physiology and the anatomy of the injured extremity and not by the concern for worsening neurologic outcomes in TBI patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Approved by ACEP Board of Directors, February 1, 2023 Clinical Policy Endorsed by the Emergency Nurses Association (April 5, 2023)

This 2023 Clinical Policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is an update of the 2008 “Clinical Policy: Neuroimaging and Decisionmaking in Adult Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Acute Setting.” A writing subcommittee conducted a systematic review of the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to answer the following questions: 1) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with minor head injury, are there clinical decision tools to identify patients who do not require a head computed tomography? 2) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with minor head injury, a normal baseline neurologic examination, and taking an anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication, is discharge safe after a single head computed tomography? and 3) In the adult emergency department patient diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion, are there clinical decision tools or factors to identify patients requiring follow-up care for postconcussive syndrome or to identify patients with delayed sequelae after emergency department discharge? Evidence was graded and recommendations were made based on the strength of the available data. Widespread and consistent implementation of evidence-based clinical recommendations is warranted to improve patient care.

Findings on Repeat Posttraumatic Brain Computed Tomography Scans in Older Patients With Minimal Head Trauma and the Impact of Existing Antithrombotic Use

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the utility of routine rescanning of older, mild head trauma patients with an initial negative brain computed tomography (CT), who is on a preinjury antithrombotic (AT) agent by assessing the rate of delayed intracranial hemorrhage (dICH), need for surgery, and attributable mortality.

METHODS

Participating centers were trained and provided data collection instruments per institutional review board-approved protocols. Data were obtained from manual chart review and electronic medical record download. Adults ≥55 years seen at Level I/II Trauma Centers, between 2017 and 2019 with suspected head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale 14 to 15, negative initial brain CT, and no other Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries >2 were identified, grouped by preinjury AT therapy (AT- or AT+) and compared on dICH rate, need for operative neurosurgical intervention, and attributable mortality using univariate analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 2,950 patients from 24 centers were enrolled; 280 (9.5%) had a repeat brain CT. In those rescanned, the dICH rate was 15/126 (11.9%) for AT- and 6/154 (3.9%) in AT+. Assuming nonrescanned patients did not suffer clinically meaningful dICH, the dICH rate would be 15/2001 (0.7%) for AT- and 6/949 (0.6%) for AT+. No surgical operations were done for dICH. All-cause mortality was 9/2950 (0.3%) and attributable mortality was 1/2950 (0.03%). The attributable death was an AT+, dICH patient whose family declined intervention.

CONCLUSION

In older patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 to 15 and a negative initial brain CT scan, the dICH rate is low (<1%) and of minimal clinical consequence, regardless of AT use. In addition, no patient had operative neurosurgical intervention. Therefore, routine rescanning is not supported based on the results of this study.

Low Prevalence but High Impact of COVID-19 Positive Status in Adult Trauma Patients: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 28 904 Patients

BACKGROUND

Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47;P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

The Building Blocks to a Highly Effective Trauma Program

BACKGROUND

Well-developed trauma programs take years of planning, dedication, and commitment to the trauma population to achieve the desired outcomes and, even more, resilience and persistence to maintain a high-quality standard of care. Despite widespread trauma care systems across the nation and their link to improved outcomes for the trauma patient, there is a paucity of literature outlining the foundational elements required to evolve and grow a successful trauma program.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to outline the key elements for developing and maintaining a successful trauma program that yields high-quality patient outcomes.

METHODS

Developing a program requires intense focus and continued efforts. Multiple foundational building blocks can facilitate program success and foster program growth.

RESULTS

Foundational elements include leadership structure and support, building the right team, clinical expertise, trauma registry, program data, research, outreach and education, injury prevention, and ensuring adequate survey readiness. Building on these foundational elements, engagement of stakeholders at all levels throughout the program and organization can help drive program growth. Using these strategies, a program has been able to grow from 7.6 full-time equivalents to 24.4 in just a few short years while achieving, exceeding, and sustaining top metrics across state and national benchmarks.

CONCLUSION

A program can achieve sustainable, high-quality outcomes for the trauma patient by following a structured team approach to program development. Using the outlined building blocks for program development and sustainability, a successful trauma program can lead to improved patient and program outcomes.

Where Did All the Appendicitis Go? Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Volume, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis in a Nationwide, Multicenter Analysis

Objective

The study objective was to evaluate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of emergency department (ED) acute appendicitis presentation, management strategies, and patient outcomes.

