Trauma System Overtriage: Are We on Track?

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (10) ◽  
pp. 960-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Fullerton ◽  
Graham W. Donald ◽  
Henry G. Cryer ◽  
Catherine E. Lewis ◽  
Ali Cheaito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
Trauma Activation

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) recommends trauma overtriage rate (OT) below 50 per cent to maximize efficiency while ensuring optimal care. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate OT rates in our Level I trauma center using the most recent criteria and guidelines. OT rates during a 12-month period were measured using six definitions based on combinations of Injury Severity Score (ISS), length of hospital stay (LOS, in days), procedures, and disposition after the emergency department. Reason for trauma activation was 55 per cent criteria, 16 per cent guidelines, 11 per cent paramedic judgment, five per cent no reason, and 13 per cent no documentation. OT rates ranged from 22.6 per cent (ISS less than 9, LOS 1 day or less, no consults) to 48.2 per cent (ISS less than 9, LOS 3 days or less, with procedures/consults) and were in compliance with ACS recommendations. Physiologic assessment criteria and anatomic injury had the lowest OT rates and contained all mortalities. Passenger space intrusion (PSI), pedestrian versus automobile (criterion and guideline), and extrication (guideline) all had consistently high rates of OT. We conclude that PSI should be reduced to a guideline, the pedestrian versus automobile criterion and guideline should be combined, and extrication could be removed from the triage scheme.

Is Outcome after Blunt Splenic Injury in Adults Better in High-Volume Trauma Centers?

2005 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. 942-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian G. Harbrecht ◽  
Mazen S. Zenati ◽  
Louis H. Alarcon ◽  
Juan B. Ochoa ◽  
Juan C. Puyana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Case Volume ◽  
Center Volume ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Outcome Differences

An association between outcome and case volume has been demonstrated for selected complex operations. The relationship between trauma center volume and patient outcome has also been examined, but no clear consensus has been established. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) has published recommendations on optimal trauma center volume for level 1 designation. We examined whether this volume criteria was associated with outcome differences for the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries. Using a state trauma database, ACS criteria were used to stratify trauma centers into high-volume centers (>240 patients with Injury Severity Score >15 per year) or low-volume centers, and outcome was evaluated. There were 1,829 patients treated at high-volume centers and 1,040 patients treated at low-volume centers. There was no difference in age, gender, emergency department pulse, emergency department systolic blood pressure, or overall mortality between high- and low-volume centers. Patients at low-volume centers were more likely to be treated operatively, but the overall success rate of nonoperative management between high-and low-volume centers was similar. These data suggest that ACS criteria for trauma centers level designation are not associated with differences in outcome in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries in this regional trauma system.

Inter-rater Variability Interferes with Reproducibility of Splenic Injury Grades Reported to the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-174
Author(s):  
Eric J. Ferguson ◽  
Michael Walsh ◽  
Megan Brown
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Ordinal Data ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Splenic Injury ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
Picture Archiving And Communication

The objective of this study was to determine reproducibility of our splenic injury grading data, previously reported to the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma for our most recent site visit. The institutional registry of a Level I trauma center was queried to identify adult patients presenting with blunt splenic injury between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Original CT scans were scanned into the picture archiving and communication system and subsequently reviewed by four trauma surgeons and two radiologists for clinical impressions of splenic injury grade. Grades assigned by the clinician and the grade recorded in the registry were compared for inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient, as a means of assessing variance of ordinal data. The intraclass correlation coefficient in our model was 0.77, which indicates that 77 per cent of the observed variance was due to true variance and 23 per cent of the variance was due to error. Variability in grading may, in some cases, underestimate injury severity and compromise the clinician's expectation of clinical outcome, both in real-time, as well as during retrospective review processes such as those used during the trauma center reverification process.

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.

Right Patient, Right Place, Right Time

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482094738
Author(s):  
Benjamin L. Gough ◽  
Matthew D. Painter ◽  
Autumn L. Hoffman ◽  
Richard J. Caplan ◽  
Cynthia A. Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Level I ◽  
Transferred Patients

