A traumatic tale of two cities: does EMS level of care and transportation model affect survival in patients with trauma at level 1 trauma centres in two neighbouring Canadian provinces?

Development of a national out-of-hospital transfusion protocol: a modified RAND Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Early resuscitation with blood components or products is emerging as best practice in selected patients with trauma and medical patients; as a result, out-of-hospital transfusion (OHT) programs are being developed based on limited and often conflicting evidence. This study aimed to provide guidance to Canadian critical care transport organizations on the development of OHT protocols.

METHODS

The study period was July 2021 to June 2022. We used a modified RAND Delphi process to achieve consensus on statements created by the study team guiding various aspects of OHT in the context of critical care transport. Purposive sampling ensured representative distribution of participants in regard to geography and relevant clinical specialties. We conducted 2 written survey Delphi rounds, followed by a virtual panel discussion (round 3). Consensus was defined as a median score of at least 6 on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("Definitely should not include") to 7 ("Definitely should include"). Statements that did not achieve consensus in the first 2 rounds were discussed and voted on during the panel discussion.

RESULTS

Seventeen subject experts participated in the study, all of whom completed the 3 Delphi rounds. After the study process was completed, a total of 39 statements were agreed on, covering the following domains: general oversight and clinical governance, storage and transport of blood components and products, initiation of OHT, types of blood components and products, delivery and monitoring of OHT, indications for and use of hemostatic adjuncts, and resuscitation targets of OHT.

INTERPRETATION

This expert consensus document provides guidance on OHT best practices. The consensus statements should support efficient and safe OHT in national and international critical care transport programs.

Comparison of clinical and anatomical criteria for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) among major trauma patients in Nova Scotia

OBJECTIVES

To perform a province-wide evaluation of adult major traumas and determine the proportion of patients who met clinical and/or anatomical criteria for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of all major trauma patients (age > 16) presenting to the sole adult level 1 trauma centre in Nova Scotia over a 5-year period (2012-2017). Data were collected from the Nova Scotia Trauma Registry and medical charts. We identified potential REBOA candidates using either: (1) clinical criteria (primary survey, Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma, pelvic/chest X-ray); or (2) anatomical criteria (ICD-10-CA codes). Potential candidates with persistent hypotension were considered true REBOA candidates.

RESULTS

Overall 2885 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 248 (8.6%) patients were in shock (including 106 transfer patients) and had their charts reviewed. A total of 137 patients met clinical criteria for REBOA; 44 (1.5%) had persistent hypotension 10-20 min into resuscitation and were considered true REBOA candidates. There were 59 patients who met anatomical criteria for REBOA, of whom 15 (0.5%) patients had persistent hypotension and were true REBOA candidates. The 15 REBOA candidates based on anatomical criteria also met clinical criteria for REBOA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this registry-based retrospective analysis, 1.5% of adult major trauma patients Nova Scotia were REBOA candidates based on resuscitative clinical presentation, while 0.5% were candidates based on post hoc anatomical injury patterns. Our findings suggest that using clinical findings and bedside imaging modalities as criteria may overestimate the number of candidates for REBOA.

Beyond survival: the broader consequences of prehospital transport by police for penetrating trauma

Background

Time to definitive hemorrhage control is a primary driver of survival after penetrating injury. For these injuries, mortality outcomes after prehospital transport by police and emergency medical service (EMS) providers are comparable. In this study we identify patient and geographic predictors of police transport relative to EMS transport and describe perceptions of police transport elicited from key stakeholders.

Methods

This mixed methods study was conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has the highest rate of police transport nationally. Patient data were drawn from Pennsylvania’s trauma registry and geographic data from the US Census and American Community Survey. For all 7500 adults who presented to Philadelphia trauma centers with penetrating injuries, 2006–2015, we compared how individual and geospatial characteristics predicted the odds of police versus EMS transport. Concurrently, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients, police officers and trauma clinicians to describe their perceptions of police transport in practice.

Results

Patients who were Black (OR 1.50; 1.20–1.88) and Hispanic (OR 1.38; 1.05–1.82), injured by a firearm (OR 1.58; 1.19–2.10) and at night (OR 1.48; 1.30–1.69) and who presented with decreased levels of consciousness (OR 1.18; 1.02–1.37) had higher odds of police transport. Neighborhood characteristics predicting police transport included: percent of Black population (OR 1.18; 1.05–1.32), vacant housing (OR 1.40; 1.20–1.64) and fire stations (OR 1.32; 1.20–1.44). All stakeholders perceived speed as police transport’s primary advantage. For patients, disadvantages included pain and insecurity while in transport. Police identified occupational health risks. Clinicians identified occupational safety risks and the potential for police transport to complicate the workflow.

Conclusions

Police transport may improve prompt access to trauma care but should be implemented with consideration of the equity of access and broad stakeholder perspectives in efforts to improve outcomes, safety, and efficiency.

Level of evidence

Epidemiological study, level III.