Secondary overtriage of isolated facial trauma

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Academic, tertiary care, level I trauma center in a rural state.

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary transfer of certain facial trauma patients results in a burden of time, money, and other resources on both the patient and healthcare system; identification and development of outpatient treatment pathways for these patients is a significant opportunity for cost savings.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the treatment and disposition of un-complicated, stable, isolated facial trauma injuries transferred from outside hospitals and determine the significance of secondary overtriage.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review utilizing our institutional trauma database, including patients transferred to our emergency department between January 2012 and December 2017. Patients were identified by ICD9 or ICD10 codes and only those with isolated facial trauma were included.

RESULTS

We identified 538 isolated facial trauma patients who were transferred to our institution during the study period. The majority of those patients were transferred via ground ambulance for an average of 76 miles. Overall, 82% of patients (N = 440) were discharged directly from our institution's emergency department. Almost 30% of patients did not require any formal treatment for their injuries; the potential savings associated with elimination of these unnecessary transfers was estimated to be between $388,605 and $771,372.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a high rate of patients with stable, isolated facial trauma that could potentially be evaluated and treated without emergent transfer. The minimization of these unnecessary transfers represents a significant opportunity for cost and resource utilization savings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b- Economic and Cost Analysis.

Trauma outcomes for blunt and penetrating injuries by mode of transportation and day/night shift

BACKGROUND

Effective management of trauma patients is dependent on pre-hospital triage systems and proper in-hospital treatment regardless of time of admission. We aim to investigate any differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between day vs. night arrival for adult trauma patients who were transported to the hospital via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and to determine if care/outcomes are inferior when admitted during the night shift as compared to the day shift.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of adult blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring full team trauma activation at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT)-verified Level 1 trauma center from 2011 to 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square analyses, independent-sample t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests were performed. Primary measurement outcome was adjusted observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios utilizing TRISS methodology.

RESULTS

8370 patients with blunt injuries and 1216 patients with penetrating injuries were analyzed. There were no significant differences in day vs. night O/Es overall (blunt 0.65 vs. 0.59; p = 0.46) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.87; p = 0.97). There also were no significant differences when stratified by GEMS (blunt 0.64 vs. 0.55; p = 0.08) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 1.10; p = 0.09) and HEMS admissions (blunt 0.76 vs. 0.75; p = 0.91) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.91; p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

At an ACSCOT-verified Level 1 Trauma Center, care/outcomes of patients admitted during the night shift were not inferior to those admitted during the day shift. Trauma Center verification by the ACSCOT and multidisciplinary collaboration may allow for consistent care despite injury type and time of day.

Emergency Medical Service Transport Time and Trauma Outcomes at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center: Evaluation of Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Response

BACKGROUND

The use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for trauma patients has been debated since its introduction. We aim to compare outcomes for trauma patients transported by ground EMS (GEMS) vs. HEMS using raw and adjusted mortality in a level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective cohort study utilizing our level 1 trauma center registry for patients transferred by GEMS or HEMS was performed. Demographics and outcome measures were compared. Raw and adjusted mortality was evaluated. Adjusted mortality was determined incorporating confounders, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and EMS transport time. Chi-square, multivariable logistic regression, and independent sample T-test were utilized with significance, defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Of 12 633 patients, 10 656 were transported via GEMS and 1977 with HEMS. Mean age was 55 for GEMS and 40 for HEMS (P < .001). Mean ISS was 9.29 and 11.73 for GEMS and HEMS (P < .001). Mean Revised Trauma Score was higher (less severe) for GEMS vs. HEMS (7.6 vs. 7.12, P < .001). Mean transport times for GEMS and HEMS was 39.45 vs. 47.29 minutes (P = .02). Raw mortality was 2.55% (307/10 656) for GEMS and 6.78% (134/1977) for HEMS. Adjusted mortality revealed a 16.6% increased mortality for GEMS compared to HEMS (adjusted odds ratio = 1.166, 95% CI: .815-1.668).

CONCLUSIONS

Air-lifted trauma patients were younger, more severely injured, and more hemodynamically unstable and required longer transport time but experienced lower adjusted mortality. Future research is needed to investigate whether reducing transport times and augmenting the advanced care already implemented by HEMS crews can improve outcomes.

A scoping review of worldwide studies evaluating the effects of prehospital time on trauma outcomes

BACKGROUND

Annually, over 1 billion people sustain traumatic injuries, resulting in over 900,000 deaths in Africa and 6 million deaths globally. Timely response, intervention, and transportation in the prehospital setting reduce morbidity and mortality of trauma victims. Our objective was to describe the existing literature evaluating trauma morbidity and mortality outcomes as a function of prehospital care time to identify gaps in literature and inform future investigation.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review of published literature in MEDLINE. Results were limited to English language publications from 2009 to 2020. Included articles reported trauma outcomes and prehospital time. We excluded case reports, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comments, editorials, letters, and conference proceedings. In total, 808 articles were identified for title and abstract review. Of those, 96 articles met all inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Higher quality studies used data derived from trauma registries. There was a paucity of literature from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with only 3 (3%) of articles explicitly including African populations. Mortality was an outcome measure in 93% of articles, predominantly defined as "in-hospital mortality" as opposed to mortality within a specified time frame. Prehospital time was most commonly assessed as crude time from EMS dispatch to arrival at a tertiary trauma center. Few studies evaluated physiologic morbidity outcomes such as multi-organ failure.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature disproportionately represents high-income settings and most commonly assessed in-hospital mortality as a function of crude prehospital time. Future studies should focus on how specific prehospital intervals impact morbidity outcomes (e.g., organ failure) and mortality at earlier time points (e.g., 3 or 7 days) to better reflect the effect of early prehospital resuscitation and transport. Trauma registries may be a tool to facilitate such research and may promote higher quality investigations in Africa and LMICs.

