Structural and Process Data on Radiological Imaging in the Treatment of Severely Injured Patients – Results of a Survey of Level I and II Trauma Centers in Germany

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Ernstberger ◽  
Stefan Ulrich Reske ◽  
Alexandra Brandl ◽  
Martin Kulla ◽  
Stefan Huber-Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Contact ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
Trauma Room ◽  
Process Characteristics ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

Purpose Systematic data collection regarding the integration of radiology as well as structural and process characteristics of radiological diagnostics of severely injured patients in Germany using a structured questionnaire. Materials and Methods Personal contact with all certified Level I and Level II Trauma Centers in Germany. Data on infrastructure, composition of the trauma room team, equipment, and data on the organization/performance of primary major trauma diagnostics were collected. Results With a participation rate of 46.9 % (n = 151) of all German trauma centers (N = 322), a solid database is available. There were highly significant differences in the structural characteristics incl. CT equipment between the level I and II centers: In 63.8 % of the level II centers, the CT unit was located more than 50 m away from the trauma room (34.2 % in the level I centers). A radiologist was part of the trauma room team in 59.5 % of level II centers (level I 88.1 %). Additionally, highly significant differences were found comparing 24-h provision of other radiologic examinations and interventions, such as MRI (level II 44.9 %, level I 92.8 %) and angiography (level II 69.2 %, level I 97.1 %). Conclusion Heterogeneous structural and process characteristics of the diagnosis of severely injured patients in Germany were revealed, with highly significant differences between level I and level II centers. Key Points:  Citation Format

Terrorist suicide bombings: Lessons learned in Metropolitan Haifa from September 2000 to January 2006

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Mekel, MD ◽  
Amir Bumenfeld, MD ◽  
Zvi Feigenberg, MD ◽  
Daniel Ben-Dov, MD ◽  
Michael Kafka, MD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Suicide Bombing ◽  
Suicide Bombings ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Pulmonary Damage ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

Background: The threat of suicide bombing attacks has become a worldwide problem. This special type of multiple casualty incidents (MCI) seriously challenges the most experienced medical facilities.Methods: The authors concluded a retrospective analysis of the medical management of victims from the six suicide bombing attacks that occurred in Metropolitan Haifa from 2000 to 2006.Results: The six terrorist suicide bombing attacks resulted in 411 victims with 69 dead (16.8 percent) and 342 injured. Of the 342 injured, there were 31 (9.1 percent) severely injured, seven (2.4 percent) moderately severely injured, and 304 (88.9 percent) mildly injured patients.Twenty four (77 percent) of the 31 severely injured victims were evacuated to the level I trauma center at Rambam Medical Center (RMC). Of the seven severely injured victims who were evacuated to the level II trauma centers (Bnai-Zion Medical Center and Carmel Medical Center) because of proximity to the detonation site, three were secondarily transferred to RMC after initial resuscitation. Eight of the 24 severely injured casualties, admitted to RMC, eventually died of their wounds.There was no in-hospital mortality in the level II trauma centers.Conclusions: A predetermined metropolitan triage system which directs trauma victims of a MCI to the appropriate medical center and prevents overcrowding of the level I facility with less severe injured patients will assure that critically injured patients of a suicide bombing attack will receive a level of care that is comparable with the care given to similar patients under normal circumstances. Severe blast injury victims without penetrating injuries but with significant pulmonary damage can be effectively managed in ICUs of level II trauma centers.

scholarly journals The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzan Dijkink ◽  
Erik W. van Zwet ◽  
Pieta Krijnen ◽  
Luke P. H. Leenen ◽  
Frank W. Bloemers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
The Right ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008–2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63–74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.

Initial Approach to the Management of Multisystem Trauma

2019 ◽  
pp. 397-401
Author(s):  
David S. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Nonfatal Injuries ◽  
Injured Patients

Nearly 200,000 people die of injury-related causes in the United States each year, and injury is the leading cause of death for all patients aged 1 to 44 years. Approximately 30 million people sustain nonfatal injuries each year, which results in about 29 million emergency department visits and 3 million hospital admissions. Management of severely injured patients, typically defined as having an Injury Severity Score greater than 15 is best managed in a level I or level II trauma center. Any physician who provides care for critically ill patients should have a basic familiarity with the fundamentals of trauma care.

scholarly journals Mortality Benefit of Transfer to Level I versus Level II Trauma Centers for Head-Injured Patients