Introduction This study sought to compare outcomes of trauma patients taken directly from the field to a Level I trauma center (direct) versus patients that were first brought to a Level III trauma center prior to being transferred to a Level I (transfer) within our inclusive Delaware trauma system. Methods A retrospective review of the Level I center’s trauma registry was performed using data from 2013 to 2017 for patients brought to a single Level I trauma center from 2 surrounding counties. The direct cohort consisted of 362 patients, while the transfer cohort contained 204 patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate hospital length of stay (LOS), while logistic regression was used for mortality, complications, and craniotomy. Covariates included age, gender, county, and injury severity score (ISS). Propensity score weighting was also performed between the direct and transfer cohorts. Results When adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and county, transferred patients demonstrated worse outcomes compared with direct patients in both the regression and propensity score analyses. Transferred patients were at increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, CI 1.10-4.37, P = .027) and craniotomy (OR 3.92, CI 1.87-8.72, P < .001). Age was predictive of mortality ( P < .001). ISS was predictive of increased risk of mortality ( P < .001), increased LOS ( P < .001), and craniotomy ( P < .001). Older age, Sussex County, and higher ISS were predictive of patients being transferred ( P < .001). Discussion Delays in the presentation to our Level I trauma center resulted in worse outcomes. Patients that meet criteria should be considered for transport directly to the highest level trauma center in the system to avoid delays in care.

Pediatric Trauma System Evaluation before and after Level II Verification

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (11) ◽  
pp. 1281-1287
Author(s):  
Michael D. Dixon ◽  
Scott Engum
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

ACS-verified trauma centers show higher survival and improved mortality rates in states with ACS-verified Level I pediatric trauma centers. However, few significant changes are appreciated in the first two years after verification. Minimal research exists examining verification of ACS Level II pediatric trauma centers. We analyzed ACS Level II pediatric trauma verification at our institution. In 2014, Sanford Medical Center Fargo became the only Level II pediatric trauma center in North Dakota, as well as the only center between Spokane and Minneapolis. A retrospective review of the institution's pre-existing trauma database one year pre- and postverification was performed. Patients aged <18 years were included in the study ( P < 0.05). Patient number increased by 23 per cent, from 167 to 205 patients. A statistically significant increase occured in the three to six year old age group ( P = 0.0002); motorized recreational vehicle ( P = 0.028), violent ( P = 0.009), and other ( P = 0.0374) mechanism of injury categories; ambulance ( P = 0.0124), fixed wing ( P = 0.0028), and personal-owned vehicle ( P = 0.0112) modes of transportation. Decreased public injuries ( P = 0.0071) and advanced life support ambulance transportation ( P = 0.0397). The study showed a nonstatistically significant increase in mean Injury Severity Score (from 6.3 to 7) and Native American trauma (from 14 to 20 per cent). Whereas prolonged ACS Level I pediatric trauma center verification was found to benefit patients, minimal data exist on ACS Level II verification. Our findings are consistent with current Level I ACS pediatric trauma center data. Future benefits will require continued analysis because our Level II pediatric trauma center continues to mature and affect our rural and large Native American community.

The Price of Always Saying Yes: A Cost Analysis of Secondary Overtriage to an Urban Level I Trauma Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (8) ◽  
pp. 1368-1375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Bukur ◽  
Candace Teurel ◽  
Joseph Catino ◽  
Stanley Kurek
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Tissue Injury ◽  
Spinal Injury ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Soft Tissue Injury ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Urban Level ◽  
Level I

Level I trauma centers serve as a community resource, with most centers using an inclusive transfer policy that may result in overtriage. The financial burden this imparts on an urban trauma system has not been well examined. We sought to examine the incidence of secondary overtriage (SOT) at an urban Level I trauma center. This was a retrospective study from an urban Level I trauma center examining patients admitted as trauma transfers (TT) from 2010 to 2014. SOT was defined as patients not meeting the “Orange Book” transfer criteria and who had a length of stay of <48 hours. Average ED and transport charges were calculated for total transfer charges. A total of 2397 TT were treated. The number of TT increased over the study interval. The mean age of TT was 59.7 years (SD ± 26.4 years); patients were predominantly male (59.2%), white (83.2%), with at least one comorbidity (71.5%). Blunt trauma accounted for 96.8 per cent of admissions with a median Injury Severity Score of nine (IQR: 5–16). Predominant injuries were isolated closed head trauma (61.4%), skin/soft tissue injury (18.9%), and spinal injury (17.6%). SOT was 48.2 per cent and increased yearly (P < 0.001). The median trauma center charge for SOT was ($27,072; IQR: $20,089–34,087), whereas ED charges were ($40,440; IQR: $26,150–65,125), resulting in a total cost of $67,512/patient. A liberal TT policy results in a high SOT rate adding significant unnecessary costs to the health-care system. Efforts to establish transfer guidelines may allow for significant cost savings without compromising care.

