Is NBATS-2 up to the Task? Actual vs. Predicted Patient Volume Shifts With the Addition of Another Trauma Center

Introduction Version 2 of the Needs-Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool quantifies the impact of an additional trauma center on a region. This study applies NBATS-2 to a system where an additional trauma center was added to compare the tool’s predictions to actual patient volumes. Methods Injury data were collected from the trauma registry of the initial (legacy) center and analyzed geographically using ArcGIS. From 2012 to 2014 (“pre-”period), one Level 1 trauma center existed. From 2016 to 2018 (“post-”period), an additional Level 2 center existed. Emergency medical service (EMS) destination guidelines did not change and favored the legacy center for severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15). NBATS-2 predicted volume was compared to the actual volume received at the legacy center in the post-period. Results 4068 patients were identified across 14 counties. In the pre-period, 72% of the population and 90% of injuries were within a 45-minute drive of the legacy trauma center. In the post-period, 75% of the total population and 90% of injuries were within 45 minutes of either trauma center. The post-predicted volume of severely injured patients at the legacy center was 434, but the actual number was 809. For minor injuries (ISS £15), NBATS-2 predicted 581 vs. 1677 actual. Conclusion NBATS-2 failed to predict the post-period volume changes. Without a change in EMS destination guidelines, this finding was not surprising for severely injured patients. However, the 288% increase in volume of minor injuries was unexpected. NBATS-2 must be refined to assess the impact of local factors on patient volume.

Download Full-text

Delays in Transfer of Elderly Less-injured Trauma Patients Can Have Deadly Consequences

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481408001130 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 80 (11) ◽

pp. 1132-1135 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

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.

Download Full-text

The Relationship between Hospital Volume and In-Hospital Mortality of Severely Injured Patients in Dutch Level-1 Trauma Centers

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10081700 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

A Contemporary Analysis of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Mortality in Severe Injury

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/00031348211023437 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Impact of Trauma Center Care on Mortality in Gangwon Province in Korea

10.21203/rs.3.rs-67561/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

GYOJIN AN ◽

Yoon-Seop Kim ◽

Hye Sim Kim ◽

Chan Young Kang ◽

Sung Oh Hwang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Severely Injured ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Severely Injured Patients ◽

Risk Of Mortality ◽

Injured Patients

Abstract Background: Al though controversial, there has been a consensus that compared with non-regional trauma centers, regional trauma centers have survival benefits. In a predominantly rural province with a single regional trauma center, we compared the in-hospital mortality of all trauma patients and severely injured patients between regional and non-regional trauma centers.Methods: Using data extracted from the National Emergency Department Information System in Korea, we examined all trauma patients who visited emergency departments in Gangwon province between January 2015 and December 2017. The International Classification of Disease-Based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) was used to categorize the severity of the patients. Propensity score matching was used for balancing the severity between the two groups.Results: Of 23,510 trauma patients, 2,857 and 20,653 were treated in regional and non-regional trauma centers, respectively. After propensity score matching, all patients in the non-regional trauma center group had a 6.27-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group; severely injured patients—defined as those with ICISS < 0.9—in the non-regional trauma center group had a 4.90-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group. ICISS cutoff values for mortality were 0.9015 and 0.8737 for the non-regional and regional trauma center groups, respectively.Conclusion: Conventional paradigms of trauma systems can be used in predominantly rural Korean provinces, because trauma care in regional trauma centers conferred better survival benefits than that in non-regional trauma centers. Additionally, severely injured patients should be transported to regional trauma centers from the trauma scene.

Download Full-text

The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00068-021-01615-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Suzan Dijkink ◽

Erik W. van Zwet ◽

Pieta Krijnen ◽

Luke P. H. Leenen ◽

Frank W. Bloemers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Trauma Care ◽

Trauma System ◽

Future Research ◽

Severely Injured ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Severely Injured Patients ◽

The Right ◽

Injured Patients ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008–2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63–74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.

Download Full-text

Initial Approach to the Management of Multisystem Trauma

Mayo Clinic Critical and Neurocritical Care Board Review ◽

10.1093/med/9780190862923.003.0062 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Vasopressor Use during Emergency Trauma Surgery

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481408000518 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 80 (5) ◽

pp. 472-478 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Robert M. Van Haren ◽

Chad M. Thorson ◽

Evan J. Valle ◽

Gerardo A. Guarch ◽

Jassin M. Jouria ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Odds Ratio ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Trauma Surgery ◽

Vital Signs ◽

Severely Injured ◽

Severely Injured Patients ◽

Vasopressor Use ◽

Injured Patients

Most evidence suggests early vasopressor use is associated with death after trauma, but no previous study has focused on patients requiring emergency operative intervention (OR). We test the hypothesis that vasopressors are harmful in this population. Records from 746 patients requiring OR from July 2009 to March 2013 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on vasopressor use (epinephrine [EPI], phenylephrine, ephedrine, norepinephrine, dobutamine, vasopressin) or no vasopressor use. Vasopressors were administered to 225 patients (30%) during OR; 59 patients (8%) received multiple vasopressors. Patients who received vasopressors were older, more severely injured, had worse vital signs, and increased mortality rate (all P < 0.001). EPI was independently associated with mortality (odds ratio, 6.88; P = 0.001). If patients who received EPI were excluded, there was no difference in mortality between those who received vasopressors alone or in combination and those that did not (5 vs 6%, P = 0.523), although multiple markers of injury severity were worse. We conclude that vasopressor use is relatively common in the most severely injured patients requiring OR and is associated with mortality. EPI is most often used for cardiac arrest, whereas other vasopressors are used for their vasoconstrictive properties. This suggests that, except for EPI, vasopressors during OR are not independently associated with mortality.

Download Full-text