Ten year maturation period in a level-I trauma center, a cohort comparison study

In-House Attending Trauma Surgeon Does Not Reduce Mortality in Patients Presented to a Level 1 Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Trauma is the leading cause of death in the Western world. Trauma systems have been paramount in opposing this problem. Commonly, Level 1 Trauma Centers are staffed by in-house (IH) attending trauma surgeons available 24/7, whereas other institutions function on an on-call (OC) basis with defined response times. There is on-going debate about the value of an IH attending trauma surgeon compared to OC trauma surgeons regarding clinical outcome.

METHODS

This study was performed at a tertiary care facility complying with all requirements to be a designated Level 1 Trauma Center as defined by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT). Inclusion occurred from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013. Patients were assigned an identifier for IH trauma surgeon attendance versus OC attendance. The primary outcome variable studied was overall mortality in relation to IH or OC attending trauma surgeons. Additionally, time to operating theater, hospital length-of-stay (HLOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admittance were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,287 unique trauma cases in 1,285 patients were presented to the trauma team. Of all cases, 712 (55.3%) occurred between 1700h and 0800h. These 712 cases were treated by an IH attending in 66.3% (n = 472) and an OC attending in 33.7% (n = 240). In the group of patients treated by an IH attending trauma surgeon, the overall mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 26); in the group treated by an OC attending, the overall mortality rate was 4.6% (n = 11; P = .599). Cause of death was traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 57.6%. No significant difference was found in the time between initial presentation at the trauma room and arrival in the operating theater.

CONCLUSION

In terms of trauma-related mortality during non-office hours, no benefit was demonstrated through IH trauma surgeons compared to OC trauma surgeons.

The effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development.

METHOD

A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69-0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10-1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37-1.55]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142842 .

Maturation process and international accreditation of trauma system in a rapidly developing country

Background

As trauma systems mature, they are expected to improve patient care, reduce in-hospital complications and optimize outcomes. Qatar has a single trauma center, at the Hamad General Hospital, which serves as the hub for the trauma system that was verified as a level 1 trauma system by the Accreditation Canada International Distinction program in 2014. We hypothesized that this international accreditation was a major step, in the maturation process of the Qatar trauma system, that has positively impacted patient care, reduced complications and improved outcomes of trauma patients in such a rapidly developing country.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data was conducted for all trauma patients who were admitted between 2010 and 2018. Data were obtained from the level 1 trauma center registry at Hamad Medical Corporation. Patients were divided into Group 1- pre-accreditation (admitted from January 2010 to October 2014) and Group 2- post-accreditation (admitted from November 2014 to December 2018). Patients’ characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed and compared. Data included patients’ demographics; injury types, mechanism and injury severity scores, interventions, hospital stay, complications and mortality (pre-hospital and in-hospital). Time series analysis for mortality was performed using expert modeler.

Results

Data from a total of 15,864 patients was collected and analyzed. Group 2 patients had more severe injuries in comparison to Group 1 (p<0.05). However, Group 2, had a lower complication rate (ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP)) and a shorter mean hospital length of stay (p<0.05). The overall mortality was 8%. In Group 2; the pre-hospital mortality was higher (52% vs. 41%, p = 0.001), while in-hospital mortality was lower (48% vs. 59%) compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The international recognition and accreditation of the trauma center in 2014 was the key factor in the maturation of the trauma system that improved the in-hospital outcomes. Accreditation also brought other benefits including a reduction in VAP and hospital length of stay. However, further studies are required to explore the maturation process of all individual components of the trauma system including the prehospital setting.

Trauma care before and after optimisation in a level I trauma Centre: Life-saving changes

BACKGROUND

The implementation of trauma systems has led to a significant reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay. In our level I trauma centre, 24/7 in-hospital coverage was implemented, and a renovation of the trauma room took place to improve the trauma care. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of the optimised in-hospital infrastructure in terms of mortality, processes and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. All adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma centre directly during two time periods (2010-2012 and 2014-2016) were included. Any patients below the age of 18 years and patients who underwent primary trauma screening in another hospital were excluded. Logistic and linear regression were used and adjusted for demographics and characteristics of trauma. The primary endpoint was mortality. The secondary endpoints were subgroups of earlier mortality rates and severely injured patients, processes and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

In period I, 1290 patients were included, and in period II, 2421. The adjusted mortality in the trauma room (odds ratio (OR): 0.18; CI: 0.05-0.63) and the total in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.63 CI: 0.42-0.95) showed a significant reduction in period II. The trauma room (TR) time decreased by 30 min (p < 0.001), and the time until CT decreased by 22 min (p < 0.001). The number of delayed diagnoses and complications were significantly lower in the second period, with an OR of 0.2 (CI: 0.1-0.2) and 0.4 (CI: 0.3-0.6), respectively. The hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay decreased significantly, -1.5 day (p = 0.010) and -1.8 days (p = 0.022) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimisation of the in-hospital infrastructure related to trauma care resulted in improved survival rates in both severely injured patients as well as in the whole trauma population. Moreover, the processes and clinical outcomes improved, showing a shorter hospital length of stay, shorter TR time, fewer complications and fewer delayed diagnoses.

Severe blunt trauma in Finland and Estonia: comparison of two regional trauma repositories

Purpose

Evolving trauma system of Estonia has undergone several reforms; however, performance and outcome indicators have not been benchmarked previously. Thus, we initiated a baseline study to compare demographics, management and outcomes of severely injured patients between Southern Finland and Northern Estonia utilizing regional trauma repositories.

Methods

A comparison of data fields of the Helsinki University Hospital trauma registry (HTR) and trauma registry at the North Estonia Medical Centre in Tallinn (TTR) between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2016 was performed. The inclusion criterion was Injury Severity Score > 15. Transferred patients, patients with penetrating injuries, and pediatric patients were excluded. The data for comparison included demographics, Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS), mortality, and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Primary outcome was mortality and SMR per TRISS methodology.

Results

During the 2-year study period, 324 patients from the HTR and 152 from the TTR were included. Demographic profile was similar between the repositories with the exception of severe abdominal injuries being more prevalent at the TTR (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.002). Predominant injury mechanism was non-ground level fall in both repositories. Mortality was similar at 14.5% and 13.6% at the TTR and HTR, respectively (adj. p = 0.762; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64–1.99). SMR was lower at the HTR compared to the TTR (0.65 vs. 0.77, p > 0.05), however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Benchmarking trauma repositories at a national level provides opportunities for quality and performance improvements. We observed comparable demographic profile and outcome indicators in the compared regional trauma systems.

Trauma care system in China

With the development of modern society, high-energy trauma has become an increasing tendency, which brings a great challenge for trauma care. A well-running trauma care system that is composed by pre-hospital and in-hospital care has been proved to decrease the death and disability rate of trauma patients. However, establishment of trauma care system in China is still at the initial stage. Trauma care systems in China and developed countries represented by the United States and Germany are introduced respectively in this article. Construction of regional and hierarchical trauma center, training of specific trauma care team and performance of integrative trauma rescue model are recommended in China.