scholarly journals Characteristics of pediatric thoracic trauma: in view of before and after the establishment of a regional trauma center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pil Young Jung ◽  
Jae Sik Chung ◽  
Youngin Youn ◽  
Chang Wan Kim ◽  
Il Hwan Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Traffic Accidents ◽  
Thoracic Trauma ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Efficient Treatment ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Tissue Recovery

Abstract Purpose Pediatric thoracic trauma differs from those of adult in terms of the small anatomy and rapid tissue recovery. Therefore, it is important to know the characteristics of the pediatric thoracic trauma to improve treatment results. In addition, this study examined the changes in pediatric thoracic trauma features and results from the establishment of a level 1 regional trauma center. Methods Data of 168 patients’ ≤ 15 years old diagnosed with thoracic trauma between 2008 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Results Pedestrian traffic accidents were the most common cause of chest injury. The average injury severity score was 17.1 ± 12.4 and the average pediatric trauma score was 5.6 ± 4.1. Lung contusion was the most common in 134 cases. There were 48 cases of closed thoracostomy. There was one thoracotomy for cardiac laceration, one case for extracorporeal membranous oxygenation, and six cases for embolization. Of all, 25 patients died, providing a mortality rate of 14.9%. In addition, independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality were hemopneumothorax and cardiac contusion. Since 2014, when the level 1 regional trauma center was established, more severely injured thoracic trauma patients came. However, the mortality was similar in the two periods. Conclusions Understanding the clinical features of pediatric thoracic trauma patients can help in efficient treatment. In addition, as the severity of pediatric thoracic trauma patients has increased due to the establishment of the regional trauma center, so pediatric trauma center should be organized in regional trauma center to improve the outcomes of pediatric thoracic trauma.

A Handoff Protocol for Pediatric Trauma Patients at a Rural Level One Trauma Center Reduces Length of Stay

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482095633
Author(s):  
Evelyn Coile ◽  
Kathryn Bailey ◽  
Eric J. Clayton ◽  
Tatiana R. Eversley Kelso ◽  
Heather MacNew
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Ancillary Staff ◽  
Trauma Triage ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Trauma Surgeons ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Background The management of the pediatric trauma patient is variable among trauma centers. In some institutions, the trauma surgeon maintains control of the patient throughout the hospital stay, while others transfer to a pediatric specialist after the initial evaluation and resuscitation period. We hypothesized that handoff to the pediatric surgeon would decrease the length of stay by more efficient coordination with pediatric subspecialists and ancillary staff. Methods A retrospective review from October 2014 to October 2018 was conducted at our rural level 1 trauma center analyzing the length of stay across all demographics and trauma triage levels before and after institution of a handoff protocol from adult specialized trauma surgeons to pediatric surgeons within a 24-hour window. Further analysis included emergency department (ED) disposition to include the effect of handoff on the length of stay in the setting of a higher post-ED acuity, that is, disposition of monitored beds. Results 1267 patient charts were analyzed and the mean length of stay was reduced by .38 days ( t = 5.92, P < .0005) across all demographics, trauma triage levels, post-ED dispositions, and mechanisms of injury after institution of our handoff protocol. Conclusion Handoff from adult specialized trauma surgeons to pediatric surgeons within a 24-hour window at a rural level 1 trauma center significantly improved the length of stay by .38 ( t = 5.92, P < .0005) among pediatric trauma patients in all demographics, trauma triage activations levels, mechanisms of injury, and post-ED dispositions acuity levels.

scholarly journals Does emergency medicine length of stay predict trauma outcomes at a Level 1 Trauma Center?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Hospital Capacity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

Delays in Transfer of Elderly Less-injured Trauma Patients Can Have Deadly Consequences

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (11) ◽  
pp. 1132-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Fischer ◽  
Paul D. Colavita ◽  
Gregory P. Fleming ◽  
Toan T. Huynh ◽  
A. Britton Christmas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
Local Trauma ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Transfer of severely injured patients to regional trauma centers is often expedited; however, transfer of less-injured, older patients may not evoke the same urgency. We examined referring hospitals’ length of stay (LOS) and compared the subsequent outcomes in less-injured transfer patients (TP) with patients presenting directly (DP) to the trauma center. We reviewed the medical records of less-injured (Injury Severity Score [ISS] 9 or less), older (age older than 60 years) patients transferred to a regional Level 1 trauma center to determine the referring facility LOS, demographics, and injury information. Outcomes of the TP were then compared with similarly injured DP using local trauma registry data. In 2011, there were 1657 transfers; the referring facility LOS averaged greater than 3 hours. In the less-injured patients (ISS 9 or less), the average referring facility LOS was 3 hours 20 minutes compared with 2 hours 24 minutes in more severely injured patients (ISS 25 or greater, P < 0.05). The mortality was significantly lower in the DP patients (5.8% TP vs 2.6% DP, P = 0.035). Delays in transfer of less-injured, older trauma patients can result in poor outcomes including increased mortality. Geographic challenges do not allow for every patient to be transported directly to a trauma center. As a result, we propose further outreach efforts to identify potential causes for delay and to promote compliance with regional referral guidelines.

scholarly journals (P2-91) EMS Trauma Triage: Does the Red-Blue Criteria Enable Overtriage?

