scholarly journals Minor change in initial PEEP setting decreases rates of ventilator-associated events in mechanically ventilated trauma patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000455
Author(s):  
Ethan Ferrel ◽  
Kristina M Chapple ◽  
Liviu Gabriel Calugaru ◽  
Jennifer Maxwell ◽  
Jessica A Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Change In Practice ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

BackgroundSurveillance of ventilator-associated events (VAEs) as defined by the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is performed at many US trauma centers and considered a measure of healthcare quality. The surveillance algorithm relies in part on increases in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to identify VAEs. The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate the effect of initiating mechanically ventilated trauma patients at marginally higher PEEP on incidence of VAEs.MethodsAnalysis of level-1 trauma center patients mechanically ventilated 2+ days from 2017 to 2018 was performed after an institutional ventilation protocol increased initial PEEP setting from 5 (2017) to 6 (2018)cm H2O. Incidence of VAEs per 1000 vent days was compared between PEEP groups. Logistic regression modelling was performed to evaluate the impact of the PEEP setting change adjusted to account for age, ventilator days, injury mechanism and injury severity.Results519 patients met study criteria (274 PEEP 5 and 245 PEEP 6). Rates of VAEs were significantly reduced among patients with initial PEEP 5 versus 6 (14.61 per 1000 vent days vs. 7.13 per 1000 vent days; p=0.039). Logistic regression demonstrated that initial PEEP 6 was associated with 62% reduction in VAEs.ConclusionsOur data suggest that an incrementally increased baseline PEEP setting was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of VAEs among trauma patients. This minor change in practice may have a major impact on a trauma center’s quality metrics.Level of evidenceIV.

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

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.

scholarly journals Higher Mortality Rate in Moderate-to-Severe Thoracoabdominal Injury Patients with Admission Hyperglycemia Than Nondiabetic Normoglycemic Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (19) ◽  
pp. 3562
Author(s):  
Wei-Ti Su ◽  
Shao-Chun Wu ◽  
Sheng-En Chou ◽  
Chun-Ying Huang ◽  
Shiun-Yuan Hsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Past History ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Thoracoabdominal Injuries ◽  
History Of ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Background: Hyperglycemia at admission is associated with an increase in worse outcomes in trauma patients. However, admission hyperglycemia is not only due to diabetic hyperglycemia (DH), but also stress-induced hyperglycemia (SIH). This study was designed to evaluate the mortality rates between adult moderate-to-severe thoracoabdominal injury patients with admission hyperglycemia as DH or SIH and in patients with nondiabetic normoglycemia (NDN) at a level 1 trauma center. Methods: Patients with a glucose level ≥200 mg/dL upon arrival at the hospital emergency department were diagnosed with admission hyperglycemia. Diabetes mellitus (DM) was diagnosed when patients had an admission glycohemoglobin A1c ≥6.5% or had a past history of DM. Admission hyperglycemia related to DH and SIH was diagnosed in patients with and without DM. Patients who had a thoracoabdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale score <3, a polytrauma, a burn injury and were below 20 years of age were excluded. A total of 52 patients with SIH, 79 patients with DH, and 621 patients with NDN were included from the registered trauma database between 1 January 2009, and 31 December 2018. To reduce the confounding effects of sex, age, comorbidities, and injury severity of patients in assessing the mortality rate, different 1:1 propensity score-matched patient populations were established to assess the impact of admission hyperglycemia (SIH or DH) vs. NDN, as well as SIH vs. DH, on the outcomes. Results: DH was significantly more frequent in older patients (61.4 ± 13.7 vs. 49.8 ± 17.2 years, p < 0.001) and in patients with higher incidences of preexisting hypertension (2.5% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (3.8% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.014) than NDN. On the contrary, SIH had a higher injury severity score (median [Q1–Q3], 20 [15–22] vs. 13 [10–18], p < 0.001) than DH. In matched patient populations, patients with either SIH or DH had a significantly higher mortality rate than NDN patients (10.6% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.022, and 5.3% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.043, respectively). However, the mortality rate was insignificantly different between SIH and DH (11.4% vs. 8.6%, odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.29–6.66; p = 0.690). Conclusion: This study revealed that admission hyperglycemia in the patients with thoracoabdominal injuries had a higher mortality rate than NDN patients with or without adjusting the differences in patient’s age, sex, comorbidities, and injury severity.

