Assessing quality of care in a trauma referral center: benchmarking performance by TRISS-based statistics or by analysis of stratified ISS data?

Selecting patients for early interdisciplinary rehabilitation during neurointensive care after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Early interdisciplinary rehabilitation (EIR) in neurointensive care is a limited resource reserved for patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) believed to profit from treatment. We evaluated how key parameters related to injury severity and patient characteristics were predictive of receiving EIR, and whether these parameters changed over time.

METHODS

Among 1003 adult patients with moderate to severe TBI admitted over 72 h to neurointensive care unit during four time periods between 2005 and 2020, EIR was given to 578 and standard care to 425 patients. Ten selection criteria thought to best represent injury severity and patient benefit were evaluated (Glasgow Coma Scale, Head Abbreviated Injury Scale, New-Injury-Severity-Scale, intracranial pressure monitoring, neurosurgery, age, employment, Charlson Comorbidity Index, severe psychiatric disease, and chronic substance abuse).

RESULTS

In multivariate regression analysis, patients who were employed (adjOR 1.99 [95% CI 1.41, 2.80]), had no/mild comorbidity (adjOR 3.15 [95% CI 1.72, 5.79]), needed neurosurgery, had increasing injury severity and were admitted by increasing time period were more likely to receive EIR, whereas receiving EIR was less likely with increasing age (adjOR 0.97 [95% CI 0.96, 0.98]) and chronic substance abuse. Overall predictive ability of the model was 71%. Median age and comorbidity increased while employment decreased from 2005 to 2020, indicating patient selection became less restrictive with time.

CONCLUSION

Injury severity and need for neurosurgery remain important predictors for receiving EIR, but the importance of age, employment, and comorbidity have changed over time. Moderate prediction accuracy using current clinical criteria suggest unrecognized factors are important for patient selection.

Evaluation of the Revised Trauma Score, MGAP, and GAP scoring systems in predicting mortality of adult trauma patients in a low-resource setting

Background

Numerous trauma scoring systems have been developed in an attempt to accurately and efficiently predict the prognosis of emergent trauma cases. However, it has been questioned as to whether the accuracy and pragmatism of such systems still hold in lower-resource settings that exist in many hospitals in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, it was hypothesized that the physiologically-based Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Mechanism/Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Pressure (MGAP) score, and Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Pressure (GAP) score would be effective at predicting mortality outcomes using clinical data at presentation in a representative LMIC hospital in Upper Egypt.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of the medical records of trauma patients at Beni-Suef University Hospital. Medical records of all trauma patients admitted to the hospital over the 8-month period from January to August 2016 were reviewed. For each case, the RTS, MGAP, and GAP scores were calculated using clinical data at presentation, and mortality prediction was correlated to the actual in-hospital outcome.

Results

The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) was calculated to be 0.879, 0.890, and 0.881 for the MGAP, GAP, and RTS respectively, with all three scores showing good discriminatory ability. With regards to prevalence-dependent statistics, all three scores demonstrated efficacy in ruling out mortality upon presentation with negative predictive values > 95%, while the MGAP score best captured the mortality subgroup with a sensitivity of 94%. Adjustment of cutoff scores showed a steep trade-off between optimizing the positive predictive values versus the sensitivities.

Conclusion

The RTS, MGAP, and GAP all showed good discriminatory capabilities per AUROC. Given the relative simplicity and potentially added clinical benefit in capturing critically ill patients, the MGAP score should be further studied for stratifying risk of incoming trauma patients to the emergency department, allowing for more efficacious triage of patients in lower-resource healthcare settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00653-1.

Validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) in Swedish trauma populations

BACKGROUND

Trauma survival prediction models can be used for quality assessment in trauma populations. The Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) has been updated recently and validated internally (NORMIT 2). The aim of this observational study was to compare the accuracy of NORMIT 1 and 2 in two Swedish trauma populations.

METHODS

Adult patients registered in the national trauma registry during 2014-2016 were eligible for inclusion. The study populations comprised the total national trauma (NT) population, and a subpopulation of patients admitted to a single level I trauma centre (TC). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Model validation included receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and GiViTI calibration belts. The calibration was also assessed in subgroups of severely injured patients (New Injury Severity Score (NISS) over 15).

RESULTS

A total of 26 504 patients were included. Some 18·7 per cent of patients in the NT population and 2·6 per cent in the TC subpopulation were excluded owing to missing data, leaving 21 554 and 3972 respectively for analysis. NORMIT 1 and 2 showed excellent ability to distinguish between survivors and non-survivors in both populations, but poor agreement between predicted and observed outcome in the NT population with overestimation of survival, including in the subgroup with NISS over 15. In the TC subpopulation, NORMIT 1 underestimated survival irrespective of injury severity, but NORMIT 2 showed good calibration both in the total subpopulation and the subgroup with NISS over 15.