The Impact of Prehospital Transport Mode on Mortality of Penetrating Trauma Patients

OBJECTIVE

The optimal mode of transport of trauma patients from the scene to the hospital remains unknown. We aimed to study the impact of different prehospital modes of transport of penetrating trauma patients on hospital mortality.

METHODS

Using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program 2010 to 2016 database, we identified all adults with a penetrating injury. Univariate then multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the correlation between the mode of transport and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for several covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 92,427 subjects were included. The overall mean transport time for patients transported by a ground ambulance, helicopter, fixed wing ambulance, and police/private vehicle were 32.2, 61.2, 68.9, and 28.2 minutes, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared with ground ambulance, helicopter transport was associated with a 34% decrease in the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.66, P < .0001), whereas police transport and private vehicle transport were associated with a 52% decrease in the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.48, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Helicopter, police, and private vehicle transports are associated with a decreased odds of mortality compared with ground ambulance. Further research should examine the variation in levels of care within different modes of prehospital transport.

Association between physician-staffed helicopter versus ground emergency medical services and mortality for pediatric trauma patients: A retrospective nationwide cohort study

Background

Helicopter emergency medical services’ (HEMS) effectiveness for pediatric trauma patients remains unclear. We aimed to examine the relation between HEMS and reduced mortality in pediatric trauma patients.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank, a national multicenter clinical trauma database. Participants were aged <18 years, admitted between 2004 and 2015, and transported from the scene to the hospital by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS). We used a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weight method, and fitted a marginal structural model to adjust for measured confounders. The SMR weight was calculated using the estimation of the propensity scores. A logistic regression model was used with the baseline independent variables to estimate the propensity score.

Results

Overall, 5,947 patients were identified in our study: 453 were transported by HEMS and 5,494 by GEMS. The mean injury severity score in the HEMS group was significantly higher than that in the GEMS group17.0 (Standard deviation = 11.0) vs 12.2 (Standard deviation = 9.2), p < .001. In-hospital mortality was higher in the HEMS group than that in the GEMS group in the unadjusted analysis (3.8% vs 1.3%, respectively; p < .001). After adjusting for covariates, HEMS transport was not associated with reduced hospital mortality. (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.42–1.58).

Conclusions

HEMS was not associated with reduced mortality among pediatric trauma patients compared with GEMS in this nationwide study. Further investigation is necessary to determine who clearly benefits from HEMS as compared to GEMS.

The first seven years of nationally organized helicopter emergency medical services in Finland - the data from quality registry

Background

Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) play an important role in prehospital care of the critically ill. Differences in funding, crew composition, dispatch criteria and mission profile make comparison between systems challenging. Several systems incorporate databases for quality control, performance evaluation and scientific purposes. FinnHEMS database was incorporated for such purposes following the national organization of HEMS in Finland 2012. The aims of this study are to describe information recorded in the database, data collection, and operational characteristics of Finnish HEMS during 2012–2018.

Methods

All dispatches of the six Finnish HEMS units recorded in the national database from 2012 to 2018 were included in this observational registry study. Five of the units are physician staffed, and all are on call 24/7. The database follows a template for uniform reporting in physician staffed pre-hospital services, exceeding the recommended variables of relevant guidelines.

Results

The study included 100,482 dispatches, resulting in 33,844 (34%) patient contacts. Variables were recorded with little or no missing data. A total of 16,045 patients (16%) were escorted by HEMS to hospital, of which 2239 (2%) by helicopter. Of encountered patients 4195 (4%) were declared deceased on scene. The number of denied or cancelled dispatches was 66,638 (66%). The majority of patients were male (21,185, 63%), and the median age was 57.7 years. The median American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Scale classification was 2 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance class 0. The most common reason for response was trauma representing 26% (8897) of the patients, followed by out-of-hospital cardiac arrest 20% (6900), acute neurological reason excluding stroke 13% (4366) and intoxication and related psychiatric conditions 10% (3318). Blunt trauma (86%, 7653) predominated in the trauma classification.

Conclusions

Gathering detailed and comprehensive data nationally on all HEMS missions is feasible. A national database provides valuable insights into where the operation of HEMS could be improved. We observed a high number of cancelled or denied missions and a low percentage of patients transported by helicopter. The medical problem of encountered patients also differs from comparable systems.

Helicopter air ambulance services

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Helicopter air ambulances are an integral component of modern trauma care, and are able to transport patients to facilities with greater capabilities, extract injured patients from hostile terrain, and speed transport to a trauma center.

RECENT FINDINGS

HAA transport does not reduce the total time required to transport a patient, but it does reduce the time that the patient is between healthcare facilities. Factors that have been suggested to improve outcomes for trauma patients include the availability of advanced interventions, skilled personnel, speed, and trauma center access. Despite their potential benefits to the patient, HAA operations carry significant risks. HAA operations are among the most dangerous professions for both pilot and crew with a mortality rate greater than commercial fishing, loggers, and steelworkers. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified that the four most common causes of HAA accidents as inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions, loss of control, controlled flight into terrain, and night conditions.

SUMMARY

HAA operations are safe and can improve patient care, but additional research is needed to improve our understanding of HAA operations and their effect on outcomes.