Efforts to Improve Appropriate Trauma Activation for Patients Transferred to a Level 1 Trauma Center From Outside Hospitals

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 467-475
Author(s):  
Sara Seegert ◽  
Roberta E. Redfern ◽  
Bethany Chapman ◽  
Daniel Benson
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Activation Level ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Trauma Response ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Transferred Patients ◽  
Trauma Activation ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Trauma centers monitor under- and overtriage rates to comply with American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification requirements. Efforts to maintain acceptable rates are often undertaken as part of quality assurance. The purpose of this project was to improve the institutional undertriage rate by focusing on appropriately triaging patients transferred from outside hospitals (OSHs). Trauma physicians received education and pocket cards outlining injury severity score (ISS) calculation to aid in prospectively estimating ISS for patients transferred from OSHs, and activate the trauma response expected for that score. Under- and overtriage rates before and after the intervention were compared. The postintervention period saw a significant decrease in overall overtriage rate, with simultaneous trend toward lower overall undertriage rate, attributable to the significant reduction in undertriage rate of patients transferred from OSHs. Prospectively estimating ISS to assist in determining trauma activation level shows promise in managing appropriate patient triage. However, questions arose regarding the necessity for full trauma activation for transferred patients, regardless of ISS. It may be necessary to reconsider how patients transferred from OSHs are evaluated. Full trauma activation can be a financial and resource burden, and should not be taken lightly.

scholarly journals Does emergency medicine length of stay predict trauma outcomes at a Level 1 Trauma Center?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Hospital Capacity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

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.

Patient Contact Time and Prehospital Interventions in Hypotensive Trauma Patients: Should We Reconsider the “ABC” Algorithm When Time Is of the Essence?

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (8) ◽  
pp. 937-943
Author(s):  
Scott Ninokawa ◽  
Jessica Friedman ◽  
Danielle Tatum ◽  
Alison Smith ◽  
Sharven Taghavi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Penetrating Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Abc Algorithm ◽  
New Injury Severity Score ◽  
Urban Level ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Needle Decompression ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Introduction There is disagreement in the trauma community concerning the extent to which emergency medical services (EMS) should perform on-scene interventions. Additionally, in recent years the “ABC” algorithm has been questioned in hypotensive patients. The objective of this study was to quantify the delay introduced by different on-scene interventions. Methods A retrospective analysis of hypotensive trauma patients brought to an urban level 1 trauma center by EMS from 2007 to 2018 was performed, and patients were stratified by mechanism of injury and new injury severity score (NISS). Independent samples median tests were used to compare median on-scene times. Results Among 982 trauma patients, median on-scene time was 5 minutes (interquartile range 3-8). In penetrating trauma patients ( n = 488) with NISS of 16-25, intubation significantly increased scene time from 4 to 6 minutes ( P < .05). In penetrating trauma patients with NISS of 10-15, wound care significantly increased scene time from 3 to 6 minutes ( P < .05). Tourniquet use, interosseous (IO) access, intravenous (IV) access, and needle decompression did not significantly increase scene time. Conclusion Understanding that intubation increases scene time in penetrating trauma, while IV and IO access do not, alterations to the traditional “ABC” algorithm may be warranted. Further investigation of prehospital interventions is needed to determine which are appropriate on-scene.

Helicopter Transport of Trauma Patients Improves Survival Irrespective of Transport Time

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482094356
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Schneider ◽  
Joseph A. Ewing ◽  
John D. Cull
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Mechanism Of Injury ◽  
Transport Time ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Student’S T Test ◽  
Transportation Type

Objectives Helicopter transport of trauma patients remains controversial. We examined the survival rates of patients undergoing helicopter versus ground transport to a Level 1 trauma center. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed on trauma patients treated between 2014 and 2017. Student’s t-test was used to compare air versus ground transport times. A logistic regression was then used to examine the association of transportation type on survival controlling for demographics, mechanism of injury, transport time, field intubation, and injury severity. Results Of 3967 patients identified, 69.6% (2762) were male, and the average age was 40 years. Most patients suffered blunt injuries (86.8%, 3445), while the remaining had penetrating injuries (11.6%, 459) or burns (1.6%, 63). The majority of patients were transferred by ground (3449) with only 13% (518) transferred by air. Patients transported by air had increased Injury Severity Score (ISS) with a median of 17 (IQR 9-24) versus 9 (IQR 5-14), increased length of stay (LOS) at 6 days versus 3 ( P < .001), and increased mortality at 12.6% vs 6.5% ( P < .001). Patients transported by air arrived 16.6 ± 6.7 minutes faster compared with ground for the zip codes examined. When adjusting for the mechanism of injury, ISS, age, gender, intubation status, and transport time, air transport was associated with an increased likelihood of survival (odds ratio [OR] = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.06-2.40). Conclusion In our analysis of 3967 patients, those transported by air had a significant improvement in the likelihood of survival compared with those transported by ground even when adjusting for both ISS and time.

