Defining major trauma: a literature review

Identifying prehospital trauma patients from ambulance patient care records; comparing two methods using linked data in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Linked datasets for trauma system monitoring should ideally follow patients from the prehospital scene to hospital admission and post-discharge. Having a well-defined cohort when using administrative datasets is essential because they must capture the representative population. Unlike hospital electronic health records (EHR), ambulance patient-care records lack access to sources beyond immediate clinical notes. Relying on a limited set of variables to define a study population might result in missed patient inclusion. We aimed to compare two methods of identifying prehospital trauma patients: one using only those documented under a trauma protocol and another incorporating additional data elements from ambulance patient care records.

METHODS

We analyzed data from six routinely collected administrative datasets from 2015 to 2018, including ambulance patient-care records, aeromedical data, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, rehabilitation outcomes, and death records. Three prehospital trauma cohorts were created: an Extended-T-protocol cohort (patients transported under a trauma protocol and/or patients with prespecified criteria from structured data fields), T-protocol cohort (only patients documented as transported under a trauma protocol) and non-T-protocol (extended-T-protocol population not in the T-protocol cohort). Patient-encounter characteristics, mortality, clinical and post-hospital discharge outcomes were compared. A conservative p-value of 0.01 was considered significant RESULTS: Of 1 038 263 patient-encounters included in the extended-T-population 814 729 (78.5 %) were transported, with 438 893 (53.9 %) documented as a T-protocol patient. Half (49.6 %) of the non-T-protocol sub-cohort had an International Classification of Disease 10th edition injury or external cause code, indicating 79644 missed patients when a T-protocol-only definition was used. The non-T-protocol sub-cohort also identified additional patients with intubation, prehospital blood transfusion and positive eFAST. A higher proportion of non-T protocol patients than T-protocol patients were admitted to the ICU (4.6% vs 3.6 %), ventilated (1.8% vs 1.3 %), received in-hospital transfusion (7.9 vs 6.8 %) or died (1.8% vs 1.3 %). Urgent trauma surgery was similar between groups (1.3% vs 1.4 %).

CONCLUSION

The extended-T-population definition identified 50 % more admitted patients with an ICD-10-AM code consistent with an injury, including patients with severe trauma. Developing an EHR phenotype incorporating multiple data fields of ambulance-transported trauma patients for use with linked data may avoid missing these patients.

Using the GAP score as a complement to the new injury severity score in identifying severely injured patients- A registry-based cohort study of adult trauma patients in Sweden

BACKGROUND

New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Pressure (GAP) scoring systems have cutoffs to define severe injury and identify high-risk patients. This is important in trauma quality monitoring and improvement. The overall aim was to explore if GAP scoring system can be a complement or an alternative to the traditional NISS scoring system.

METHODS

Adults exposed to trauma between 2017 and 2021 were included in the study, using data from The Swedish Trauma Registry. The performance of NISS and GAP scores in predicting mortality, and ICU admissions were assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristics (AUROC) in all patients and in subgroups (blunt, penetrating trauma and older (≥65 years) trauma patients). Patients were classified as severely injured by NISS >15 as Severely Injured NISS (SIN) or with a high-risk for mortality, by GAP 3-18 as High Risk GAP (HRG). Undertriage was calculated based on the cutoffs HRG and SIN.

RESULTS

Overall, 37,017 patients were included. The AUROC (95 % CI) for mortality using NISS was 0.84 (0.83-0.85) and for GAP 0.92 (0.91-0.93) (p-value <0.001), the AUROC (95 % CI) for ICU-admissions was 0.82 (0.82-0.83) using NISS and for GAP 0.70 (0.70-0.71) p-value <0.001, in the overall cohort. In older patients the AUROC (95 % CI) for mortality was 0.76 (0.75-0.78) using NISS and 0.79 (0.78-0.81) using GAP, p-value <0.001. Overall, 8,572 (23.2 %) and 2,908 (7.9 %) were classified as SIN and HRG, respectively, with mortality rates of 13.7 % and 34.3 %. In the HRG group low-energy falls dominated and in the SIN group most patients were exposed to MVCs. In the SIN and HRG groups the rate of Emergency Trauma Interventions according to Utstein guidelines (ETIU) and ICU admission was 14.0 vs 9.5 % and 47.0 vs 62.5 % respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the GAP score and its cutoff 3-18 can be used to define severe trauma as complement to NISS >15 and can be a valuable tool in trauma quality monitoring and improvement. However, both scoring systems were less accurate in predicting mortality for the older trauma patients and should be explored further.