CONCLUSION

NORMIT 2 is well suited to predict survival in a Swedish trauma centre population, irrespective of injury severity. Both NORMIT 1 and 2 performed poorly in a more heterogeneous national population of injured patients.

Validating performance of TRISS, TARN and NORMIT survival prediction models in a Norwegian trauma population

Introduction

Anatomic injury, physiological derangement, age, injury mechanism and pre‐injury comorbidity are well‐founded predictors of trauma outcome. Statistical prediction models may have poorer discrimination, calibration and accuracy when applied in new locations. We aimed to compare the TRISS, TARN and NORMIT survival prediction models in a Norwegian trauma population.

Methods

Consecutive patients admitted to Oslo University Hospital Ullevål within 24 h after injury, with Injury Severity Score ≥ 10, proximal penetrating injuries, or received by trauma team, were studied. Original NORMIT coefficients were updated in a derivation dataset (NORMIT 2; n = 5923; 2005–2009). TRISS, TARN and NORMIT prediction models were evaluated in the validation dataset (n = 6348; 2010–2013) using two different AIS editions for injury coding. Exclusion due to missing data was 0.26%. Outcome was 30‐day mortality. Validation included AUROC, scaled Brier statistics, and calibration plots.

Results

The NORMIT models had significantly better discrimination, calibration, and overall fit than the TRISS 09, TARN 09 and TARN 12 models. The updated NORMIT 2 had higher numerical values of AUROC and scaled Brier than the original NORMIT, but with overlapping 95%CI. Overlapping 95%CI for AUROCs and Discrimination slopes indicated that the TARN and TRISS models performed similarly. Calibration plots showed tight and consistent predictions over all Ps strata for NORMIT 2 run on AIS'98 coded data, and only little deterioration when AIS'08 data was substituted.

Conclusions

In a Norwegian trauma population, the updated Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT 2) performed better than well‐established British and US alternatives. External validation of these three models in other Nordic populations is warranted.

External validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma after major trauma in Southern Finland

BACKGROUND

The Norwegian Survival Prediction Model in Trauma (NORMIT) is a newly developed outcome prediction model for patients with trauma. We aimed to compare the novel NORMIT to the more commonly used Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in Finnish trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective open-cohort study, using the trauma registry of Helsinki university hospital's trauma unit, including severely injured patients (new injury severity score > 15) admitted from 2007 to 2011. We used 30-day in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome, and discharge functional outcome as a secondary outcome of interest. Model performance was evaluated by comparing discrimination (by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), using a re-sample bootstrap technique, and by assessing calibration (GiViTI belt).

RESULTS

We identified 1111 patients fulfilling the study inclusion criteria. Overall mortality was 13% (n = 147). NORMIT showed slightly better discrimination for mortality prediction (AUC = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-0.86 vs. AUC = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75-0.83, P = 0.004) and functional outcome prediction (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.76-0.82 vs. AUC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.72-0.78, P < 0.001) than TRISS. Calibration testing revealed poor calibration for both NORMIT and TRISS (P < 0.001), by giving too pessimistic predictions (predicted survival significantly lower than actual survival).

CONCLUSION

NORMIT and TRISS showed good discrimination, but poor calibration, in this mixed cohort of severely injured trauma patients from Southern Finland. We found NORMIT to be a feasible alternative to TRISS for trauma patient outcome prediction, but trauma prediction models with improved calibration are needed.

Implementation of a trauma system in Norway: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Trauma systems have improved outcomes for injured patients, but might be challenging to implement. We assessed the implementation of a trauma system in Norway after recommendations for a national trauma system were published in 2007, with a focus on elements in acute care hospitals.

METHODS

All hospitals in Norway, except for the four regional trauma centres, admitting injured patients at the time of the study were included in a telephone survey. The questionnaire was administered during May 2013 by the regional trauma coordinators who interviewed the local trauma coordinator and/or the local doctor responsible for trauma care in all the acute care hospitals. The main categories were availability of the trauma team and team training, written procedures, preparedness and training of personnel. The compliance to a set of 17 predefined trauma system criteria was evaluated at each institution.