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Craig D. Newgard ◽  
Richard J. Mullins ◽  
Melanie Arthur ◽  
Jerris R. Hedges
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Mortality Benefit ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Head Injured ◽  
Versus Level ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

scholarly journals Age and traumatic brain injury as prognostic factors for late-phase mortality in patients defined as polytrauma according to the New Berlin Definition: experiences from a level I trauma center

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Weihs ◽  
V. Heel ◽  
M. Dedeyan ◽  
N. W. Lang ◽  
S. Frenzel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
Berlin Definition ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

Abstract Background The rationale of this study was to identify independent prognostic factors influencing the late-phase survival of polytraumatized patients defined according to the New Berlin Definition. Methods Retrospective data analysis on 173 consecutively polytraumatized patients treated at a level I trauma center between January 2012 and December 2015. Patients were classified into two groups: severely injured patients (ISS > 16) and polytraumatized patients (patients who met the diagnostic criteria for the New Berlin Definition). Results Polytraumatized patients showed significantly lower late-phase and overall survival rates. The presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and age > 55 years had a significant influence on the late-phase survival in polytraumatized patients but not in severely injured patients. Despite the percentage of severe TBI being nearly identical in both groups, severe TBI was identified as main cause of death in polytraumatized patients. Furthermore, severe TBI remains the main cause of death in polytraumatized patients > 55 years of age, whereas younger polytraumatized patients (< 55 years of age) tend to die more often due to the acute trauma. Conclusion Our results suggest that age beyond 55 years and concomitant (severe) TBI remain as most important influencing risk factor for the late-phase survival of polytraumatized patients but not in severely injured patients. Level of evidence Prognostic study, level III.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Hospital Volume and In-Hospital Mortality of Severely Injured Patients in Dutch Level-1 Trauma Centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Charlie Sewalt ◽  
Esmee Venema ◽  
Erik van Zwet ◽  
Jan van Ditshuizen ◽  
Stephanie Schuit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Hospital Volume ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Centralization of trauma centers leads to a higher hospital volume of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15), but the effect of volume on outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital volume of severely injured patients and in-hospital mortality in Dutch Level-1 trauma centers. A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using the Dutch trauma registry. All severely injured adults (ISS > 15) admitted to a Level-1 trauma center between 2015 and 2018 were included. The effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality was analyzed with random effects logistic regression models with a random intercept for Level-1 trauma center, adjusted for important demographic and injury characteristics. A total of 11,917 severely injured patients from 13 Dutch Level-1 trauma centers was included in this study. Hospital volume varied from 120 to 410 severely injured patients per year. Observed mortality rates varied between 12% and 24% per center. After case-mix correction, no statistically significant differences between low- and high-volume centers were demonstrated (adjusted odds ratio 0.97 per 50 extra patients per year, 95% Confidence Interval 0.90–1.04, p = 0.44). The variation in hospital volume of the included Level-1 trauma centers was not associated with the outcome of severely injured patients. Our results suggest that well-organized trauma centers with a similar organization of care could potentially achieve comparable outcomes.

A Contemporary Analysis of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Mortality in Severe Injury

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110234
Author(s):  
David S. Plurad ◽  
Glenn Geesman ◽  
Nicholas W. Sheets ◽  
Bhani Chawla-Kondal ◽  
Napatakamon Ayutyanont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
Program Participant ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Verification Process ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
The Impact

Background Literature demonstrates increased mortality for the severely injured at a Level II vs. Level I center. Our objective is to reevaluate the impact of trauma center verification level on mortality for patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 utilizing more contemporary data. We hypothesize that there would be no mortality discrepancy. Study Design Utilizing the ACS Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File admission year 2017, we identified severely injured (ISS >15) adult (age >15 years) patients treated at an ACS-verified Level I or Level II center. We excluded patients who underwent interfacility transfer. Logistic regression was performed to determine adjusted associations with mortality. Results There were 63 518 patients included, where 43 680 (68.8%) were treated at a Level I center and 19 838 (31.2%) at a Level II. Male gender (70.1%) and blunt injuries (92.0%) predominated. Level I admissions had a higher mean ISS [23.8 (±8.5) vs. 22.9 (±7.8), <.001], while Level II patients were older [mean age (y) 52.3 (±21.6) vs. 48.6 (±21.0), <.001] with multiple comorbidities (37.7% vs. 34.9%, <.001). Adjusted mortality between Level I and II centers was similar (12.0% vs. 11.8%, .570). Conclusions Despite previous findings, mortality outcomes are similar for severely injured patients treated at a Level I vs. Level II center. We theorize that this relates to mandated Level II resourcing as defined by an updated American College of Surgeons verification process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document