An Initiative by Midlevel Providers to Conduct Tertiary Surveys at a Level I Trauma Center

Tertiary Trauma Survey on Emergency Department Observational Units: A Systematic Literature Review

In today's competitive world with a fast-paced lifestyle, trauma is on the rise and is globally recognized as the leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. Despite the development of major trauma centers and the introduction of advanced trauma training courses and management guidelines, there remains a substantial risk of missed or delayed diagnosis of injuries with potentially life-changing physical, emotional, and financial implications. The proportion of such incidents is potentially higher in busy emergency departments and developing countries with fewer dedicated major trauma centers or where focused emergency and trauma training and skills development is still in its infancy. In the last decade, tertiary trauma surveys have been recognized as an important re-assessment protocol in reducing such missed injuries or delayed diagnoses in patients involved in major trauma. This naturally leads to the presumption that tertiary trauma surveys could also play an important role in observational medicine. This also brings into question whether a standardized tertiary trauma survey of major trauma patients on emergency observation units could reduce missed injuries, especially in low-income countries with fewer resources and trauma expertise. Thus, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to explore the potential role of tertiary trauma survey as a tool to reducing missed or delayed diagnosis in the emergency observation units and its applicability and feasibility in less-developed healthcare systems and in low- and middle-income countries. A broad-based systematic literature review was conducted to include electronic databases, grey literature, reference lists, and bibliographies using the keywords: tertiary trauma survey, major trauma, observational medicine, emergency observation units, clinical decision unit, adult, missed injuries, and delayed diagnosis. Over 19,000 citations were identified on initial search. Following a review of abstracts, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and review of the full article, 19 publications were finally selected for the purpose of this systematic literature review. Current evidence shows a general trend that tertiary trauma surveys performed 24 hours after admission play an important role in identifying injuries missed at the time of initial primary and secondary survey, and its implementation in observational medicine could prove beneficial, especially in resource-depleted healthcare systems.

Evaluation of Missed Radiological Diagnosis in Multiple Trauma Patients With Full-Body Computed Tomography in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

This observational, cross-sectional, and retrospective study was conducted at the Dokuz Eylül University Emergency Department in İzmir, Turkey, after obtaining ethical consent (Dokuz Eylül University Medical Faculty Ethics Committee, approval no. 2019/15-37). In this study, we aimed to determine missed radiological diagnoses and their effects on mortality and morbidity by comparing the ED diagnoses of patients and radiology reports of these patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with multiple traumas and scanned full-body computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional, and retrospective study was conducted at the Dokuz Eylül University Emergency Department in İzmir, Turkey. Adult patients who presented to the ED with trauma between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018 and who had a full-body CT were included in the study. Radiology reports of CTs and ED electronic file information were compared. Missed diagnoses were determined for all body parts.

RESULTS

In this study, 1,358 patients who had scanned full-body CT in the ED were evaluated. A total of 369 diagnoses were missed in 248 (18.3%) of the patients. The diagnosis-to-patient ratio was 0.27. In the process of individually evaluating pathological diagnoses in all body regions, it was low only in brain edema, pneumomediastinum, bladder injury, and mesentery injury. At least, there was one missed diagnosis in 88 (9.7%) of 907 (66.8%) discharged patients. At least, there was one missed diagnosis in 18/23 (78.3%) patients who died within the first 48 hours. Among the patients who have missed diagnosis, the rate of the discharged patients was 35.5%, patients called back from home was 1.2%, intensive care unit admission was 20.2%, hospitalization was 65.7%, and death was 8.9%. Among the patients who did not have missed diagnosis, the rates were 73.8%, 0%, 5%, 26.9%, and 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Thoracic region pathologies are the most frequently missed pathologies, and orthopedics was the most frequently consulted department related to the missed diagnoses. Patients who have a missed diagnosis had lesser discharging from the ED than the other patients and had higher rates of in-hospital deaths, hospitalization, and intensive care unit admission.

The Role of the Biosafety Cabinet in Preventing Infection in the Clinical Laboratory

Clinical laboratories are essential in healthcare to better diagnose, treat, and track medical diseases. However, handling infectious organisms and possibly infectious materials in these laboratories puts the safety of laboratory workers and the general public at risk. By controlling the distribution of infectious substances and stopping the spread of diseases, biosafety cabinets (BSCs) have become crucial tools in guaranteeing laboratory safety. The prevention of infections is most important in medical and laboratory settings. In clinical laboratories, biological and infectious agents are handled, posing threats to healthcare workers and the general public. To avoid infections, proper training of the BSC is essential. Laboratory employees are instructed in aseptic procedures, proper hand posture, and efficient personal protection when working in the cabinet. These instructions decrease the chance of contaminating the surrounding area. Additionally, user ergonomics are taken into account while designing BSC, reducing operator fatigue, and guaranteeing that staff can execute tasks precisely for extended periods. This review highlights the importance of biosafety cabinets in maintaining a secure laboratory environment and explains their crucial function in infection control.

