The Effect of a Multidisciplinary Trauma Team Leader Paradigm at a Tertiary Trauma Center: 10-Year Experience

Worldwide snapshot of trauma team structure and training: an international survey

INTRODUCTION

Trauma teams (TTs) are a key tool in trauma care, as they bring a multidisciplinary approach to the trauma patient, improving outcomes. Excellent teamwork (TW) requires not only individual skills but also training at non-technical skills (NTS). Although there is evidence supporting TTs, there is little information regarding how they are organized and trained. With this study, we intend to assess the reality of TTs all over the world, focusing on how they are organized and trained.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We composed a 42-question sheet on Google Forms, in four different languages (English, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish). The questions regarded the respondents' background, and their respective hospitals' trauma patient management, TT features and its training, NTS and TW. The survey was shared on social media, through the International Assessment Group of Online Surgical & Trauma Education community, and the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. Statistical analysis was performed on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 27.

RESULTS

We obtained 296 answers from 52 different countries, with 6 having at least 10 answers (Brazil, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Italy, and USA). While the majority of the respondents (97%) agreed that TTs can improve outcomes, only 61% have a TT in their hospital, with 69% of these being dedicated TTs. General surgery (76%), trauma surgery (68%), and anesthesia (66%) were the three most common specialties in the teams. Teams performed briefings and debriefings with a frequency of, at least, "often" in only 49% and 38%, respectively. Only 50% and 33% of the respondents stated that their hospital provided trauma management courses focusing on individual technical skills, and TT training courses, respectively. The Advanced Trauma Life Support (85%), the Definitive Surgical and Anesthetic Trauma Care (38%), and the European Trauma Course (31%) were the three trauma management courses of choice. Regarding TT training courses, the European Trauma Course (52%) and local/in-house (42%) courses were the most common ones. Most participants (93%) stated that NTS were highly important in trauma care. However, only 60% of the respondents had postgraduate training on NTS and TW, and only 24% had this type of training on an undergraduate level.

CONCLUSION

The number of TTs worldwide does not match their relevance in trauma care. Institutions are not providing enough trauma courses, particularly TT training courses and NTS teaching. Implementing TT should include promotion of team courses, as well as team briefings and debriefings.

Evidence-Based Pearls: How the Healthy Work Environment Effects Multidisciplinary Trauma Teams

Trauma remains a leading cause of death among adults. Care of the trauma patient requires highly skilled trauma teams. Trauma care begins in the field, then presents to the emergency room, proceeds to intensive care in many cases, and finally reaches recovery and rehabilitation. For patients, it can be a long road. To be effective, multidisciplinary trauma teams must expertly drill and practice skills, communicate among team members in closed loops, make split decisions affecting patient outcomes, and see the care through to the end. Many disruptions during the course of providing trauma care can alter safe outcomes for patients. The American Association of Critical Care Nurses Six Essentials of the Healthy Work Environment are presented as a framework to provide excellence in trauma care, both for the patient and team members. The six essentials of a healthy work environment include skilled communication, true collaboration, effective decision-making, appropriate staffing, meaningful recognition, and authentic leadership.

Do patient outcomes differ when the trauma team leader is a surgeon or non-surgeon? A multicentre cohort study

PURPOSE

Trauma team leaders (TTLs) have traditionally been general surgeons; however, some trauma centres use a mixed model of care where both surgeons and non-surgeons (primarily emergency physicians) perform this role. The objective of this multicentre study was to provide a well-powered study to determine if TTL specialty is associated with mortality among major trauma patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from provincial trauma registries at six level 1 trauma centres across Canada over a 10-year period. We included adult trauma patients (age ≥ 18 yrs) who triggered the highest-level trauma activation. The primary outcome was the difference in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality for trauma patients receiving initial care from a surgeon versus a non-surgeon TTL.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,961 major trauma patients were included in the analysis. Initial treatment was provided by a surgeon TTL in 57.8% (n = 7513) of cases, while 42.2% (n = 5448) of patients were treated by a non-surgeon TTL. Unadjusted mortality occurred in 11.6% of patients in the surgeon TTL group and 12.7% of patients in the non-surgeon TTL group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.98, p = 0.02). Risk-adjusted mortality was not significantly different between patients cared for by surgeon and non-surgeon TTLs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.06, p = 0.23). Furthermore, we did not observe differences in risk-adjusted mortality for any of the subgroups evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

After risk adjustment, there was no difference in mortality between trauma patients treated by surgeon or non-surgeon TTLs. Our study supports emergency physicians performing the role of TTL at level 1 trauma centres.

Comparison of trauma care structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service and Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND

Comparisons across trauma systems are key to identifying opportunities to improve trauma care. We aimed to compare trauma service structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service (NHS) and the province of Quebec, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre cohort study including admissions of patients aged older than 15 years with major trauma to major trauma centres (MTCs) from 2014/15 to 2016/17. We compared structures descriptively, and time to MTC and time in the emergency department (ED) using Wilcoxon tests. We compared mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) using multilevel logistic regression with propensity score adjustment, stratified by body region of the worst injury.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 36 337 patients from the NHS and 6484 patients from Quebec. Structural differences in the NHS included advanced prehospital medical teams (v. "scoop and run" in Quebec), helicopter transport (v. fixed-wing aircraft) and trauma team leaders. The median time to an MTC was shorter in Quebec than in the NHS for direct transports (1 h v. 1.5 h, p < 0.001) but longer for transfers (2.5 h v. 6 h, p < 0.001). Time in the ED was longer in Quebec than in the NHS (6.5 h v. 4.0 h, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of death were higher in Quebec for head injury (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.51) but lower for thoracoabdominal injuries (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90). The adjusted median hospital LOS was longer for spine, torso and extremity injuries in the NHS than in Quebec, and the median ICU LOS was longer for spine injuries.

CONCLUSION

We observed significant differences in the structure of trauma care, delays in access and risk-adjusted outcomes between Quebec and the NHS. Future research should assess associations between structures, processes and outcomes to identify opportunities for quality improvement.

Multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Team Characteristics, Airway Securement Success, and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Objective:

To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary airway team was associated with improvement in (1) rate of successful airway securement at first attempt; (2) time to secure airway; and (3) overall complication rate in patients with a difficult airway, as compared with usual care.

Data Sources:

Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases.

Review Methods:

Systematic review of literature on inpatient multidisciplinary team management of difficult airways, including all studies performed in inpatient settings, excluding studies of ventilator weaning, flight/military medicine, EXIT procedures, and simulation or educational studies. DistillerSR was used for article screening and risk of a bias assessment to evaluate article quality. Data was extracted on study design, airway team composition, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes including airway securement, complications, and mortality.

Results:

From 5323 studies screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria with 4675 patients. Study designs included 12 quality improvement projects, 6 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Four studies evaluated effect of multidisciplinary difficult airway teams on airway securement; all reported higher first attempt success rate with team approach. Three studies reported time to secure the difficult airways, all reporting swifter airway securement with team approach. The most common difficult airway complications were hypoxia, esophageal intubation, hemodynamic instability, and aspiration. Team composition varied, including otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory care practitioners.

Conclusion:

Multidisciplinary difficult airway teams are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to unstructured emergency airway management; however, studies have significant heterogeneity in team composition, algorithms for airway securement, and outcomes reported. Further evidence is necessary to define the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and best practices relating to implementing difficult airway teams in inpatient settings.