How Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Trauma Volume at an Urban Level I Trauma Center?

2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110540
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hahn ◽  
Tommy Brown ◽  
Brett Chapman ◽  
Alan Marr ◽  
Lance Stuke ◽  
...  

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic changed the face of health care worldwide. While the impacts from this catastrophe are still being measured, it is important to understand how this pandemic impacted existing health care systems. As such, the objective of this study was to quantify its effects on trauma volume at an urban Level 1 trauma center in one of the earliest and most significantly affected US cities. Methods A retrospective chart review of consecutive trauma patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020 was completed. The total trauma volume in the years prior to the pandemic (2017-2019) was compared to the volume in 2020. These data were then further stratified to compare quarterly volume across all 4 years. Results A total of 4138 trauma patients were treated in the emergency room throughout 2020 with 4124 seen during 2019, 3774 during 2018, and 3505 during 2017 in the pre-COVID-19 time period. No significant difference in the volume of minor trauma or trauma transfers was observed ( P < .05). However, there was a significant increase in the number of major traumas in 2020 as compared to prior years (38.5% vs 35.6%, P < .01) and in the volume of penetrating trauma (29.1% vs 24.0%, P < .01). Discussion During the COVID-19 outbreak, trauma remained a significant health care concern. This study found an increase in volume of penetrating trauma, specifically gunshot wounds throughout 2020. It remains important to continue to devote resources to trauma patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (8) ◽  
pp. 937-943
Author(s):  
Scott Ninokawa ◽  
Jessica Friedman ◽  
Danielle Tatum ◽  
Alison Smith ◽  
Sharven Taghavi ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajasekhar Narayanan ◽  
Subodh Kumar ◽  
Amit Gupta ◽  
Virinder Kumar Bansal ◽  
Sushma Sagar ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  

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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (11) ◽  
pp. 1132-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Fischer ◽  
Paul D. Colavita ◽  
Gregory P. Fleming ◽  
Toan T. Huynh ◽  
A. Britton Christmas ◽  
...  

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s166-s166
Author(s):  
D.M. Higgins ◽  
R.E. Thaxton

IntroductionWith the current need for effective trauma center utilization, understanding how current trauma triage criteria may promote overtriage will enable both field and hospital teams to provide the most appropriate patient care. It is hypothesized that current Southwest Texas trauma criteria promote overtriage by prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) of patients in favor of a Level 1 trauma facility when compared to physician assessment and Injury Severity Score (ISS).MethodsThis prospective, observational study at a Southwest Texas military Level 1 trauma center compared adult trauma patients' prehospital status noted by EMS personnel with the triage criteria documented by the treating emergency physician. The patients were divided into four groups: Prehospital Criteria Met or Not Met; Arrival Criteria Met or Not Met. Each patient's ISS and mechanism of injury were also collected and compared to initial assessment for predictive value. Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsThe study enrolled 278 adult trauma patients. EMS reported Level 1 trauma status similar to physician assessment (60.1% vs. 59.7%, respectively). The rates patients met Level 1 trauma status corresponded with trauma severity when compared to the ISS. Assessment between EMS and physicians for ISSs were similar among the four groups. Comparisons using multivariate analysis of the four groups found similar ISSs, except for the Prehospital Criteria Met/Arrival Criteria Not Met group. Seventy-five percent of these patients were assigned an ISS in the Minor (ISS < 9) category (p = 0.013).ConclusionTrauma triage criteria assessment skills were similar between EMS personnel and emergency physicians except for identifying minor trauma patients. While the criteria generally led to overtriage, EMS crews appear to overtriage minor trauma patients at a much higher rate.


2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 164S
Author(s):  
Jatin Anand ◽  
Anand V. Ganapathy ◽  
Ahmed F. Khouqeer ◽  
Eric K. Rachlin ◽  
Peter I. Tsai ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Selim G. Gebran ◽  
Philip J. Wasicek ◽  
Yinglun Wu ◽  
Joseph Lopez ◽  
Ledibabari M. Ngaage ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document