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.

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.

Analysis of Profit and Loss by Injury Severity over 20 Years at a University Level I Trauma Center

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (7) ◽  
pp. 644-648
Author(s):  
Zachary Dietch ◽  
Jeffrey S. Young ◽  
Steven D. Young
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Positive Margin ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Hospital Charges ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Average Loss ◽  
University Level ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

We examined financial data from a University Level I Trauma Center from 1994 to 2014. We sought to investigate the hypothesis that lower injury severity correlates with increased profitability. We examined data from July 1994 to December 2014. This included hospital charges, Medicare cost data, final reimbursement, and payor source. Patients were separated into Injury Severity Score (ISS) groupings: 0 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 24, >24, and >14. Mean and standard deviation of mean are reported. We had complete data on 27,582 patients. Overall profit per case when subtracting costs from reimbursements was $1,932/case (total profit in unadjusted dollars = $53,475,828 or $2,673,791/year). When examined by ISS, profitability was significantly different between ISS 0 to 14 and 15 to 24, and > 24. When charge data were examined, the average loss per case was -$31,313 for the 27,582 patient data set. When using cost, and not charge data, overall trauma care had a positive margin. Severely injured patients (ISS > 14) were the most profitable, with a significantly higher profit per case than all other groupings. Only through examination of cost data can realistic determinations of trauma center profitability be made. If only charge data had been examined in this study, the overall loss from the 20-year period would have been $863,675,166 and not a profit of $53,475,828.

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.

Blood Transfusions in Trauma: Six-Year Analysis of the Transfusion Practices at a Level I Trauma Center

2008 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 953-957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro G.R. Teixeira ◽  
Didem Oncel ◽  
Demetrios Demetriades ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Ira Shulman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Fresh Frozen Plasma ◽  
Blood Transfusions ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Packed Red Blood Cells ◽  
Fresh Frozen ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

The objective of this study was to analyze the transfusion practices in trauma patients in one institution. A retrospective analysis of the Trauma Registry linked with the Blood Bank Database of a Level 1 trauma center was conducted. Over 6 years, 17 per cent of the 25,599 trauma patients received blood transfusions. The overall mortality in transfused patients was 20 per cent and remained the same during the study period. There was no change in the proportion of patients receiving transfusions throughout the years, however there was a significant 23.5 per cent reduction in the mean number of packed red blood cells (PRBC) units transfused (P < 0.001 for trend). This reduction in PRBC used remained true and even more evident in the group of more severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), with a 27.9 per cent decrease in mean units of PRBC (P < 0.001 for trend). The highest reduction in PRBC transfusion was seen in blunt trauma patients (34.6%, P < 0.001). During the study period there was a concurrent increase in mean units of fresh frozen plasma used (60.7%, P < 0.001) and no change in the use of platelets and cryoprecipitate. In conclusion, transfusions of PRBC were significantly reduced over time in trauma patients without any evident negative impact on mortality.

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.

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.

Three-Wheel and Four-Wheel All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries in Children

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-698
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Dolan ◽  
Jane F. Knapp ◽  
Jody Andres
Keyword(s):  
Motor Skills ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Common Factors ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Level I ◽  
Serious Injuries ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

In January 1988, sales of new three-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) were banned in the United States because of the high incidence of injury associated with their use, especially by children. Four-wheel ATVs remain on the market. A retrospective review of all ATV injuries seen in a level I pediatric trauma center was conducted to compare the nature and severity of injuries in three-wheel vehicles with those associated with four-wheelers. A total of 36 ATV injuries were seen from April 1986 to August 1988. All patients were &lt; 16 years of age; 72% were ≤12 years of age. Of the patients, 56% were boys; 44% were girls. Although 56% of incidents involved three-wheelers, a larger number of more serious injuries, defined as the presence of indicators of injury severity (eg, death, Injury Severity Score ≥10, intensive care unit admission, or need for surgery), involved four-wheel vehicles. A total of 15 injuries occurred in 1987; 12 injuries, including the first death involving an ATV at the pediatric trauma center, occurred in the 7 months since the sales ban. Immature judgment and/or motor skills were the most common factors contributing to injury. Existing information regarding injuries involving three-wheel ATVs is supported by our data, according to which it is suggested that four-wheel vehicles may be dangerous in the hands of immature or unskilled operators &lt; 16 years of age. Injury prevention efforts should be directed at prohibiting any ATV use by persons &lt; 16 years of age.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document