scholarly journals Impossible primary referral to the major trauma center of an integrated trauma system: a case of exsanguinating trauma treated in a Spoke hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emiliano Gamberini ◽  
Antonella Potalivo ◽  
Marco Benni ◽  
Vanni Agnoletti
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
System A

scholarly journals LO052: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but does having a car crash in a rural location affect your access to EMS care and surgical intervention? The initial analysis of a unique EMS and Trauma Dataset

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S48-S48
Author(s):  
M.B. Kenney ◽  
J. French ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
B. Phelan ◽  
I. Watson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Median Response ◽  
Patient Disposition ◽  
Secondary Transfer ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Rural Patients

Introduction: In Canada, major trauma is a healthcare priority and in 2014 was responsible for over 15866 deaths, with a total economic burden of 26.8 billion dollars. Numerous factors influence the likelihood of occurrence and outcome from major trauma, including incident factors, host, EMS response, emergency, surgical and critical care. Traditionally trauma registers contained information that mainly concerning hospital treatment and host factors. This collaborative analysis uses matched data from a Provincial Trauma Research Register and records from a Provincial Ambulance Service. Methods: A retrospective observational (registry) study comparing rural and urban adult and pediatric major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score >15) who were injured in a motor vehicle crash (ICD V20-V99) and presented to a level 1 or level 2 trauma centre by EMS by primary or secondary transfer, between April 2011 and March 2013 in a selected province in Canada. Comparisons of the process care times, and patient disposition, were made in an inclusive trauma system. Results: 108 cases meet the inclusion criteria with 78 considered rural and 30 urban using published definitions. The median response times were 16.2 minutes for rural (95% CI: 13.2 -19.8) and 7.8 minutes for urban (95% CI: 7.2 - 10.5) with 60% and 61% meeting response targets respectively. A greater proportion of urban patients are taken initially to level 3-5 centers and require secondary transfer (45% urban vs 24% rural p=<0.01). Median times intervals to surgical care were double for the urban patients (14 rural vs 32 hrs urban p=<0.01). Conclusion: The majority of serious road traffic collisions occur in rural areas. Although rural patients wait longer for an initial EMS response, more rural patients are taken directly to a level 1 or 2 trauma center. Unexpectedly then rural patients have much shorter times to surgical care. The benefits of an inclusive trauma system should be weighed against the benefits of bypass processes in urban environments where the nearest Emergency Department is not a Level 1 or 2 Trauma Center.

scholarly journals Predictors of Undertriage after Major Trauma in a Physician-led Prehospital System: Insights of a French Registry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel BENHAMED ◽  
Laurie FRATICELLI ◽  
Clément CLAUSTRE ◽  
Marion DOUPLAT ◽  
Guillaume MARCOTTE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Ultrasound Examination ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Medical Systems ◽  
Aged Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
French Registry

Abstract BackgroundThe proper prehospital triage and transportation of patients suffering major trauma to lever 1 trauma centers is associated with better outcomes. Hence, emergency medical systems (EMS) aim is to avoid undertriage in these patients. The main objective of this study was to assess the rate and predictors of undertriage in a physician-led prehospital system.MethodsWe conducted an observational multicentric, region-wide, retrospective study based on the RESUVal Trauma-System registry, Rhône-Alpes region, France. All adults assessed by physician-led EMS units, from January 2011 to December 2017 with major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16) were included. We defined the correct-triage group as major trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center. We performed univariate then multivariate logistic regressions with undertriage as outcome.ResultsA total of 7,110 patients were included in the registry, of whom 2,591 patients with an ISS≥ 16. Among these patients, 320 (12.35%) were undertriaged. Median ISS was 25. In-hospital mortality was 16.45% (n=351/2134). Mid-aged patients (51-65 years old) were associated with a higher risk of undertriage than the others (OR=1.62, 95%CI 1.15-2.28, p=0.01). Factors associated with a lower risk of undertriage were: mechanism (fall or gunshot/stabbing wounds, 0.62, [0.45-0.86], p=0.01 and 0.44, [0.22-0.9], p=0.02, respectively), time on-scene (over 60 minutes, 0.61, [0.38-0.95], p=0.03), prehospital need for endotracheal intubation and ultrasound examination (0.53, [0.39-0.72], p<0.001 and 0.15, [0.08-0.29], p<0.001 respectively). After adjusting for severity, undertriage showed a non-significant tendency toward an increased risk of mortality (1.22, [0.8-1.89], p=0.36).ConclusionsIn our region-wide, physician-led prehospital system, undertriage of major trauma was not rare. The typical profile of undertriaged patients was a mid-aged male suffering from a blunt trauma, without respiratory distress or neurologic impairment, not benefiting from prehospital ultrasound examination and located close to a non-trauma center hospital.