RESULTS

Of the 35 acute care hospitals in Norway admitting trauma patients at the time of the survey, all were included. The median number of fulfilled criteria was 14. Major deficiencies were found in fulfilling competence criteria, maintaining a local trauma registry, and trauma audits. The number of fulfilled criteria correlated strongly with the size of the hospital and the frequency of trauma team activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Shortcomings in requirements for lower-level trauma care hospitals correlate to hospital size and frequency with which the trauma team is activated. In order to fulfill the minimum requirements, smaller hospitals should receive more attention.

Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma: modelling effects of anatomic injury, acute physiology, age, and co-morbidity

INTRODUCTION

Anatomic injury, physiological derangement, age, and injury mechanism are well-founded predictors of trauma outcome. We aimed to develop and validate the first Scandinavian survival prediction model for trauma.

METHODS

Eligible were patients admitted to Oslo University Hospital Ullevål within 24 h after injury with Injury Severity Score ≥ 10, proximal penetrating injuries or received by a trauma team. The derivation dataset comprised 5363 patients (August 2000 to July 2006); the validation dataset comprised 2517 patients (August 2006 to July 2008). Exclusion because of missing data was < 1%. Outcome was 30-day mortality. Logistic regression analysis incorporated fractional polynomial modelling and interaction effects. Model validation included a calibration plot, Hosmer-Lemeshow test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

The new survival prediction model included the anatomic New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS, comprising Glascow Coma Scale score, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure), age, pre-injury co-morbidity scored according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS), and an interaction term. Fractional polynomial analysis supported treating NISS and T-RTS as linear functions and age as cubic. Model discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was excellent. Area (95% confidence interval) under the ROC curve was 0.966 (0.959-0.972) in the derivation and 0.946 (0.930-0.962) in the validation dataset. Overall, low mortality and skewed survival probability distribution invalidated model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

CONCLUSIONS

The Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) is a promising alternative to existing prediction models. External validation of the model in other trauma populations is warranted.

Impact of a physician-staffed helicopter on a regional trauma system: a prospective, controlled, observational study

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to compare the trauma system before and after implementing a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service (PS-HEMS). Our hypothesis was that PS-HEMS would reduce time from injury to definitive care for severely injured patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled, observational study, involving seven local hospitals and one level I trauma centre using a before and after design. All patients treated by a trauma team within a 5-month period (1 December 2009-30 April 2010) prior to and a 12-month period (1 May 2010-30 April 2011) after implementing a PS-HEMS were included. We compared time from dispatch of the first ground ambulance to arrival in the trauma centre for patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Secondary end points were the proportion of secondary transfers and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

We included 1788 patients, of which 204 had an ISS > 15. The PS-HEMS transported 44 severely injured directly to the trauma centre resulting in a reduction of secondary transfers from 50% before to 34% after implementation (P = 0.04). Median delay for definitive care for severely injured patients was 218 min before and 90 min after implementation (P < 0.01). The 30-day mortality was reduced from 29% (16/56) before to 14% (21/147) after PS-HEMS (P = 0.02). Logistic regression showed PS-HEMS had an odds ratio (OR) for survival of 6.9 compared with ground transport.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a PS-HEMS was associated with significant reduction in time to the trauma centre for severely injured patients. We also observed significantly reduced proportions of secondary transfers and 30-day mortality.

Implementation of recommended trauma system criteria in south-eastern Norway: a cross-sectional hospital survey

Background

Formalized trauma systems have shown beneficial effects on patient survival and have harvested great recognition among health care professionals. In spite of this, the implementation of trauma systems is challenging and often met with resistance.

Recommendations for a national trauma system in Norway were published in 2007. We wanted to assess the level of implementation of these recommendations.

Methods

A survey of all acute care hospitals that receive severely injured patients in the south-eastern health region of Norway was conducted. A structured questionnaire based on the 2007 national recommendations was used in a telephone interview of hospital trauma personnel between January 17 and 21, 2011. Seventeen trauma system criteria were identified from the recommendations.

Results

Nineteen hospitals were included in the study and these received more than 2000 trauma patients annually via their trauma teams. Out of the 17 criteria that had been identified, the hospitals fulfilled a median of 12 criteria. Neither the size of the hospitals nor the distance between the hospitals and the regional trauma centre affected the level of trauma resources available. The hospitals scored lowest on the criteria for transfer of patients to higher level of care and on the training requirements for members of the trauma teams.

Conclusion

Our study identifies a major shortcoming in the efforts of regionalizing trauma in our region. The findings indicate that training of personnel and protocols for inter-hospital transfer are the major deficiencies from the national trauma system recommendations. Resources for training of personnel partaking in trauma teams and development of inter-hospital transfer agreements should receive immediate attention.

Does an early onset and continuous chain of rehabilitation improve the long-term functional outcome of patients with severe traumatic brain injury?

