scholarly journals Tree Stand–Related Injuries in Nonadmitted and Admitted Patients at a Level 2 Trauma Center in Michigan: 2015–2019

Author(s):  
Alan A. Lazzara ◽  
Bailey I. Ditmer ◽  
Kyle W. Doughty ◽  
Kyle R. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 499-509
Author(s):  
Sung Huang Laurent Tsai ◽  
Greg Michael Osgood ◽  
Joseph K. Canner ◽  
Amber Mehmood ◽  
Oluwafemi Owodunni ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 253 (5) ◽  
pp. 992-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Haas ◽  
David Gomez ◽  
Melanie Neal ◽  
Christopher Hoeft ◽  
Najma Ahmed ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e123
Author(s):  
Jacob Best ◽  
Steven Stoker ◽  
Dalton McDaniel ◽  
Shawn Lerew ◽  
Gurkirat Jawanda ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dagan Schwartz ◽  
Moshe Pinkert ◽  
Adi Leiba ◽  
Meir Oren ◽  
Jacob Haspel ◽  
...  

AbstractIntroduction:Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) can occur outside of major metropolitan areas. In such circumstances, the nearest hospital seldom is a Level-1 Trauma Center. Moreover, emergency medical services (EMS) capabilities in such areas tend to be limited, which may compromise prehospital care and evacuation speed. The objective of this study was to extract lessons learned from the medical response to a terrorist event that occurred in the marketplace of a small Israeli town on 26 October 2005. The lessons pertain to the management of primary and secondary evacuation and the operational practices by the only hospital in the town, which is designated as a Level-2 Trauma Center.Methods:Data were collected during the event by Home Front Command Medical Department personnel. After the event, formal and informal debriefings were conducted with emergency medical services personnel, the hospitals involved, and the Ministry of Health.The medical response components, interactions (mainly primary triage and secondary distribution), and the principal outcomes were analyzed.The event is described according to Disastrous Incidents Systematic Analysis Through Components, Interactions, Results (DISAST-CIR) methodology.Results:The suicide bomber and four victims died at the scene, and two severely injured patients later died in the hospital. A total of 58 wounded persons were evacuated, including eight severely injured, two moderately injured, and 48 mildly injured. Forty-nine of the wounded arrived to the nearby Hillel Yafe Hospital, including all eight of the severely injured victims, the two moderately injured, and 39 of the mildly injured. Most of the mildly injured victims were evacuated in private cars by bystanders.Five other area hospitals were alerted, three of which primarily received the mildly injured victims. Twodistant, Level-1 Trauma Centers also were alerted; each received one severely injured patient from Hillel Yafe Hospital during the secondary distribution process.Emergency medical services personnel were able to treat and evacuate all severely and moderately injured patients within 17 minutes of the explosion. A total of 12 of the 21 ambulances arriving on-scene within the first 20 minutes were staffed by emergency medical services volunteers or off-duty workers.Conclusion:When a mass-casualty incident occurs in a small town that is in the vicinity of a Level-2 Trauma Center, and located a >40 minute drive from Level-1 Trauma Centers, the Level-2 Trauma Center is a critical component in medical management of the event. All severely and moderately injured patients initially should be evacuated to the Level-2 Trauma Center, and given advanced, hospital-based resuscitation. The patients needing care beyond the capabilities of this facility should be distributed secondarily to Level-1 Trauma Centers.To alleviate the burden placed on the local hospital, some of the mildly injured victims can be evacuated primarily to more distant hospitals.The ability to control the flow of mildly injured patients is limitedby the large percentage of them arriving by private cars. The availability of emergency medical services in small towns can be augmented significantly by enrolling off-duty emergency medical services workers and volunteers to the rescue effort. Level-2 hospitals in small towns should be prepared and drilled to operate in a “selective evacuation” mode during mass-casualty incidents.


Author(s):  
Vikas Verma ◽  
Ajay Singh ◽  
GirishKumar Singh ◽  
Santosh Kumar ◽  
Vineet Sharma ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482094027
Author(s):  
Nicolas Major ◽  
Allison Dupont ◽  
Bryan C. Morse ◽  
Christopher J. Dente ◽  
Jesse Gibson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 211 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph T. Carroll ◽  
Alistair J. Chapman ◽  
Alan T. Davis ◽  
Carlos H. Rodriguez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document