Accurate completion of tertiary trauma survey for inpatients at a non-trauma centre following significant trauma

INTRODUCTION

A tertiary trauma survey (TTS) is a structured, comprehensive top-to-toe examination following major trauma [1]. Literature suggests that the ideal time frame for the initial TTS should be completed within 24-hours of a patient's admission and repeated at important moments [2-4]. Evidence suggests that formal TTS reduces the rate of missed injuries by up to 38% [2].

AIMS

To determine the rate of TTS being conducted in trauma patients in a tertiary hospital without an admitting trauma service.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of adult trauma patients admitted to Middlemore Hospital (MMH) over six months. To be included, patients were either deemed to have a significant mechanism of injury or triggered a trauma call when arriving in the Emergency Department.

RESULTS

We identified 246 patients who met our criteria for requiring a TTS. 74 (30%) had a TTS completed. Of those completed, 22 (30%) were documented using a standardised form. 35 (47%) were done within the ideal timeframe (24 h); a further 21 (28%) were done within 48 h. House Officers (Junior Medical Officers) conducted the majority (80%), with the remainder being done by final-year medical students (12%), Registrars (Residents) (4%) and Consultants (Attendings) (4%). Of the 74 TTS that were completed, 21 (28%) detected a possible new injury, with 22% leading to further investigations being ordered. 14 (19%) were found to have a previously undetected, clinically significant injury on TTS (defined as 'injuries requiring further clinical intervention'). Most patients (90%) were admitted to either General Surgery or Orthopaedics. Sixty-two (54%) of patients admitted to General Surgery received a TTS; compared to just 11 (10%) admitted under Orthopaedics and 1 of 24 (4%) admitted to other specialities (including Hands, Plastics, Maxillo-Facial, Gynaecology and Medicine).

CONCLUSION

30% of patients requiring a TTS received one. 19% of TTS conducted detected clinically significant injuries.

The yield of tertiary survey in patients admitted for observation after trauma

PURPOSE

Existing literature on trauma tertiary survey (TTS) focusses on multitrauma patients. This study examines the yield of the TTS in trauma patients with minor (AIS 1) or moderate (AIS 2) injury for which immediate hospitalization is not strictly indicated.

METHOD

A single center retrospective cohort study was performed in a level II trauma center. All hospitalized trauma patients with an abbreviate injury score (AIS) of one or two at the primary and secondary survey were included. The primary outcome was defined as any missed injury found during TTS (Type 1). Secondary outcomes were defined as any missed injury found after TTS but during admission (Type 2); overall missed injury rate; mortality and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Out of 388 included patients, 12 patients (3.1%) had a type 1 missed injury. ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with an increased risk for type 1 missed injuries (resp. OR = 1.4, OR = 5.49). A type 2 missed injury was only found in one patient. This concerned the only case of trauma related mortality. Approximately one out of five patients were admitted for more than 2 days. These patients were significantly older (66 vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), had a higher ISS (4 vs. 3, p = 0.007) and ASA score, 3-4 vs. 1-2 (42.5% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

TTS showed a low rate of missed injuries in trauma patients with minor or moderate injury. TTS helped to prevent serious damage in two out of 388 patients (0.5%). ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with finding missed injury during TTS.

Physician extenders on surgical services: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of resident duty hour restrictions and the resulting in-house trainee shortages, a long-term solution to ensure safe and efficient patient care is needed. One solution is the integration of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in a variety of health care settings. We sought to examine the use of NPs and PAs on surgical/trauma services and their effect on patient outcomes and resident workload.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies (all designs) examining the use of NPs and PAs on adult surgical and trauma services that reported the following outcomes: complications, length of stay, readmission rates, patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care, resident workload, resident work hours, resident sleep hours, resident satisfaction, resident perceived quality of care, other health care worker satisfaction and perceived quality of care, and economic impact assessments. We excluded studies assessing nonsurgical/trauma services or pediatrics and review articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. With the addition of NPs and PAs, patient length of stay decreased, and morbidity and mortality were unchanged. In addition, resident workload decreased, sleep time increased, and operating time improved. Patient and health care worker satisfaction rates were high. Several studies reported cost savings after the addition of NPs/PAs.

CONCLUSION

The addition of NPs and PAs to surgical/trauma services appears to be a safe, cost-effective method to manage some of the challenges arising because of resident duty hour restrictions. More high-quality research is needed to confirm these findings and to further assess the economic impact of adding NPs and PAs to the surgical team.

Relevance of adjacent joint imaging in the evaluation of ankle fractures

BACKGROUND

Routinely obtaining adjacent joint radiographs when evaluating patients with ankle fractures may be of limited clinical utility and an unnecessary burden, particularly in the absence of clinical suspicion for concomitant injuries.