There are currently no international guidelines regarding treatment in the early rehabilitation phase for persons with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), and only a few studies have investigated the effect of integrating rehabilitation into acute TBI care. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether a continuous chain of rehabilitation that begins with the acute phase could improve the functional outcome of severe TBI patients, compared to a broken chain of rehabilitation that starts in the sub-acute phase of TBI. A total of 61 surviving patients with severe TBI were included in a quasi-experimental study conducted at the Level I trauma center in Eastern Norway. In the study, 31 patients were in the early rehabilitation group (Group A) and 30 patients were in the delayed rehabilitation group (Group B). The functional outcomes were assessed 12 months post-injury with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) and the Disability Rating Scale (DRS). A favorable outcome (GOSE 6-8) occurred in 71% of the patients from Group A versus 37% in Group B (p=0.007). The DRS score was significantly better in Group A (p=0.03). The ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to quantify the relationship between the type of rehabilitation chain and the GOSE. A better GOSE outcome was found in patients from Group A (unadjusted OR 3.25 and adjusted OR 2.78, respectively). These results support the hypothesis that better functional outcome occurs in patients who receive early onset and a continuous chain of rehabilitation.

Severe pelvic fracture-related bleeding in pediatric patients: does it occur?

PURPOSE

Pediatric pelvic fractures are rare and less likely to cause hemodynamic instability than similar injuries in adult patients. The associated injuries are common, and they have a major impact on mortality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the risk of life-threatening hemorrhage associated with unstable pelvic fractures in children.

METHODS

We identified retrospectively all pediatric pelvic fractures (ring and acetabulum) treated at Helsinki University Central Hospital during a 10-year period (1998-2007). Stable A-type fractures (fractures not involving the pelvic ring) were excluded. All available pre- and in-hospital medical records were reviewed. The collected data consisted of patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, vital signs, laboratory tests, care given, other injuries diagnosed, and the 30-day survival rate.

RESULTS

There were 71 (40 males) pediatric patients (median age 14, range 1-16 years) with unstable pelvic fractures; 66 pelvic ring and 5 acetabulum fractures. The most common mechanism of injury was traffic accident (69%). Four patients had life-threatening bleeding. All had fracture of a mature pelvic ring, but the source of massive bleeding was pelvic ring fracture in only two patients (2.8% of all patients). No acetabulum fracture-related major pelvic bleeding was observed. One patient (age 16 years) required emergency surgery and angioembolization for pelvic bleeding. No life-threatening pelvic bleeding was seen among patients with immature bony pelvis. Pelvic ring fractures were surgically treated in 25 patients. Two patients died from head injuries (overall mortality 2.8%), but there were no bleeding-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that life-threatening bleeding from pelvic or acetabular fractures in pediatric patients is rare (2.8%), and does not contribute to the overall mortality.

External validation of a prognostic model for early mortality after traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of lost disability-adjusted life years, and a valid model allowing prediction of outcome would be welcome. For a clinical prediction model to be valid, generalization to other populations must be possible. The aim of this study was to externally validate a model for in-hospital mortality in patients with TBI, which was recently development at the University of Southern California (USC).

METHODS

The validation cohort was derived from a hospital-based, prospectively collected trauma registry in Oslo, Norway. We included patients admitted with a head injury without hypotension, severe thoracic, or abdominal injury (n = 3,136). We calculated the probability of death according to the USC model. The performance of the model was evaluated using measures of calibration and discrimination in the total sample and subgroups according to initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score.

RESULTS

The USC model provided excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC = 0.93), but unsatisfactory calibration (p < 0.001) for the total sample (GCS 3-15). In the GCS 4-8 subgroup we found good discrimination (AUC = 0.89) but poor calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings question the external validity of the USC model, suggesting that it should not be implemented as a tool for short-term mortality prediction in our TBI population.

Patients Referred to a Norwegian Trauma Centre: effect of transfer distance on injury patterns, use of resources and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Triage and interhospital transfer are central to trauma systems. Few studies have addressed transferred trauma patients. This study investigated transfers of variable distances to OUH (Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål), one of the largest trauma centres in Europe.

METHODS

Patients included in the OUH trauma registry from 2001 to 2008 were included in the study. Demographic, injury, management and outcome data were abstracted. Patients were grouped according to transfer distance: ≤20 km, 21-100 km and > 100 km.

