Timeliness of Care for Injured Patients Initially Seen at Freestanding Emergency Departments: A Pilot Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

The impact of freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) on timeliness of care for trauma patients is not well understood. This quality improvement project had 2 objectives: (1) to determine whether significant delays in definitive care existed among trauma patients initially seen at FSEDs compared with those initially seen at other outlying sites prior to transfer to a level I trauma center; and (2) to determine the feasibility of identifying differences in time-to-definitive care and emergency department length of stay (ED LOS) based on initial treatment location.

METHODS

Trauma registry data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, from a verified level I trauma center were analyzed by location of initial presentation. Appropriate statistical tests are used to make comparisons across transport groups.

RESULTS

Patients initially seen at non-FSEDs experienced ED LOS that were, on average, 24.5 minutes greater than patients seen initially at FSEDs, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .3112). Several challenges were identified in the feasibility analysis that will inform the design for a larger study including large quantities of missing time stamp data and potential selection bias. Prospective solutions were identified.

CONCLUSION

This project found that there were not significant differences in ED LOS for injured patients presenting initially to FSEDs or other non-FSED facilities, suggesting that timeliness of care was similar across location types.

A comparison between the Major Trauma Centre management of complex open lower limb fractures in children and the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Open lower limb fractures can be devastating with outcomes determined by tissue damage and adherence to strictly defined care pathways. Managing such injuries in paediatric and elderly populations presents logistical and technical challenges to achieve best outcomes. Orthoplastic principles were developed mainly in the young adult population whereas requirements for paediatric and elderly patients need further understanding.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on two groups of patients at the extremes of age, with type IIIb (severe) open lower limb fractures, presenting to a Major Trauma Centre (MTC) with orthoplastic services over a six-year period - the first group being under 16 years; the second group being over 65. The timelines of combined surgery to both fix the fracture and flap the soft-tissue defect were strictly observed. Each group were followed-up for a minimum of nine months. Data were analysed according to patient demographics, mechanism of trauma, time to wound excision, time to definitive surgery, fixation technique, soft-tissue reconstruction type, deep infection rate, flap survival, bony union, secondary amputation and functional outcome (Enneking score).

RESULTS

33 paediatric patients and 99 elderly patients were identified. Paediatric: The median age was 12 years. All the children were ASA Grade I. Open tibial fractures were most common (76%) followed by ankle fracture dislocation (12%). The majority were high-energy injuries and were commonly managed with external fixators (or frames) and free flap coverage. Median hospital stay was 12 days, and time to union 114 days, with median Enneking scores of 85%. There was one flap failure and no deep infections. Elderly: The median age was 76 years. ASA grades varied and reflected multiple comorbidities. High-energy injuries required free flaps, while more common, low-energy fragility fractures were covered with loco-regional flaps. Internal fixation with intramedullary nails was most commonly used. Median hospital stay was 13 days, and time to union was 150 days, with median Enneking scores of 70%. There was one flap failure, one deep infection, and one delayed amputation.

DISCUSSION

These results reflect both similarities and important differences in managing open fractures in the extremes of age. The specific challenges of each group of patients are discussed, including surgical aspects, but also the importance of orthoplastics infrastructure within the MTC and input from allied professionals to facilitate patient pathways.

Age-related Disparities in Trauma Center Access for Severe Head Injuries Following the Release of the Updated Field Triage Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

In 2006, the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released field triage guidelines with special consideration for older adults. Additional considerations for direct transport to a Level I or II trauma center (TC) were added in 2011, reflecting perceived undertriage to TCs for older adults. We examined whether age-based disparities in TC care for severe head injury decreased following introduction of the 2011 revisions.

METHODS

A pre-post design analyzing the 2009 and 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases with multivariable logistic regressions considered changes in 1) the trauma designation of the emergency department where treatment was initiated and 2) transfer to a TC following initial treatment at a non-TC.

RESULTS

Compared with adults aged 18 to 44 years, after multivariable adjustment, in both years TC care was less likely for adults aged 45 to 64 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 in 2009 and 0.74 in 2012), aged 65 to 84 years (OR = 0.61 and 0.59), and aged 85+ years (OR = 0.53 and 0.56). Between 2009 and 2012, the likelihood of TC care increased for all age groups, with the largest increase among those aged 85+ years (OR = 1.18), which was statistically different (p = 0.02) from the increase among adults aged 18 to 44 years (OR = 1.12). The analysis of transfers yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patterns of increased TC treatment for all groups with severe head trauma indicate improvements, age-based disparities persisted.

Restructuring an evolving Irish trauma system: What can we learn from Europe and Australia?

AIM

Major trauma is a leading cause of mortality and disability. Internationally, major trauma centres and comprehensive trauma networks are associated with improved outcomes. This study aimed to examine selected international trauma systems in Europe and Australia to identify common themes that may aid reconfiguration of the Irish trauma service.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was utilised using Medline, and a search of the grey literature using Google and Google Scholar. Search terms included "trauma systems", "trauma care", "major trauma centre" and "trauma network". Relevant articles were reviewed and data summarised in a narrative format.

RESULTS

Republic of Ireland currently lacks designated major trauma centres and surrounding trauma networks. Lessons from international models and data from the on-going national trauma audit may guide reconfiguration. Well-functioning trauma systems internationally bear striking similarities, and involve a hub and spoke model. This model has a central major trauma centre, surrounded by a co-ordinated trauma network with trauma units. Concentration of major trauma into high volume centres is key, but these centres must be adequately resourced to deliver a high quality service. Investment in and co-ordination of prehospital care is essential to overcome geographical impediments to centralising trauma care. Funding of rehabilitation infrastructure and resources is also an integral part of a well-functioning trauma system. Trauma outcome data is key to informing trauma system design, with dissemination of this data and public engagement critical for change.

CONCLUSION

International models of trauma care provide valuable lessons for countries currently in process of reconfiguring trauma services.