MultiDisciplinary Trauma Team Training for Improving Communication and Teamwork in the Trauma Bay

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. S175-S176 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Boulger ◽  
J. Ward ◽  
E. Jackson ◽  
D. Eiferman ◽  
D. Bahner
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000670
Author(s):  
Imad S Dandan ◽  
Gail T Tominaga ◽  
Frank Z Zhao ◽  
Kathryn B Schaffer ◽  
Fady S Nasrallah ◽  
...  

BackgroundOvertriage of trauma patients is unavoidable and requires effective use of hospital resources. A ‘pit stop’ (PS) was added to our lowest tier trauma resource (TR) triage protocol where the patient stops in the trauma bay for immediate evaluation by the emergency department (ED) physician and trauma nursing. We hypothesized this would allow for faster diagnostic testing and disposition while decreasing cost.MethodsWe performed a before/after retrospective comparison after PS implementation. Patients not meeting trauma activation (TA) criteria but requiring trauma center evaluation were assigned as a TR for an expedited PS evaluation. A board-certified ED physician and trauma/ED nurse performed an immediate assessment in the trauma bay followed by performance of diagnostic studies. Trauma surgeons were readily available in case of upgrade to TA. We compared patient demographics, Injury Severity Score, time to physician evaluation, time to CT scan, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Comparisons were made using 95% CI for variance and SD and unpaired t-tests for two-tailed p values, with statistical difference, p<0.05.ResultsThere were 994 TAs and 474 TRs in the first 9 months after implementation. TR’s preanalysis versus postanalysis of the TR group shows similar mean door to physician evaluation times (6.9 vs. 8.6 minutes, p=0.1084). Mean door to CT time significantly decreased (67.7 vs. 50 minutes, p<0.001). 346 (73%) TR patients were discharged from ED; 2 (0.4%) were upgraded on arrival. When admitted, TR patients were older (61.4 vs. 47.2 years, p<0.0001) and more often involved in a same-level fall (59.5% vs. 20.1%, p<0.0001). Undertriage was calculated using the Cribari matrix at 3.2%.DiscussionPS implementation allowed for faster door to CT time for trauma patients not meeting activation criteria without mobilizing trauma team resources. This approach is safe, feasible, and simultaneously decreases hospital cost while improving allocation of trauma team resources.Level of evidenceLevel II, economic/decision therapeutic/care management study.


2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Gillman ◽  
Doug Martin ◽  
Paul T. Engels ◽  
Peter Brindley ◽  
Sandy Widder ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rune Bruhn Jakobsen ◽  
Sarah Frandsen Gran ◽  
Bergsvein Grimsmo ◽  
Kari Arntzen ◽  
Erik Fosse ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e009911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Härgestam ◽  
Marie Lindkvist ◽  
Maritha Jacobsson ◽  
Christine Brulin ◽  
Magnus Hultin

MedEdPORTAL ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Demian Szyld ◽  
Sarah E. Peyre ◽  
Zara R. Cooper ◽  
Diane Miller ◽  
Yvonne Michaud ◽  
...  

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 551
Author(s):  
Noonan ◽  
Olaussen ◽  
Mathew ◽  
Mitra ◽  
Smit ◽  
...  

Background and Objectives: Major trauma centres manage severely injured patients using multi-disciplinary teams but the evidence-base that targeted Trauma Team Training (TTT) improves patients’ outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify the association between the implementation of TTT programs and patient outcomes. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, PubMed and The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from the date of the database commencement until 10 of April 2019 for a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords relating to TTT and clinical outcomes. Reference lists of appraised studies were also screened for relevant articles. We extracted data on the study setting, type and details about the learners, as well as clinical outcomes of mortality and/or time to critical interventions. A meta-analysis of the association between TTT and mortality was conducted using a random effects model. Results: The search yielded 1136 unique records and abstracts, of which 18 full texts were reviewed. Nine studies met final inclusion, of which seven were included in a meta-analysis of the primary outcome. There were no randomised controlled trials. TTT was not associated with mortality (Pooled overall odds ratio (OR) 0.83; 95% Confidence Interval; 0.64–1.09). TTT was associated with improvements in time to operating theatre and time to first computerized tomography (CT) scanning. Conclusions: Despite few publications related to TTT, its introduction was associated with improvements in time to critical interventions. Whether such improvements can translate to improvements in patient outcomes remains unknown. Further research focusing on the translation of standardised trauma team reception “actions” into TTT is required to assess the association between TTT and patient outcome.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document