RESULTS

Of the 7.353 included patients, 5.803 were admitted directly, and 1.550 were transferred. The number of transfers per year increased, and there was no reduction in injury severity during the study period. Seventy-six per cent of the transferred patients were severely injured. With greater transfer distances, injury severity increased, and there were larger proportions of traffic injuries, polytrauma and hypotensive patients. With shorter distances, patients were older, and head injuries and injuries after falls were more common. The shorter transfers less often activated the trauma team: ≤20 km -34%; 21-100 km -51%; > 100 km -61%, compared to 92% of all directly admitted patients. The mortality for all transferred patients was 11%, but was unequally distributed according to transfer distance.

CONCLUSION

This study shows heterogeneous characteristics and high injury severity among interhospital transfers. The rate of trauma team assessment was low and should be further examined. The mortality differences should be interpreted with caution as patients were in different phases of management. The descriptive characteristics outlined may be employed in the development of triage protocols and transfer guidelines.

Trauma systems and early management of severe injuries in Scandinavia: review of the current state

INTRODUCTION

Scandinavian countries face common challenges in trauma care. It has been suggested that Scandinavian trauma system development is immature compared to that of other regions. We wanted to assess the current status of Scandinavian trauma management and system development.

METHODS

An extensive search of the Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and SweMed+ databases was conducted. Wide coverage was prioritized over systematic search strategies. Scandinavian publications from the last decade pertaining to trauma epidemiology, trauma systems and early trauma management were included.

RESULTS

The incidence of severe injury ranged from 30 to 52 per 100,000 inhabitants annually, with about 90% due to blunt trauma. Parts of Scandinavia are sparsely populated with long pre-hospital distances. In accordance with other European countries, pre-hospital physicians are widely employed and studies indicate that this practice imparts a survival benefit to trauma patients. More than 200 Scandinavian hospitals receive injured patients, increasingly via multidisciplinary trauma teams. Challenges remain concerning pre-hospital identification of the severely injured. Improved triage allows for a better match between patient needs and the level of resources available. Trauma management is threatened by the increasing sub-specialisation of professions and institutions. Scandinavian research is leading the development of team- and simulation-based trauma training. Several pan-Scandinavian efforts have facilitated research and provided guidelines for clinical management.

CONCLUSION

Scandinavian trauma research is characterised by an active collaboration across countries. The current challenges require a focus on the role of traumatology within an increasingly fragmented health care system. Regional networks of predictable and accountable pre- and in-hospital resources are needed for efficient trauma systems. Successful development requires both novel research and scientific assessment of imported principles of trauma care.

Mechanism, glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP): a new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients

OBJECTIVES

Prehospital triage of trauma patients is of paramount importance because adequate trauma center referral improves survival. We developed a simple score that is easy to calculate in the prehospital phase.

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective observational study.

SETTING

Prehospital physician-staffed emergency system in university and nonuniversity hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

We evaluated 1360 trauma patients receiving care from a prehospital mobile intensive care unit in 22 centers in France during 2002. The association of prehospital variables with in-hospital death was tested using logistic regression, and a simple score (the Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure [MGAP] score) was created and compared with the triage Revised Trauma Score, Revised Trauma Score, and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score. The model was validated in 1003 patients from 2003 through 2005.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four independent variables were identified, and each was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient to provide the MGAP score: Glasgow Coma Scale (from 3-15 points), blunt trauma (4 points), systolic arterial blood pressure (>120 mm Hg: 5 points, 60 to 120 mm Hg: 3 points), and age <60 yrs (5 points). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MGAP was not significantly different from that of the triage Revised Trauma Score or Revised Trauma Score, but when sensitivity was fixed >0.95 (undertriage of 0.05), the MGAP score was more specific and accurate than triage Revised Trauma Score and Revised Trauma Score, approaching those of Trauma Related Injury Severity Score. We defined three risk groups: low (23-29 points), intermediate (18-22 points), and high risk (<18 points). In the derivation cohort, the mortality was 2.8%, 15%, and 48%, respectively. Comparable characteristics of the MGAP score were observed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

The MGAP score can accurately predict in-hospital death in trauma patients.

[Mortality in patients with multiple injuries: analysis using the trauma and injury severity score in a referral hospital]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A growing number of patients with multiple injuries are being treated. Injury severity scales can be used to assess outcomes objectively. This study aimed to assess our hospital's cases on the basis of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and compare outcomes to those reported in the Major Trauma Outcome Study, as well as to determine preventable mortality and analyze causes of death and associated factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the records of patients admitted with multiple injuries in 2005 and were used to calculate the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS), and the TRISS or probability of survival. Hospital mortality was also calculated. A TRISS between 25 and 50 was considered to indicate a preventable avoidable death; a TRISS over 50 indicated a preventable death. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with mortality.

