Ten-Year Incidence of High-Energy Geriatric Trauma at a Level 1 Trauma Center

The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use is a list of medications with multiple risks in older patients. Approximately 24 per cent use rate is reported in prior studies. Our objective was to determine the local PIM use and subsequent fall risk in geriatric trauma patients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of PIM use in all geriatric patients evaluated at our Level 1 trauma center between 2014 and 2017. Patients were identified from our trauma database. Pre-admission medication use was determined through medication reconciliation from our electronic medical record (EMR). Patients not undergoing medication reconciliation were excluded. After initial analysis, patients were stratified by age into three groups: 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios of falls for specific PIMs. In all, 2181 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 71.2 per cent of geriatric trauma patients were prescribed at least one PIM—73.1 per cent of falls compared with 68.6 per cent for other mechanisms. Specific PIM use varied by age group. PIMs associated with fall risk in all patients included antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and diclofenac. For those aged 65 to 74 years, antihistamines, diclofenac, proton pump inhibitors, and promethazine were associated. In those aged 75 to 84 years, alprazolam, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, cyclobenzaprine, diclofenac, and muscle relaxants were implicated. No significant associations were found for patients aged ≥85 years. PIM use at our trauma center seems to be rampant and well above the national average. Geriatric falls were associated with using ≥1 PIM and multiple specific PIMs implicated. We are designing a targeted educational program for local primary care physicians (PCPs) that will attempt to decrease geriatric PIM use.

Download Full-text

Geriatric trauma patients at one Level 1 trauma center before and after ortho-geriatric co-management (OGC): an 8-year comparison

10.1055/s-0040-1717505 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

S Halvachizadeh ◽

L Gröbli ◽

T Berk ◽

KO Jensen ◽

C Hierholzer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Before And After ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center

Download Full-text

Financial impact of electric scooters: a review of injuries over 27 months at an urban level 1 trauma center (cost of e-scooter injuries at an urban level 1 trauma center)

Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open ◽

10.1136/tsaco-2020-000634 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. e000634

Author(s):

Ophelie Lavoie-Gagne ◽

Matthew Siow ◽

William E Harkin ◽

Alec R Flores ◽

Carey S Politzer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Medical Care ◽

Trauma Center ◽

High Energy ◽

Financial Impact ◽

Hospital Charges ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Urban Level ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center

BackgroundElectric scooters (e-scooters) have become a widespread method of transportation due to convenience and affordability. However, the financial impact of medical care for sustained injuries is currently unknown. The purpose of this study is to characterize total billing charges associated with medical care of e-scooter injuries.MethodsA retrospective review of patients with e-scooter injuries presenting to the trauma bay, emergency department or outpatient clinics at an urban level 1 trauma center was conducted from November 2017 to March 2020. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Primary outcomes of interest were total billing charges and billing to insurance (hospital and professional). Multivariable models were used to identify preventable risk factors associated with higher total billing charges.ResultsA total of 63 patients were identified consisting of 42 (66.7%) males, average age 40.19 (SD 13.29) years and 3.2% rate of helmet use. Patients sustained orthopedic (29%, n=18), facial (48%, n=30) and cranial (23%, n=15) injuries. The average total billing charges for e-scooter clinical encounters was $95 710 (SD $138 215). Average billing to insurance was $86 376 (SD $125 438) for hospital charges and $9 334 (SD $14 711) for professional charges. There were no significant differences in charges between injury categories. On multivariable regression, modifiable risk factors independently associated with higher total billing charges included any intoxication prior to injury ($231 377 increase, p=0.02), intracranial bleeds ($75 528, p=0.04) and TBI ($360 898, p=0.006).DiscussionMany patients sustain high-energy injuries during e-scooter accidents with significant medical and financial consequences. Further studies may continue expanding the financial impact of e-scooter injuries on both patients and the healthcare system.Level of evidenceIII

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of [CONFERENCE POSTER]: Outcomes of endoscopic realignment of blunt posterior urethral injuries at a Level 1 trauma center.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.11414968.12436067 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Sanjay Kulkarni

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center ◽

Urethral Injuries

Download Full-text

Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

BMC Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12873-021-00487-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Charlie A. Sewalt ◽

Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽

Daan Nieboer ◽

Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽

Dennis Den Hartog ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Logistic Regression ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Absolute Benefit ◽

Predicted Probability ◽

Prehospital Triage ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center ◽

Level 2

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.

Download Full-text