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s166-s166
Author(s):  
D.M. Higgins ◽  
R.E. Thaxton
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Minor Trauma ◽  
Trauma Severity ◽  
Physician Assessment ◽  
Assessment Skills ◽  
Trauma Triage ◽  
Level 1

IntroductionWith the current need for effective trauma center utilization, understanding how current trauma triage criteria may promote overtriage will enable both field and hospital teams to provide the most appropriate patient care. It is hypothesized that current Southwest Texas trauma criteria promote overtriage by prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) of patients in favor of a Level 1 trauma facility when compared to physician assessment and Injury Severity Score (ISS).MethodsThis prospective, observational study at a Southwest Texas military Level 1 trauma center compared adult trauma patients' prehospital status noted by EMS personnel with the triage criteria documented by the treating emergency physician. The patients were divided into four groups: Prehospital Criteria Met or Not Met; Arrival Criteria Met or Not Met. Each patient's ISS and mechanism of injury were also collected and compared to initial assessment for predictive value. Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsThe study enrolled 278 adult trauma patients. EMS reported Level 1 trauma status similar to physician assessment (60.1% vs. 59.7%, respectively). The rates patients met Level 1 trauma status corresponded with trauma severity when compared to the ISS. Assessment between EMS and physicians for ISSs were similar among the four groups. Comparisons using multivariate analysis of the four groups found similar ISSs, except for the Prehospital Criteria Met/Arrival Criteria Not Met group. Seventy-five percent of these patients were assigned an ISS in the Minor (ISS < 9) category (p = 0.013).ConclusionTrauma triage criteria assessment skills were similar between EMS personnel and emergency physicians except for identifying minor trauma patients. While the criteria generally led to overtriage, EMS crews appear to overtriage minor trauma patients at a much higher rate.

Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Blunt Abdominal Injury in Level-I and II Pediatric Trauma Centers

2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110335
Author(s):  
Aryan Haratian ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Karan Rajalingam ◽  
Matthew Dolich ◽  
Sebastian Schubl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Blunt Abdominal Injury ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I

Introduction An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers. Methods The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed. Results 970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05). Conclusion While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482098882
Author(s):  
Adel Elkbuli ◽  
Brianna Dowd ◽  
Carol Sanchez ◽  
Saamia Shaikh ◽  
Mason Sutherland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medical Service ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Medical Service ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Transport Time ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

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.

scholarly journals Early experience of a regional trauma center in Gangwon province: First step toward organizing a regional trauma system

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-210
Author(s):  
Kwangmin Kim ◽  
Hongjin Shim ◽  
Pil Young Jung ◽  
Seongyup Kim ◽  
Hui-Jae Bang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare decided to establish a trauma medical service system to reduce preventable deaths. OO hospital in Gangwon Province was selected as a regional trauma center and was inaugurated in 2015. Objectives: This study examines the impact of this center, comparing mortality and other variables before and after inaugurating the center. Methods: Severely injured patients (injury severity score > 15) presenting to OO hospital between January 2014 and December 2016 were enrolled and categorized into two groups: before trauma center (n = 365) and after trauma center (n = 904). Patient characteristics, variables, and patient outcomes (including mortality rate) before and after the establishment of trauma centers were compared accordingly for both groups. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were also identified. Results: Probability of survival using trauma and injury severity score (%) method was significantly lower in the after trauma center group (81.3 ± 26.1) than in the before trauma center group (84.7 ± 21.0) (p = 0.014). In-hospital mortality rates were similar in both groups (before vs after trauma center group: 13.2% vs 14.2%; p = 0.638). The Z and W statistics revealed higher scores in the after trauma center group than in the before trauma center group (Z statistic, 4.69 vs 1.37; W statistic, 4.52 vs 2.10); 2.42 more patients (per 100 patients) survived after trauma center establishment. Conclusion: Although the mortality rates of trauma patients remained unchanged after the trauma center establishment, the Z and W statistics revealed improvements in the quality of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document