RESULTS

We studied the cases of 198 patients with a mean (SD) age of 43.9 (19) years. Ninety-three percent had suffered blunt trauma. The mean ISS, the prehospital RTS, and the TRISS were 16.9 (11.2), 10.8 (2.5), and 0.95 (0.2), respectively. Twenty-five patients died. Fifteen deaths were classified as preventable or potentially preventable. Factors related to exitus were head injury and age (odds ratios, 4.6 and 4.0, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of preventable death in our hospital was higher than expected. Mortality was strongly associated with head injury and age. The TRISS model can identify preventable deaths objectively.

Precision of field triage in patients brought to a trauma centre after introducing trauma team activation guidelines

BACKGROUND

Field triage is important for regional trauma systems providing high sensitivity to avoid that severely injured are deprived access to trauma team resuscitation (undertriage), yet high specificity to avoid resource over-utilization (overtriage). Previous informal trauma team activation (TTA) at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) caused imprecise triage. We have analyzed triage precision after introduction of TTA guidelines.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 7 years (2001-07) of prospectively collected trauma registry data for all patients with TTA or severe injury, defined as at least one of the following: Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, proximal penetrating injury, admitted ICU > 2 days, transferred intubated to another hospital within 2 days, dead from trauma within 30 days. Interhospital transfers to UUH and patients admitted by non-healthcare personnel were excluded. Overtriage is the fraction of TTA where patients are not severely injured (1-positive predictive value); undertriage is the fraction of severely injured admitted without TTA (1-sensitivity).

RESULTS

Of the 4,659 patients included in the study, 2,221 (48%) were severely injured. TTA occurred 4,440 times, only 2,002 of which for severely injured (overtriage 55%). Overall undertriage was 10%. Mechanism of injury was TTA criterion in 1,508 cases (34%), of which only 392 were severely injured (overtriage 74%). Paramedic-manned prehospital services provided 66% overtriage and 17% undertriage, anaesthetist-manned services 35% overtriage and 2% undertriage. Falls, high age and admittance by paramedics were significantly associated with undertriage. A Triage-Revised Trauma Score (RTS) < 12 in the emergency department reduced the risk for undertriage compared to RTS = 12 (normal value). Field RTS was documented by anaesthetists in 64% of the patients compared to 33% among paramedics.Patients subject to undertriage had an ISS-adjusted Odds Ratio for 30-day mortality of 2.34 (95% CI 1.6-3.4, p < 0.001) compared to those correctly triaged to TTA.

CONCLUSION

Triage precision had not improved after TTA guideline introduction. Anaesthetists perform precise trauma triage, whereas paramedics have potential for improvement. Skewed mission profiles makes comparison of differences in triage precision difficult, but criteria or the use of them may contribute. Massive undertriage among paramedics is of grave concern as patients exposed to undertriage had increased risk of dying.

The Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: a joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG

BACKGROUND

In 1999, an Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma was published. Few papers have since been published based on that template, reflecting a lack of international consensus on its feasibility and use. The aim of the present revision was to further develop the Utstein Template, particularly with a major reduction in the number of core data variables and the addition of more precise definitions of data variables. In addition, we wanted to define a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria that will facilitate uniform comparison of trauma cases.

METHODS

Over a ten-month period, selected experts from major European trauma registries and organisations carried out an Utstein consensus process based on a modified nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The expert panel concluded that a New Injury Severity Score > 15 should be used as a single inclusion criterion, and five exclusion criteria were also selected. Thirty-five precisely defined core data variables were agreed upon, with further division into core data for Predictive models, System Characteristic Descriptors and for Process Mapping.

CONCLUSION

Through a structured consensus process, the Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma has been revised. This revision will enhance national and international comparisons of trauma systems, and will form the basis for improved prediction models in trauma care.

Different definitions of patient outcome: consequences for performance analysis in trauma

BACKGROUND

Death during acute care hospitalisation is commonly used as a principal outcome indicator in injury research. This endpoint excludes post-hospital trauma-related deaths, which are substantial according to recent US studies. Two additional ways of defining outcome in trauma victims are also used; by end of somatic care, and at 30 days after injury. Our primary aim was to analyse how the different definitions of trauma outcome influence performance analyses. Secondly, we wanted to evaluate whether 30 days mortality after injury, which is widely used in other parts of biomedicine and recommended by the United Nations for use in transport statistics, is a suitable endpoint in trauma research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the hospital based trauma registry at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) in Oslo, Norway. Outcome measure was mortality at discharge from UUH, i.e., by "end of acute care", at end of somatic care defined as discharge from final acute care hospital, and at 30 days after injury. Analyses were performed according to conventional TRISS methodology.