Spectrum of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Acute Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury - A Pictorial Essay

Head trauma (HT) in pediatric patients is the number one cause of mortality and morbidity in children. Although computer tomography (CT) imaging provides ample information in assessing acute traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), there are instances when magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed. Due to its high sensitivity in diagnosing small bleeds, MRI offers a well-documented evaluation of primary acute TBIs. Our pictorial essay aims to present some of the latest imaging protocols employed in head trauma and review some practical considerations. Injury mechanisms in accidental HT, lesions' topography, and hematoma signal variability over time are also discussed. Acute primary intra- and extra-axial lesions and their MRI aspect are showcased using images from patients in our hospital. This pictorial essay has an educational purpose. It is intended to guide young emergency and intensive care unit doctors, neurologists, and neurosurgeons in diagnosing acute primary TBIs on MRI while waiting for the official radiologist's report. The presentation focuses on the most frequent traumatic lesions encountered in acute pediatric head trauma.

The ABCDE approach: Evaluation of adherence in a low-income country

BACKGROUND

Early recognition and initial treatment of trauma patients prevents deterioration and buys time for making a definitive diagnosis. The "Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure" (ABCDE) approach should be used whenever an injury is suspected. It provides quick identification and management of life-threatening problems. Still, there is limited knowledge regarding adherence to the ABCDE approach. This research aims to assess the adherence of the trauma team members to the ABCDE approach in the management of major trauma patients and the factors affecting it.

METHOD

The study is a cross-sectional hospital-based study conducted in the trauma and resuscitation rooms of major governmental hospitals in Khartoum in the period from Jan.30, 2022, to Mar.29, 2022. It was done among the medical staff dealing with major trauma cases. Data were collected by observation using a modified standardized checklist for assessing the ABCDE approach and via a self-administered questionnaire for identifying the factors affecting adherence. Total coverage of all major trauma cases resuscitation (n = 50) was done. Also, a sample size of 158 medical staff was covered for the questionnaire. The data was analyzed in Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) V.23.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of adherence to the ABCDE approach was 37.9 % (SD 15.44). When the ABCDE sequence was not followed, the ACB was the commonest sequence. Also, adherence had no significant relation with any patient or staff-related factor. The main present obstacles to adherence to the ABCDE approach were overcrowding in the room and unprepared facilities. While the major present facilitator was the clinical experience.

CONCLUSION

The adherence rate was low, but initiation of the ABCDE approach was rapid. The factors participating in low adherence rates were usually facility or population-based factors. We recommend further studies, further training and embedment of guidelines, and the provision of larger trauma rooms with adequate supplies.

The impact of referring hospital resources on interfacility overtriage: A population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of patients transferred from non-trauma to trauma centres have minor injuries. The transfer of patients with minor injuries to trauma centres is not associated with any known patient benefit and represents an opportunity to reduce healthcare costs and improve patient experience. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between hospital resources and overtriage, with the objective of identifying targets for system-level intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study of adults, age ≥ 16, presenting with minor injuries to non-trauma centres in Ontario, Canada (2009-2020). The primary outcome was overtriage, defined as transfer to a trauma centre. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between hospital resources and a patient's likelihood of being overtriaged, adjusting for case-mix.

RESULTS

amongst 165,302 patients with minor injuries, 15,641 (9.5 %) were transferred to a trauma centre (overtriage). Presence of a CT scanner, surgical support, or intensive care unit had no impact on a patient's likelihood of overtriage. Relative to community hospitals, presentation to a teaching hospital was independently associated with greater odds of overtriage (OR 2.97, 95 % CI: 1.26-7.00). Accounting for case-mix and resources, the median difference in a patient's odds of overtriage varied 3.7-fold across non-trauma centres (MOR 3.76).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in overtriage across non-trauma centres, even after adjusting for case-mix and hospital resources. These finding suggests that some centres have developed processes to minimize overtriage independent of available resources. Broad implementation of these processes may represent an opportunity for system-wide quality improvement.

Comparison of Vital Sign Cutoffs to Identify Children With Major Trauma

Importance

Vital signs are essential components in the triage of injured children. The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) physiologic criteria are frequently used for trauma assessments.