The Impact of American College of Surgeons Trauma Center Designation and Outcomes after Early Thoracotomy: A National Trauma Databank Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Bukur ◽  
Bernardino Castelo Branco ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Ramon Cestero ◽  
Leslie Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Pressure Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

Trauma centers are designated by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) into four different levels based on resources, volume, and scientific and educational commitment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between ACS center designation and outcomes after early thoracotomy for trauma. The National Trauma Databank (v. 7.0) was used to identify all patients who required early thoracotomy. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were extracted. Patients were categorized according to ACS trauma center designation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of ACS trauma center designation on mortality. From 2002 to 2006, 1834 (77.4%) patients were admitted to a Level I ACS verified trauma center, 474 (20.0%) to a Level II, and 59 (3.6%) to a Level III/IV facility. After adjusting for differences between the groups, there were no significant differences in mortality (overall: 53.3% for Level I, 63.1% for Level II, and 52.5% for Level III/IV, adjusted P = 0.417; or for patients arriving in cardiac arrest: 74.9% vs 87.1% vs 85.0%, P = 0.261). Subgroup analysis did not show any significant difference in survival irrespective of mechanism of injury. Glasgow Coma Scale score # 8, Injury Severity Score >16, no admission systolic blood pressure, time from admission to thoracotomy, and nonteaching hospitals were found to be independent predictors of death. For trauma patients who have sustained injuries requiring early thoracotomy, ACS trauma center designation did not significantly impact mortality. Nonteaching institutions however, were independently associated with poorer outcomes after early thoracotomy. These findings may have important implications in educational commitment of institutions. Further prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Georgia trauma system using the American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems tool

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis W Ashley ◽  
Etienne E Pracht ◽  
Laura E Garlow ◽  
Regina S Medeiros ◽  
Elizabeth V Atkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool was developed to help determine the optimal regional distribution of designated trauma centers (DTC). The objectives of our current study were to compare the current distribution of DTCs in Georgia with the recommended allocation as calculated by the NBATS tool and to see if the NBATS tool identified similar areas of need as defined by our previous analysis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Injury Severity Score (ICISS).MethodsPopulation counts were acquired from US Census publications. Transportation times were estimated using digitized roadmaps and patient zip codes. The number of severely injured patients was obtained from the Georgia Discharge Data System for 2010 to 2014. Severely injured patients were identified using two measures: ICISS<0.85 and Injury Severity Score >15.ResultsThe Georgia trauma system includes 19 level I, II, or III adult DTCs. The NBATS guidelines recommend 21; however, the distribution differs from what exists in the state. The existing DTCs exactly matched the NBATS recommended number of level I, II, or III DTCs in 2 of 10 trauma service areas (TSAs), exceeded the number recommended in 3 of 10 TSAs, and was below the number recommended in 5 of 10 TSAs. Densely populated, or urban, areas tend to be associated with a higher number of existing centers compared with the NBATS recommendation. Other less densely populated TSAs are characterized by large rural expanses with a single urban core where a DTC is located. The identified areas of need were similar to the ones identified in the previous gap analysis of the state using the ICISS methodology.DiscussionThe tool appears to underestimate the number of centers needed in extensive and densely populated areas, but recommends additional centers in geographically expansive rural areas. The tool signifies a preliminary step in assessing the need for state-wide inpatient trauma center services.Level of evidenceEconomic, level IV.

scholarly journals Impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on number of patients and patterns of injuries at a level I trauma center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arastoo Nia ◽  
Domenik Popp ◽  
Cornelia Diendorfer ◽  
Sebastian Apprich ◽  
Alexandru Munteanu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Severe Injuries ◽  
Injury Death ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

Summary Objective The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) and its associated illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global health crisis burdening frontline emergency departments, including orthopedic and trauma units. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the impact of the lockdown secondary to the pandemic on patient numbers and pattern of injuries at the department of traumatology of the Medical University of Vienna. Methods This retrospective, descriptive study identified all patients admitted and enrolled onto the trauma registry at a level I trauma center, between 15 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 (lockdown) and compared them to those between 15 March 2019 and 30 April 2019 (baseline). Variables collected included patient age, sex, reason for hospital admission, place of injury, death, injury severity score (ISS), as well as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score. Results A total of 10,938 patient visits to the trauma emergency department were analyzed, 8353 presentations during the baseline period and 2585 during lockdown. Only 1869 acutely injured and 716 follow-up patients presented during lockdown, compared to 6178 and 2175, respectively, during baseline. Throughout the COVID-19 lockdown there were significant reductions in both workplace and traffic accidents, sports injuries, number of hospitalized patients, and overall visits to the trauma emergency department; however, the number of major traumas and hip fractures remained similar. Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the frequency of injuries at home as well as hospital admissions due to attempted suicide. Conclusion Despite the reduction in total number of patients, trauma departments should continue to provide adequate service during lockdown considering that severe injuries showed no change. Conditions such as breakdown of social networks and limited access to mental health care and support might account for the significant rise in hospital admissions due to suicides. We recommend that more attention and effort should be made to prevent this excess of suicide deaths.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document