RESULTS

3332 of 3446 patients from the years 2000-2004 were included. Of these, 323 (9.7%) died within 30 days of injury or during somatic care more than 30 days after injury. Mortality varied with outcome definition, with 264 deaths (81.7% of total deaths) before discharge from UUH, 318 (98.4%) before end of somatic care, and 308 (95.4%) within 30 days after injury. TRISS-based trauma system performance evaluation for blunt trauma showed significantly better outcome than predicted with discharge from UUH as outcome definition, whereas for category 30 days after injury, performance was clearly less favourable. Performance for penetrating trauma was not affected, since all deaths occurred before 30 days, and nearly all before discharge from UUH.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of in-hospital deaths following blunt trauma occurs after discharge from the primary institution, i.e., unnoticed when "end of acute care" is used as outcome definition. Consequently, outcome definition influenced performance when comparing our institution to an acknowledged standard. We recommend mortality occurring within 30 days of injury as endpoint in trauma research.

Epidemiology and contemporary patterns of trauma deaths: changing place, similar pace, older face

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of trauma deaths in Europe is less than well investigated. Thus, our goal was to study the contemporary patterns of trauma deaths within a defined population with an exceptionally high trauma autopsy rate.

METHODS

This was a retrospective evaluation of 260 consecutive trauma autopsies for which we collected demographic, pre-hospital and in-hospital data. Patients were analyzed for injury severity by standard scoring systems (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS], Revised Trauma Score [RTS], and Injury Severity Score [ISS]), and the Trauma and Injury Severity Scale [TRISS] methodology.

RESULTS

The fatal trauma incidence was 10.0 per 100,000 inhabitants (17.4 per 100,000 age-adjusted > or = 55 years). Blunt mechanism (87%), male gender (75%), and pre-hospital deaths (52%) predominated. Median ISS was 38 (range: 4-75). Younger patients (<55 years) who died in the hospital were more often hypotensive (SBP < 90 mmHg; p = 0.001), in respiratory distress (RR < 10/min, or > 29/min; p < 0.0001), and had deranged neurology on admission (Glasgow Coma Score [GCS] < or = 8; p < 0.0001), compared to those > or = 55 years. Causes of death were central nervous system (CNS) injuries (67%), exsanguination (25%), and multiorgan failure (8%). The temporal death distribution is model-dependent and can be visualized in unimodal, bimodal, or trimodal patterns. Age increased (r = 0.43) and ISS decreased (r = -0.52) with longer time from injury to death (p < 0.001). Mean age of the trauma patients who died increased by almost a decade during the study period (from mean 41.7 +/- 24.2 years to mean 50.5 +/- 25.4 years; p = 0.04). The pre-hospital:in-hospital death ratio shifted from 1.5 to 0.75 (p < 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

While pre-hospital and early deaths still predominate, an increasing proportion succumb after arrival in hospital. Focus on injury prevention is imperative, particularly for brain injuries. Although hemorrhage and multiorgan failure deaths have decreased, they do still occur. Redirected attention and focus on the geriatric trauma population is mandated.

Pre-injury ASA physical status classification is an independent predictor of mortality after trauma

BACKGROUND

The ability of an organism to withstand trauma is determined by the injury per se and inherent properties of the organism at the time of injury. We analyzed whether pre-injury morbidity scored on a four-level ordinal scale according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system predicts mortality after trauma.

MATERIALS

From a total of 3,773 prospectively collected patients (years 2000-2004), 3,728 patients were included. Main outcome measure was mortality 30 days after injury. The effect of pre-injury ASA-PS on mortality was assessed using linear logistic regression analysis, controlling for Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and age.

RESULTS

Mortality increased with increasing pre-injury ASA-PS, age, and ISS, and with decreasing RTS. Unadjusted mortality rates were 5.7% in ASA-PS 1, 12.3% in ASA-PS 2, and 26.4% in ASA-PS 3-4. This increasing mortality trend across pre-injury ASA-PS group was evident in nearly all categories of ISS, RTS, and age. Odds ratio for death was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.14-2.72) for pre-injury ASA-PS 2, and 2.25 (95% CI, 1.36-3.71) for ASA-PS 3-4 compared with for ASA-PS 1 and adjusted for ISS, RTS, and age. There were no interaction effects between pre-injury ASA-PS and the other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-injury ASA-PS score was an independent predictor of mortality after trauma, also after adjusting for the major variables in the traditional TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score) formula. Including pre-injury ASA-PS score might improve the predictive power of a survival prediction model without complicating it.