METHODS

One thousand, three hundred and seventy patients who sustained ankle fractures over a 5-year period presenting to two level 1 trauma centers were identified. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, physical examination findings, and radiographic information. Analyses included descriptive statistics along with sensitivity and predictive value calculations for the presence of adjacent joint fracture.

RESULTS

Adjacent joint imaging (n=1045 radiographs) of either the knee or foot was obtained in 873 patients (63.7%). Of those, 75/761 patients (9.9%) demonstrated additional fractures proximal to the ankle joint, most commonly of the proximal fibula. Twenty-two of 284 (7.7%) demonstrated additional fractures distal to the ankle joint, most commonly of the metatarsals. Tenderness to palpation demonstrated sensitivities of 0.92 and 0.77 and positive predictive values of 0.94 and 0.89 for the presence of proximal and distal fractures, respectively. Additionally, 19/22 (86.4%) of patients sustaining foot fractures had their injury detectable on initial ankle X-rays. Overall, only 5.5% (75/1370) of patients sustained fractures proximal to the ankle and only 0.2% (3/1370) of patients had additional foot fractures not evident on initial ankle X-rays.

CONCLUSION

The addition of adjacent joint imaging for the evaluation of patients sustaining ankle fractures is low yield. As such, patient history, physical examination, and clinical suspicion should direct the need for additional X-rays.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge.

Methods/Design

We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality.

Discussion

The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.

Trial registration

ANZCTR: ACTRN12613001218785, prospectively registered, 5 November 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A prospective evaluation of missed injuries in trauma patients, before and after formalising the trauma tertiary survey

Objective

This study prospectively evaluated in-hospital and postdischarge missed injury rates in admitted trauma patients, before and after the formalisation of a trauma tertiary survey (TTS) procedure.

Methods

Prospective before-and-after cohort study. TTS were formalised in a single regional level II trauma hospital in November 2009. All multitrauma patients admitted between March–October 2009 (preformalisation of TTS) and December 2009–September 2010 (post-) were assessed for missed injury, classified into three types: Type I, in-hospital, (injury missed at initial assessment, detected within 24 h); Type II, in-hospital (detected in hospital after 24 h, missed at initial assessment and by TTS); Type III, postdischarge (detected after hospital discharge). Secondary outcome measures included TTS performance rates and functional outcomes at 1 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 487 trauma patients were included (pre-: n = 235; post-: n = 252). In-hospital missed injury rate (Types I and II combined) was similar for both groups (3.8 vs. 4.8 %, P = 0.61), as were postdischarge missed injury rates (Type III) at 1 month (13.7 vs. 11.5 %, P = 0.43), and 6 months (3.8 vs. 3.3 %, P = 0.84) after discharge. TTS performance was substantially higher in the post-group (27 vs. 42 %, P < 0.001). Functional outcomes for both cohorts were similar at 1 and 6 months follow-up.

Conclusions

This is the first study to evaluate missed injury rates after hospital discharge and demonstrated cumulative missed injury rates >15 %. Some of these injuries were clinically relevant. Although TTS performance was significantly improved by formalising the process (from 27 to 42 %), this did not decrease missed injury rates.

The effect of tertiary surveys on missed injuries in trauma: a systematic review

Background

Trauma tertiary surveys (TTS) are advocated to reduce the rate of missed injuries in hospitalized trauma patients. Moreover, the missed injury rate can be a quality indicator of trauma care performance. Current variation of the definition of missed injury restricts interpretation of the effect of the TTS and limits the use of missed injury for benchmarking. Only a few studies have specifically assessed the effect of the TTS on missed injury. We aimed to systematically appraise these studies using outcomes of two common definitions of missed injury rates and long-term health outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review was performed. An electronic search (without language or publication restrictions) of the Cochrane Library, Medline and Ovid was used to identify studies assessing TTS with short-term measures of missed injuries and long-term health outcomes. ‘Missed injury’ was defined as either: Type I) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and detected by the TTS; or Type II) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and missed by the TTS, detected during hospital stay. Two authors independently selected studies. Risk of bias for observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Ten observational studies met our inclusion criteria. None was randomized and none reported long-term health outcomes. Their risk of bias varied considerably. Nine studies assessed Type I missed injury and found an overall rate of 4.3%. A single study reported Type II missed injury with a rate of 1.5%. Three studies reported outcome data on missed injuries for both control and intervention cohorts, with two reporting an increase in Type I missed injuries (3% vs. 7%, P<0.01), and one a decrease in Type II missed injuries (2.4% vs. 1.5%, P=0.01).

Conclusions

Overall Type I and Type II missed injury rates were 4.3% and 1.5%. Routine TTS performance increased Type I and reduced Type II missed injuries. However, evidence is sub-optimal: few observational studies, non-uniform outcome definitions and moderate risk of bias. Future studies should address these issues to allow for the use of missed injury rate as a quality indicator for trauma care performance and benchmarking.