Summary Background Data

Acute appendicitis is the most commonly performed emergency surgery in the United States and is unlikely to improve without medical or surgical intervention. Dramatic reductions in ED visits prompted concern that individuals with serious conditions, such as acute appendicitis, were deferring treatment for fear of contracting COVID-19.

Methods

Patients from 146 hospitals with diagnosed appendicitis and arrival between March 2016 and May 2020 were selected. Electronic medical records data were retrospectively reviewed to retrieve patient data. Daily admissions were averaged from March 2016 through May 2019 and compared with March 2020. April-specific admissions were compared across the 5-year pre-COVID-19 period to April 2020 to identify differences in volume, demographics, disease severity, and outcomes.

Results

Appendicitis patient admissions in 2020 decreased throughout March into April, with April experiencing the fewest admissions. April 2020 experienced a substantial decrease in patients who presented with appendicitis, dropping 25.4%, from an average of 2030 patients (2016-2019) to 1516 in 2020. An even greater decrease of 33.8% was observed in pediatric patients (age <18). Overall, 77% of the 146 hospitals experienced a reduction in appendicitis admissions. There were no differences between years in percent of patients treated nonoperatively (P = 0.493) incidence of shock (P = 0.95), mortality (P = 0.24), or need for postoperative procedures (P = 0.81).

Conclusions

Acute appendicitis presentations decreased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, while overall management and patient outcomes did not differ from previous years. Further research is needed focusing on putative explanations for decreased hospital presentations unrelated to COVID-19 infection and possible implications for surgical management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Keywords: acute appendicitis, COVID-19, decreasing volumes, multicenter study.

Decreased adult trauma admission volumes and changing injury patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic at 85 trauma centers in a multistate healthcare system

Background

Reports indicate social distancing guidelines and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted trauma patient volumes and injury patterns. This report is the first analysis of a large trauma network describing the extent of these impacts. The objective of this study was to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes, demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes.

Methods

For this descriptive, multicenter study from a large, multistate hospital network, data were collected from the system-wide centralized trauma registry and retrospectively reviewed to retrieve patient information including volume, demographics, and outcomes. For comparison, patient data from January through May of 2020 and January through May of 2019 were extracted.

Results

A total of 12 395 trauma patients (56% men, 79% white, mean age 59 years) from 85 trauma centers were included. The first 5 months of 2020 revealed a substantial decrease in volume, which began in February and continued into June. Further analysis revealed an absolute decrease of 32.5% in patient volume in April 2020 compared with April 2019 (4997 from 7398; p<0.0001). Motor vehicle collisions decreased 49.7% (628 from 1249). There was a statistically significant increase in injury severity score (9.0 vs. 8.3; p<0.001). As a proportion of the total trauma population, blunt injuries decreased 3.1% (87.3 from 90.5) and penetrating injuries increased 2.7% (10.0 from 7.3; p<0.001). A significant increase was found in the proportion of patients who did not survive to discharge (3.6% vs. 2.8%; p=0.010; absolute decrease: 181 from 207).

Discussion

Early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 32.5% decrease in trauma patient volumes and altered injury patterns at 85 trauma centers in a multistate system. This preliminary observational study describes the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and warrants further investigation.

Level of evidence

Level II (therapeutic/care management).

Improving Access to Stroke Care in the Rural Setting: The Journey to Acute Stroke Ready Designation

Stroke is the fifth highest cause of death and the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States. North Carolina has one of the highest death rates from stroke in the nation. Access to acute stroke care in rural western North Carolina is limited, with only one primary stroke center within an 18-county region. Angel Medical Center, located in rural western North Carolina, sought to pursue The Joint Commission's disease-specific certification as an Acute Stroke Ready Hospital in an effort to improve stroke care and outcomes across the region.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of ED clinicians, hospital leadership, and community participants was formed to develop a structured care algorithm and intensive process improvement initiatives to guide the Acute Stroke Ready Hospital application process.

RESULTS

In the 7 months since implementation, door-to-laboratory results have improved by an average of 12 minutes, door-to-computed tomography interpretation has improved by 3 minutes, time to intravenous thrombolytics has improved to less than 60 minutes, and patient transfer within 2 hours of arrival has also improved. ED provider average response time has been reduced by 5 minutes, and time to neurology via telemedicine has been reduced by almost 10 minutes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

By driving best practices in the delivery of stroke care, Angel Medical Center enhanced stroke care in a rural community, allowing patients and families to receive evaluation and treatment in a timely and efficient manner close to home.