Norwegian trauma care: a national cross-sectional survey of all hospitals involved in the management of major trauma patients

Trauma team training in Norwegian hospitals: an observational study

Background

Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of deaths in Norway, especially among younger males. Trauma-related mortality can be reduced by structural measures, such as organization of a trauma system. Many hospitals in Norway treat few seriously injured patients, one of the reasons for development of the Norwegian trauma system. Since its implementation, there has been continuous improvement of this system, including trauma team training. Regular trauma team training is compulsory, with the aims of compensating for lack of experience and maintaining competence. The purpose of this study was to present an overview of current trauma team training activities in Norway.

Methods

For this observational study, the authors developed an online questionnaire and mailed it to local trauma coordinators from 38 Norwegian hospitals—including four trauma centers and 34 acute hospitals with trauma function. The study was performed during April–June 2020, with a two-month response window. Trauma team training frequency was assessed in four predefined intervals: < 5, 5–9, 10–15 and > 15 times per year. The response rate was 33 of 38, 87%.

Results

All responding hospitals conducted regular trauma team training. The frequency of training increased significantly from 2013 to 2020 (Chi square test, Chi² 8.33, p = 0.04). All hospitals described a quite homogenous approach. The trauma centres trained more frequently as compared to the acute care hospitals (Chi square test, Chi² 8.24, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

All responding hospitals performed regular trauma team training using a homogenous approach, which is in line with previous assessments. We observed a minor improvement in frequency compared to prior assessments. Our findings suggest that Norwegian trauma teams likely maintain their competence through team training. All hospitals followed the current recommendations from the National Trauma Plan.

Trauma research in the Nordic countries, 1995-2018 - a systematic review

Background

Trauma is a major cause of mortality and reduced quality of life. Most trauma-related research originates from trauma centres, and there are limited available data regarding the treatment of trauma patients throughout the Nordic countries. These countries differ from economically similar countries due to their cold climate, mix of rural and urban areas, and the long distances separating many residents from a trauma centre. Research funders and the general public expect trauma research to focus on all links in the treatment chain. Here we conducted a systematic review to assess the amount of trauma-related research from the Nordic countries between January 1995 and April 2018, and the distribution of this research among different countries and different parts of the trauma treatment chain.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. We included studies concerning the trauma population from Nordic countries, and published between January 1995 and April 2018. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction from full-text articles.

Results

The literature search yielded 5117 titles and abstracts, of which 844 full-text articles were included in our analysis. During this period, the annual number of publications increased. Publications were equally distributed among Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in terms of numbers; however, Norway had more publications relative to inhabitants. There were fewer overall publications from Finland and Iceland. We identified mostly cohort studies and very few randomized controlled trials. Studies focused on the level of care were predominantly epidemiological studies. Research at the pre-hospital level was three-fold more frequent than research on other elements of the trauma treatment chain.

Conclusion

The rate of publications in the field of trauma care in the Nordic countries has increased over recent years. However, several parts of the trauma treatment chain are still unexplored and most of the available studies are observational studies with low research evidence.

Trauma facilities in Denmark - a nationwide cross-sectional benchmark study of facilities and trauma care organisation

Background

Trauma is a leading cause of death among adults aged < 44 years, and optimal care is a challenge. Evidence supports the centralization of trauma facilities and the use multidisciplinary trauma teams. Because knowledge is sparse on the existing distribution of trauma facilities and the organisation of trauma care in Denmark, the aim of this study was to identify all Danish facilities that care for traumatized patients and to investigate the diversity in organization of trauma management.

Methods

We conducted a systematic observational cross-sectional study. First, all hospitals in Denmark were identified via online services and clarifying phone calls to each facility. Second, all trauma care manuals on all facilities that receive traumatized patients were gathered. Third, anesthesiologists and orthopedic surgeons on call at all trauma facilities were contacted via telephone for structured interviews.

Results

A total of 22 facilities in Denmark were found to receive traumatized patients. All facilities used a trauma care manual and all had a multidisciplinary trauma team. The study found three different trauma team activation criteria and nine different compositions of teams who participate in trauma care. Training was heterogeneous and, beyond the major trauma centers, databases were only maintained in a few facilities.

Conclusion

The study established an inventory of the existing Danish facilities that receive traumatized patients. The trauma team activation criteria and the trauma teams were heterogeneous in both size and composition. A national database for traumatized patients, research on nationwide trauma team activation criteria, and team composition guidelines are all called for.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0486-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are severely injured trauma victims in Norway offered advanced pre-hospital care? National, retrospective, observational cohort

Background

Studies of severely injured patients suggest that advanced pre‐hospital care and/or rapid transportation provides a survival benefit. This benefit depends on the disposition of resources to patients with the greatest need. Norway has 19 Emergency Helicopters (HEMS) staffed by anaesthesiologists on duty 24/7/365. National regulations describe indications for their use, and the use of the national emergency medical dispatch guideline is recommended. We assessed whether severely injured patients had been treated or transported by advanced resources on a national scale.

Methods

A national survey was conducted collecting data for 2013 from local trauma registries at all hospitals caring for severely injured patients. Patients were analysed according to hospital level; trauma centres or acute care hospitals with trauma functions. Patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 were considered severely injured.

Results

Three trauma centres (75%) and 17 acute care hospitals (53%) had data for trauma patients from 2013, a total of 3535 trauma registry entries (primary admissions only), including 604 victims with an ISS > 15. Of these 604 victims, advanced resources were treating and/or transporting 51%. Sixty percent of the severely injured admitted directly to trauma centres received advanced services, while only 37% of the severely injured admitted primarily to acute care hospitals received these services.

Conclusion

A highly developed and widely distributed HEMS system reached only half of severely injured trauma victims in Norway in 2013.

Trauma care in a combined rural and urban region: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The available information on trauma care in mixed rural-urban areas with scattered populations is limited. The aim of this study is to describe epidemiology, resource use, transfers and outcomes for trauma care within such an area, prior to implementation of a formal trauma system.

METHODS

A multicentre observational study including potential severely injured patients from June 2007 to May 2010. All patients received by trauma teams at seven acute care hospitals (ACH) and one major trauma centre (MTC) were included. Major trauma was defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15.

RESULTS

A total of 2323 patients were included. ACH received 1330 patients and delivered definite care to 85% of these. Only 329 (14%) patients were major trauma of which 134 (41%) were initially received at an ACH. Nine per cent of patients were transferred between hospitals. After inter-hospital transfers, 79% of all major trauma patients received definite care at the MTC. Helicopter emergency services admitted 52% of major trauma and performed 68% of inter-hospital transfers from ACH to MTC. Forty-eight patients (2%) died within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

In a region with a dispersed network of hospitals, geographical challenges, and low rate of major trauma cases, efforts should be made to identify patients with major trauma for treatment at a MTC as early as possible. This can be done by implementing triage and transfer guidelines, maintaining competence at ACHs for initial stabilization, and sustaining an organization for effective inter-facility transfers.

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.