Objective

To evaluate the performance of ATLS and PALS criteria vs empirically derived criteria for identifying major trauma in children.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used 2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) data contributed by US trauma centers. Included encounters involved pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with severe injury, excluding those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, were receiving mechanical ventilation, or were transferred from another facility. Data were analyzed between April 9 and December 21, 2023.

Exposure

Initial hospital vital signs, including heart rate, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure (SBP).

Main Outcome and Measures

Major trauma, determined by the Standard Triage Assessment Tool, a composite measure of injury severity and interventions performed. Multivariable models developed from PALS and ATLS vital sign criteria were compared with models developed from the empirically derived criteria using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Validation of the findings was performed using the 2019 TQIP dataset.

Results

A total of 70 748 patients (median [IQR] age, 11 [5-15] years; 63.4% male) were included, of whom 3223 (4.6%) had major trauma. The PALS criteria classified 31.0% of heart rates, 25.7% of respiratory rates, and 57.4% of SBPs as abnormal. The ATLS criteria classified 25.3% of heart rates, 4.3% of respiratory rates, and 1.1% of SBPs as abnormal. Among children with all 3 vital signs documented (64 326 [90.9%]), PALS had a sensitivity of 88.4% (95% CI, 87.1%-89.3%) and specificity of 25.1% (95% CI, 24.7%-25.4%) for identifying major trauma, and ATLS had a sensitivity of 54.5% (95% CI, 52.7%-56.2%) and specificity of 72.9% (95% CI, 72.6%-73.3%). The empirically derived cutoff vital sign z scores had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.3%) and specificity of 48.7% (95% CI, 48.3%-49.1%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 70.9% (95% CI, 69.9%-71.8%), which was similar to PALS criteria (69.6%; 95% CI, 68.6%-70.6%) and greater than ATLS criteria (65.4%; 95% CI, 64.4%-66.3%). Validation using the 2019 TQIP database showed similar performance to the derivation sample.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that empirically derived vital sign criteria strike a balance between the sensitivity of PALS criteria and the specificity of ATLS criteria in identifying major trauma in children. These criteria may help to identify children at greatest risk of trauma-related morbidity and mortality.

Parameters influencing health-related quality of life after severe trauma: a systematic review (part II)

INTRODUCTION

It is increasingly recognized that health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a relevant outcome to study in populations comprising severely injured patients. Although some studies have readily demonstrated a compromised HRQoL in those patients, evidence regarding factors that predict HRQoL is scarce. This hinders attempts to prepare patient-specific plans that may aid in revalidation and improved life satisfaction. In this review, we present identified predictors of HRQoL in patients that have suffered severe trauma.

METHODS

The search strategy included a database search until the 1st of January 2022 in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science, and reference checking. Studies were eligible for inclusion when (HR)QoL was studied in patients with major, multiple, or severe injury and/or polytrauma, as defined by authors by means of an Injury Severity Score (ISS) cut-off value. The results will be discussed in a narrative manner.

RESULTS

A total of 1583 articles were reviewed. Of those, 90 were included and used for analysis. In total, 23 possible predictors were identified. The following parameters predicted reduced HRQoL in severely injured patients and came forward in at least more than three studies: higher age, female gender, lower extremity injuries, higher rate of injury severity, lower achieved educational level, presence of (pre-existing) comorbidities and mental illness, longer duration of hospital stay, and high level of disability.

CONCLUSION

Age, gender, injured body region, and severity of injury were found to be good predictors of health-related quality of life in severely injured patients. A patient-centered approach, based on individual, demographic, and disease-specific predictors, is highly recommended.

Impact of spinal injury on mortality in patients with major trauma: A propensity-matched cohort study

Major trauma is defined as a significant injury or injury that has the potential to be life-threatening and is quantitatively identified as an injury severity score (ISS) >15. Spinal injuries are common in patients with major trauma; however, because spinal injury is not independently included in the ISS calculation, the impact of spinal injury on mortality in patients with major trauma has not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study is to identify the association between spinal injury and mortality in patients with major trauma. From January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, retrospective analysis was conducted on 2893 major trauma adult patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center. There were 781 patients in the spinal injury group and 2112 patients in the group without spinal injury. After matching the 2 groups 1:1, we compared injury mechanism, mortality, cause of death, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and duration of ventilator use between spinal injury group and matched cohorts. Falls and traffic accidents were the most common injury mechanisms in the spinal injury group and the matched cohort, respectively. The mortality was significantly lower in the spinal injury group compared with the matched cohort (4.0% vs 7.9%, P = .001), and the ICU LOS was longer than the matched cohort (8.8 ± 17.4 days vs 7.2 ± 11.7 days, P = .028). In the spinal injury group, multiple organ failure (MOF) was the most common cause of death (41.9%), while that in the matched cohort was central nervous system (CNS) damage (61.3%). In patients with major trauma, spinal injury may act as a shock absorber for internal organs, which is thought to lower the mortality rate.