Evaluation of pre-hospital trauma triage criteria: a prospective study at a Danish level I trauma centre

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the precision of our trauma triage protocol [based on the American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma (ACS COT)] in identifying severely injured defined as an injury severity score (ISS) > 15. Our hypothesis was that isolated mechanism-of-injury criteria were responsible for a significant over-triage leading to over-use of our trauma team.

METHODS

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A level I trauma centre, Aarhus, Denmark.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Among all injured patients admitted during a 6-month period in 2003 we identified severely injured. During the study period, trauma team activations were consecutively registered and triage criteria were prospectively collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, over-triage and under-triage were calculated.

RESULTS

Out of 15,162 patients in the emergency department, 848 injured patients were included and 59 (7%) were severely injured. We had 242 trauma team activations with 54 (22%) severely injured. Sensitivity was 92%, specificity 76%, giving an over-triage of 24% and an under-triage of 8%. The positive predictive value was 22%. Among 60 patients with mechanism-of-injury as the only criterion, five were severely injured in contrast to 12 out of 20 patients with mechanism-of-injury combined with physiological and/or anatomical criteria.

CONCLUSION

The positive predictive value of our triage protocol was low, only 22%. This was mainly as a result of a significant over-triage from isolated mechanism-of-injury criteria. We recommend revision of the triage protocol and reallocation of our trauma team resources.

Overtriage in trauma - what are the causes?

BACKGROUND

Different criteria are employed to activate trauma teams. Because of a growing concern about overtriage, the objective of this study was to investigate the performance of our trauma team's activation protocol.

METHODS

Injured patients with trauma team activation (TTA), admission to an intensive care unit or surgical intermediate care unit with a trauma diagnosis, or trauma-related death in the emergency department were investigated retrospectively from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2005. Different TTA criteria were analysed with respect to sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and overtriage (1 - PPV).

RESULTS

Eight hundred and nine patients were included, 185 (23%) of whom had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of more than 15. The performance of our protocol showed a sensitivity of 87%, PPV of 22% and overtriage of 78%. The mechanism of injury as a TTA criterion had a sensitivity of 14%, PPV of 7% and overtriage of 93%. Physiological/anatomical criteria and interfacility transfer showed higher PPV and less overtriage. Undertriage (no TTA despite ISS > 15) was identified in 23 patients (13%), 18 of whom were hospital transfers.

CONCLUSION

A TTA protocol based on physiological, anatomical and interfacility transfer criteria seems to yield a higher precision than, in particular, that based on mechanism of injury criteria. Because of substantial overtriage in our hospital, the TTA protocol needs to be re-evaluated.

The evolution of trauma services at Beaumont Hospital

OBJECTIVE

To review and examine the epidemiology, severity and management of trauma admissions at the national neurosurgical teaching hospital.

METHODS

An extensive audit of volume, type and severity of injury and the management requirements of the trauma population admitted to the hospital.

RESULTS

The vast majority of severely injured patients were referred from outside the catchment area of the hospital with only 26% being admitted directly through the Emergency Department. As a consequence, 73% of patients arrived out of normal working hours, which posed problems in providing skilled trauma specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of patients with serious injury is complex. The large proportion of patients with critical injuries, some of whom were paediatric, highlighted the need for 24 h cover by senior trauma personnel and the provision of radiology and operating facilities to meet their needs. The inclusion of indicators of alterations in innate or adaptive immune responses may improve the predictive power of severity of injury scores.

The impact of patient volume on surgical trauma training in a Scandinavian trauma centre

OBJECTIVE

Some of the problems faced in trauma surgery are increasing non-operative management of abdominal injuries, decreasing work hours and increasing sub-specialisation. We wanted to document the experience of trauma team leaders at the largest trauma centre in Norway, hypothesising that the patient volume would be inadequate to secure optimal trauma care.

METHODS

Patients registered in the hospital based Trauma Registry during the 2-year period from 1 August 2000 to 31 July 2002 were included.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1667 patients registered, 645 patients (39%) had an Injury Severity Score (ISS)>15. Abdominal injuries were diagnosed in 205 patients with a median ISS of 30. An average trauma team leader assessed a total of 119 trauma cases a year (46 patients with ISS>15) and participated in 10 trauma laparotomies.

CONCLUSION

Although the total number of trauma cases seems adequate, the experience of the trauma team leaders with challenging abdominal injuries is limited. With increasing sub-specialisation and general surgery vanishing, fewer surgical specialties provide operative competence in dealing with complicated torso trauma. A system of additional education and quality assurance measures is a prerequisite of high quality, and has consequently been introduced in our institution.