Mechanism of Injury is not a Predictor of Trauma Center Admission

2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (11) ◽  
pp. 1149-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lance E. Stuke ◽  
Juan C. Duchesne ◽  
John P. Hunt ◽  
Alan B. Marr ◽  
Peter C. Meade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Patient Discharge ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Mechanism Of Injury ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Trauma Team Activation ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Trauma Activation ◽  
Group 1

Most trauma systems use mechanism of injury (MOI) as an indicator for trauma center transport, often overburdening the system as a result of significant overtriage. Before 2005 our trauma center accepted all MOI. After 2005 we accepted only those patients meeting anatomic and physiologic (A&P) triage criteria. Patients entered into the trauma center database were divided into two groups: 2001 to 2005 (Group 1) and 2007 to 2010 (Group 2) and also categorized based on trauma team activation for either A&P or MOI criteria. Overtriage was defined as patient discharge from the emergency department within 6 hours of trauma activation. A total of 9899 patients were reviewed. Group 1 had 6584 patients with 3613 (55%) activated for A&P criteria and 2971 (45%) for MOI. Group 2 had 3315 patients with 3149 (95%) activated for A&P criteria and 166 (5%) for MOI. Accepting only those patients meeting A&P criteria resulted in a decrease in the overtriage rate from 66 to 9 per cent. By accepting only those patients meeting A&P criteria, we significantly reduced our overtriage rate. Patients meeting MOI criteria were transported to community hospitals and transferred to the trauma center if major injuries were identified. Trauma center transport for MOI results in significant overtriage and may not be justified.

scholarly journals The negative effects of COVID-19 and national lockdown on emergency surgery morbidity due to delayed access

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco A. Ciarleglio ◽  
Marta Rigoni ◽  
Liliana Mereu ◽  
Cai Tommaso ◽  
Alessandro Carrara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Close Correlation ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background The aim of this retrospective comparative study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 and delayed emergency department access on emergency surgery outcomes, by comparing the main clinical outcomes in the period March–May 2019 (group 1) with the same period during the national COVID-19 lockdown in Italy (March–May 2020, group 2). Methods A comparison (groups 1 versus 2) and subgroup analysis were performed between patients’ demographic, medical history, surgical, clinical and management characteristics. Results Two-hundred forty-six patients were included, 137 in group 1 and 109 in group 2 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in the peri-operative characteristics of the two groups. A declared delay in access to hospital and preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 15.5% and 5.8%, respectively in group 2. The overall morbidity (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.08–4.55, p = 0.03) and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.33–5.50, =0.68) were significantly higher in group 2. The delayed access cohort showed a close correlation with increased morbidity (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 0.89–11.44, p = 0.07), blood transfusion (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.05–25.15, p = 0.04) and 30-day mortality risk (OR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.01–63.23, p = 0.05). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher risk of blood transfusion (20% vs 7.8%, p = 0.37) and ICU admissions (20% vs 2.6%, p = 0.17) and a longer median LOS (9 days vs 4 days, p = 0.11). Conclusions This article provides enhanced understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient access to emergency surgical care. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 changed the quality of surgical care with poorer prognosis and higher morbidity rates. Delayed emergency department access and a “filter effect” induced by a fear of COVID-19 infection in the population resulted in only the most severe cases reaching the emergency department in time.

Pediatric Falls in a Nonpediatric Trauma Center—When is Trauma Team Activation Needed?

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (8) ◽  
pp. 191-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Perea ◽  
Adrian Ong ◽  
Rachael Trupp ◽  
Sara Wilhelm ◽  
Pamela Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Trauma Team Activation

Increased mortality with undertriaged patients in a mature trauma center with an aggressive trauma team activation system

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rogers ◽  
F. B. Rogers ◽  
C. W. Schwab ◽  
E. Bradburn ◽  
J. Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Trauma Team Activation ◽  
Activation System

scholarly journals Maturation process and international accreditation of trauma system in a rapidly developing country

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243658
Author(s):  
Ayman El-Menyar ◽  
Ahammad Mekkodathil ◽  
Mohammad Asim ◽  
Rafael Consunji ◽  
Gustav Strandvik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Maturation Process ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Background As trauma systems mature, they are expected to improve patient care, reduce in-hospital complications and optimize outcomes. Qatar has a single trauma center, at the Hamad General Hospital, which serves as the hub for the trauma system that was verified as a level 1 trauma system by the Accreditation Canada International Distinction program in 2014. We hypothesized that this international accreditation was a major step, in the maturation process of the Qatar trauma system, that has positively impacted patient care, reduced complications and improved outcomes of trauma patients in such a rapidly developing country. Methods A retrospective analysis of data was conducted for all trauma patients who were admitted between 2010 and 2018. Data were obtained from the level 1 trauma center registry at Hamad Medical Corporation. Patients were divided into Group 1- pre-accreditation (admitted from January 2010 to October 2014) and Group 2- post-accreditation (admitted from November 2014 to December 2018). Patients’ characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed and compared. Data included patients’ demographics; injury types, mechanism and injury severity scores, interventions, hospital stay, complications and mortality (pre-hospital and in-hospital). Time series analysis for mortality was performed using expert modeler. Results Data from a total of 15,864 patients was collected and analyzed. Group 2 patients had more severe injuries in comparison to Group 1 (p<0.05). However, Group 2, had a lower complication rate (ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP)) and a shorter mean hospital length of stay (p<0.05). The overall mortality was 8%. In Group 2; the pre-hospital mortality was higher (52% vs. 41%, p = 0.001), while in-hospital mortality was lower (48% vs. 59%) compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001). Conclusions The international recognition and accreditation of the trauma center in 2014 was the key factor in the maturation of the trauma system that improved the in-hospital outcomes. Accreditation also brought other benefits including a reduction in VAP and hospital length of stay. However, further studies are required to explore the maturation process of all individual components of the trauma system including the prehospital setting.

Sensitivity and specificity of trauma team activation protocol criteria in an Italian trauma center: A retrospective observational study

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 20-24
Author(s):  
Claudio Maliziola ◽  
Simona Frigerio ◽  
Salvatore Lanzarone ◽  
Alessandra Barale ◽  
Maurizio Berardino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Trauma Team Activation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document