Health-related quality of life after severe trauma and available PROMS: an updated review (part I)

Introduction

Throughout the years, a decreasing trend in mortality rate has been demonstrated in patients suffering severe trauma. This increases the relevance of documentation of other outcomes for this population, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this review was to summarize the results of the studies that have been conducted regarding HRQoL in severely injured patients (as defined by the articles’ authors). Also, we present the instruments that are used most frequently to assess HRQoL in patients suffering severe trauma.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles published from inception until the 1st of January 2022. Reference lists of included articles were reviewed as well. Studies were considered eligible when a population of patients with major, multiple or severe injury and/or polytrauma was included, well-defined by means of an ISS-threshold, and the outcome of interest was described in terms of (HR)QoL. A narrative design was chosen for this review.

Results

The search strategy identified 1583 articles, which were reduced to 113 after application of the eligibility criteria. In total, nineteen instruments were used to assess HRQoL. The SF-36 was used most frequently, followed by the EQ-5D and SF-12. HRQoL in patients with severe trauma was often compared to normative population norms or pre-injury status, and was found to be reduced in both cases, regardless of the tool used to assess this outcome. Some studies demonstrated higher scoring of the patients over time, suggesting improved HRQoL after considerable time after severe trauma.

Conclusion

HRQoL in severely injured patients is overall reduced, regardless of the instrument used to assess it. The instruments that were used most frequently to assess HRQoL were the SF-36 and EQ-5D. Future research is needed to shed light on the consequences of the reduced HRQoL in this population. We recommend routine assessment and documentation of HRQoL in severely injured patients.

Defining major trauma: a Delphi study

Introduction

Retrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma.

Method

A two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses.

After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response to the Delphi statements between professional groups. A hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken to identify patterns of similarity/difference of response.

A grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis of data allowed for potentially multiple iterations of the Delphi process to be influenced by identified themes.

Results

Of 55 expert panel members invited to participate, round 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic n = 20, Nurse n = 5, other n = 2). No consistent patterns of opinion emerged with regards to professional group. Cluster analysis identified three patterns of similar responses and coded as trauma minimisers, the middle ground and the risk averse. Round 2 had 35 respondents with minimum change in opinion between rounds.

Consensus of > 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed.

Conclusion

Based upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: “Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age”.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00870-w.

Defining major trauma: a pre-hospital perspective using focus groups

Background:

Pre-hospital trauma is complex and challenging, with limited clinical exposure for clinicians. In addition, there is no standardised definition for major trauma, and retrospective scores commonly quantify injury severity, such as the injury severity score. This qualitative study aimed to explore the pre-hospital perspectives of major trauma and how pre-hospital trauma care providers define major trauma.

Method:

Three focus groups of 40–60 minutes’ duration were conducted with paramedics, ambulance technicians, police, firefighters and emergency dispatchers. Digital recordings were transcribed verbatim, coded and reviewed to identify emerging themes. Constant comparison was undertaken throughout and codes were identified for qualitative thematic analysis.

Results:

Three overarching themes emerged: clinician factors, patient factors and situational factors. Clinician factors highlighted issues of experience and exposure (or lack of) to major trauma and its relationship to clinical concern, communication issues and the complex nature of pre-hospital trauma. Patient factors identified deranged physiology, actual injuries, life changing trauma, potential need for surgical intervention and rehabilitation as defining major trauma. These variables are often complicated by the extremities of age as well as previous medical history and medications. The situational factors identified that every traumatic encounter is unique, requiring bespoke management where high and low energy mechanisms of injury should be considered.

Conclusion:

Based on the analysis of the focus groups, a working pre-hospital definition is: Any injury (or injuries) that have the potential to be life-threatening or life-changing, including those sustained from low energy mechanisms in people rendered vulnerable by extremes of age, comorbidities or frailty, resulting in significant physiological compromise (haemodynamic instability, reduced consciousness, respiratory compromise) and/or significant anatomical abnormality that may require immediate intervention.