What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The Tertiary Survey as a Quality Improvement Initiative in Pediatric Trauma Care

BACKGROUND

Patients are at risk of missed or delayed injuries in the setting of multisystem trauma, which may be identified with a tertiary trauma survey (TTS). There is limited literature to support the utilization of a TTS in pediatric trauma population. We aim to assess the impact of the TTS as a quality and performance improvement tool in identifying missed or delayed injuries and improving the quality of care among pediatric trauma population.

METHODS

A retrospective study assessing a quality improvement/performance improvement (QI/PI) project focusing on the administration of tertiary surveys to pediatric trauma patients was conducted at our level 1 trauma center between 08-2020 and 08-2021. Patients with injury severity scores (ISS) greater than 12 and/or an anticipated hospital stay greater than 72 hours met inclusion criteria and were included.

RESULTS

Of the 535 trauma patients admitted to the pediatric trauma service during the study period, 85 (16%) patients met the criteria and received a TTS. Thirteen unaddressed or undertreated injuries were found in 11 patients: 5 cervical spine injuries, 1 subdural hemorrhage, 1 bowel injury, 1 adrenal hemorrhage, 1 kidney contusion, 2 hematomas, and 2 full thickness abrasions. Following TTS, 13 patients (15%) had additional imaging, which identified 6 of the 13 injuries.

CONCLUSION

The TTS is a valuable quality and performance improvement tool in the comprehensive care of trauma patients. Standardization and implementation of a tertiary survey have the potential to facilitate the prompt detection of injuries and improve the quality of care for pediatric trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Foot fractures in polytrauma patients: Injury characteristics and timing of diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Due to prioritizing care and concomitant injuries, foot fractures in polytrauma patients often receive limited attention initially. However, as foot function is important, treatment and diagnosis of these fractures should be accurate. The aims of this study were to assess the incidence and distribution of foot fractures in polytrauma patients and to examine possible risk factors for delayed diagnosis of foot fractures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study on all adult (≥18 years) polytrauma (ISS ≥16) patients admitted to a single level 1 trauma center between 2006 and 2016. Patients with foot fractures were identified by diagnosis codes. Data on demographics and trauma characteristics were collected from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP^®) database. Data on foot fractures were gathered from electronic patient documentation.

RESULTS

Out of 4409 polytrauma patients, 221 (5.0%) sustained a total of 511 foot fractures. Metatarsal fractures were most common (41%), followed by calcaneal (17%), and talar (16%) fractures. Thirty percent of the fractures in 33% of all patients were diagnosed in a delayed fashion. This had treatment consequences in 8%. Delayed diagnosed fractures were more common in older patients (p 0.025), patients with a higher ISS (p 0.012), ICU admission (p 0.015), and concomitant head injury (p 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

As one in twenty polytrauma patients sustains at least one foot fracture and a substantial amount of these fractures are diagnosed in a delayed fashion, physicians, regardless of their specialty, should have a high index of suspicion for injuries of the feet in polytrauma patients.

Maxillofacial and concomitant serious injuries: An eight-year single center experience

PURPOSE

Maxillofacial injuries are frequently associated with multiple trauma and can determine functional and aesthetic bad outcomes. The severity of maxillofacial injuries may be considerable and can divert clinicians' attention from other concomitant injuries which is less evident but potentially life-threatening. The aim of this study was to find out the concomitant injuries in patients referred to the Emergency Department (ED) of the University Hospital of Messina (North-East Sicily, Italy) for maxillofacial traumas.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data of 240,833 patients admitted at the ED of the University Hospital of Messina from January 2008 to December 2015 because of maxillofacial injuries leading to hospitalization and surgical treatment. Patients who primarily received treatment care at different institutions, pediatric trauma patients and adult patients who were transferred in accordance with pre-existing agreements in case of paucity of beds were excluded. Finally we included 447 (0.2%) patients over the 8 years. Data were evaluated with emphasis on epidemiology (age, gender, mechanism of trauma), primary survey and abnormalities and pattern of trauma.

RESULTS

The most frequent cause of maxillofacial trauma was road accidents (319 patients, 71.4%), among which motorcycle ones were prevalent. The maxillofacial injured who presented major lesions were 98 patients and minor lesions occurred in 349 patients; 443 (99.1%) patients underwent maxillofacial surgery, immediate or delayed depending on the severity of concomitant injuries (χ² = 557.2, p < 0.0001). Five concomitant neglected lesions were found to be associated with severe maxillofacial traumas (χ² = 17.13, p < 0.0001 vs minor lesions). All of the neglected lesions occurred in paucisymptomatic patients who showed painless abdomen, no hemodynamic instability, no signs of hematoma of anterior and posterior abdominal wall or other suspicious clinical signs and symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Among the patients admitted firstly in other surgical wards different from the Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, diagnosis was more difficult, especially for blunt abdominal traumas, in which patients showed only vague and nonspecific symptoms concealing serious and life-threatening injuries. We recommend the routine use of whole body CT scan, when the maxillofacial injuries appear prevalent, mainly in patients affected by maxillofacial major lesions.

Meta-analysis of the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Missed injuries are considered as an important issue in trauma patients and can lead to significant morbidity and even mortality. It has been shown that the standard primary and secondary surveys, recommended by the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines, are associated with missed injuries. It has been suggested that tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries. The present paper aimed to identify comparative evidence about the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients.

METHODS

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies evaluating effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

Four prospective and three retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 12,581 trauma patients, were selected for analysis. Pooled odds ratio (OR) analysis of 5727 patients showed that detection of missed injuries was better in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=2.65, (95% CI:1.40-5.01), P=0.003]. A moderate level of heterogeneity among the studies existed (I(2)=68%, P=0.008). Also, analysis of 6,854 patients showed that fewer injuries were missed in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=0.63, (95% CI: 0.44-0.90), P=0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence demonstrates a constant trend in favour of tertiary survey in terms of missed injury reduction, and supports its use in management of trauma patients. Further studies are required to clarify the most cost-effective and systematic way of addressing missed injuries in the first 24h. We recommend use of "missed injury detection rate" and "missed injury rate" as two different outcomes in future studies in order to address the issue of heterogeneity in definition of missed injury in the current literature.