scholarly journals Effect of American College of Surgeons Level 1 Trauma Center Designation on Management of Adult Severe TBI Patients

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Helton ◽  
Austin Porter ◽  
Kevin Thomas ◽  
Jeffrey C Henson ◽  
Mason Sifford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Cranial Surgery ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Abstract INTRODUCTION Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There is a wide variability in treatment paradigm for patients with severe TBI. American College of Surgeons (ACS) level 1 trauma centers have access to 24 h neurosurgical coverage. In this study, we use the National Trauma Database (NTDB) to evaluate if ACS trauma center designation correlates with the management and outcomes of severe TBI in adults. METHODS Adult patients (<65 yr) with a severe isolated nonpenetrating TBI were identified in the NTDB from years 2007 to 2014. ICD-9 procedure codes were used to identify primary treatment approaches: intracranial pressure monitoring and cranial surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the impact of ACS designation on procedures and patient outcomes. Patient and injury characteristics were included in the analysis. RESULTS A total of 54 769 TBI patients were identified. Among those, 22 316 (42%) were treated at an ACS level 1 trauma center and 31 835 (58%) were treated elsewhere. Level 1 designated patients had significantly more intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors placed (12.3% vs10.8%; P < .0001) and more cranial surgeries performed (17.7% vs 15.7%; P < .0001). A greater percentage of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; 89.9% vs 83.9%; P < .0001) and had a longer hospital stay (16.1 vs 15.2; P < .0001) at ACS level 1 trauma centers. In a regression analysis, patients at level 1 centers were associated with a 14% and 17% increased odds of obtaining a cranial surgery or ICP monitor, respectively. Patients treated at a level 1 center were associated with a 6% decrease in odds of mortality (P = .01). CONCLUSION ACS level 1 designation did correlate with increased rates of neurosurgical intervention and ICU admissions. This translated into patient outcomes as those treated at level 1 facilities were associated with lower rates of mortality.

scholarly journals Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha M Simske ◽  
Trenton Rivera ◽  
Mary A Breslin ◽  
Sarah B Hendrickson ◽  
Megen Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Support Groups ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Educational Materials ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

BackgroundThe primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources.MethodsTrauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient’s medical records.ResultsFrom May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had ‘direct contact’ (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2–15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2–10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018.ConclusionsHospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary.Level of evidenceLevel II therapeutic.

Emergency Medical Service Transport Time and Trauma Outcomes at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center: Evaluation of Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Response

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482098882
Author(s):  
Adel Elkbuli ◽  
Brianna Dowd ◽  
Carol Sanchez ◽  
Saamia Shaikh ◽  
Mason Sutherland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medical Service ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Medical Service ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Transport Time ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Background The use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for trauma patients has been debated since its introduction. We aim to compare outcomes for trauma patients transported by ground EMS (GEMS) vs. HEMS using raw and adjusted mortality in a level 1 trauma center. Methods A 6-year retrospective cohort study utilizing our level 1 trauma center registry for patients transferred by GEMS or HEMS was performed. Demographics and outcome measures were compared. Raw and adjusted mortality was evaluated. Adjusted mortality was determined incorporating confounders, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and EMS transport time. Chi-square, multivariable logistic regression, and independent sample T-test were utilized with significance, defined as P < .05. Results Of 12 633 patients, 10 656 were transported via GEMS and 1977 with HEMS. Mean age was 55 for GEMS and 40 for HEMS ( P < .001). Mean ISS was 9.29 and 11.73 for GEMS and HEMS ( P < .001). Mean Revised Trauma Score was higher (less severe) for GEMS vs. HEMS (7.6 vs. 7.12, P < .001). Mean transport times for GEMS and HEMS was 39.45 vs. 47.29 minutes ( P = .02). Raw mortality was 2.55% (307/10 656) for GEMS and 6.78% (134/1977) for HEMS. Adjusted mortality revealed a 16.6% increased mortality for GEMS compared to HEMS (adjusted odds ratio = 1.166, 95% CI: .815-1.668). Conclusions Air-lifted trauma patients were younger, more severely injured, and more hemodynamically unstable and required longer transport time but experienced lower adjusted mortality. Future research is needed to investigate whether reducing transport times and augmenting the advanced care already implemented by HEMS crews can improve outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document