scholarly journals Predictors of Undertriage after Major Trauma in a Physician-led Prehospital System: Insights of a French Registry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel BENHAMED ◽  
Laurie FRATICELLI ◽  
Clément CLAUSTRE ◽  
Marion DOUPLAT ◽  
Guillaume MARCOTTE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Ultrasound Examination ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Medical Systems ◽  
Aged Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
French Registry

Abstract BackgroundThe proper prehospital triage and transportation of patients suffering major trauma to lever 1 trauma centers is associated with better outcomes. Hence, emergency medical systems (EMS) aim is to avoid undertriage in these patients. The main objective of this study was to assess the rate and predictors of undertriage in a physician-led prehospital system.MethodsWe conducted an observational multicentric, region-wide, retrospective study based on the RESUVal Trauma-System registry, Rhône-Alpes region, France. All adults assessed by physician-led EMS units, from January 2011 to December 2017 with major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16) were included. We defined the correct-triage group as major trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center. We performed univariate then multivariate logistic regressions with undertriage as outcome.ResultsA total of 7,110 patients were included in the registry, of whom 2,591 patients with an ISS≥ 16. Among these patients, 320 (12.35%) were undertriaged. Median ISS was 25. In-hospital mortality was 16.45% (n=351/2134). Mid-aged patients (51-65 years old) were associated with a higher risk of undertriage than the others (OR=1.62, 95%CI 1.15-2.28, p=0.01). Factors associated with a lower risk of undertriage were: mechanism (fall or gunshot/stabbing wounds, 0.62, [0.45-0.86], p=0.01 and 0.44, [0.22-0.9], p=0.02, respectively), time on-scene (over 60 minutes, 0.61, [0.38-0.95], p=0.03), prehospital need for endotracheal intubation and ultrasound examination (0.53, [0.39-0.72], p<0.001 and 0.15, [0.08-0.29], p<0.001 respectively). After adjusting for severity, undertriage showed a non-significant tendency toward an increased risk of mortality (1.22, [0.8-1.89], p=0.36).ConclusionsIn our region-wide, physician-led prehospital system, undertriage of major trauma was not rare. The typical profile of undertriaged patients was a mid-aged male suffering from a blunt trauma, without respiratory distress or neurologic impairment, not benefiting from prehospital ultrasound examination and located close to a non-trauma center hospital.

Paramedic and Surgeon Views on Trauma Surgical Readiness: Implications for Guideline Implementation

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 1079-1085
Author(s):  
Jerome Manson ◽  
Kristen Burke ◽  
Catherine P. Starnes ◽  
Kristin Long ◽  
Paul A. Kearney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Guideline Implementation ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
System A ◽  
Field Triage ◽  
Cdc Guidelines ◽  
General Surgeons ◽  
Mere Presence

Centers for disease control (CDC) Guidelines for Field Triage are effective when proper implementation by EMS personnel is paired with surgeon willingness to care for trauma victims. We hypothesized that in a state with an immature trauma system, a discrepancy exists between medic and surgeon perception of surgical readiness, coinciding with inconsistent implementation of protocols. Surveys were conducted among medics and general surgeons. Destination protocols, trauma center locations, surgeon readiness, and interest in trauma were assessed. A standard clinical trauma scenario was also used. Surgeon willingness to operate is not affected by working outside of trauma centers or interest in trauma. Medics working far from trauma centers are less confident in local surgeon's willingness to operate and less likely to have destination protocols. Trauma center proximity affects medic perception of surgeon willingness to operate, but mere presence of general surgeons does not. In a trauma scenario, surgeon willingness to operate was related to medic perception but not action. In rural states, most surgeons do not work in trauma centers and most medics do not work near them. Although most responding surgeons indicate willingness to operate, medics are confident of such willingness only half the time. This disparity results in inconsistent use of the CDC guidelines. Although most medics report protocols for destination determination, nearly one-fourth of victims are taken to the geographically closest centers, sometimes with no surgeon at all. Efforts at medic training, enhancing surgeon readiness, and alignment of goals are necessary for the CDC Guidelines to be effective.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of Maxillo-Facial Trauma During COVID-19 Lockdown: Reports From the Hub Trauma Center in Milan

2020 ◽  
pp. 194338752098311
Author(s):  
Gabriele Canzi ◽  
Elena De Ponti ◽  
Federica Corradi ◽  
Roberto Bini ◽  
Giorgio Novelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Violence ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Linear Trend ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Facial Trauma ◽  
Facial Fractures ◽  
Epidemiological Changes ◽  
Systemic Symptoms

Study Design Retrospective study. Objective: Following SARS-CoV-2 pandemic break-out a lockdown period for the population and a reorganization of the Health System were needed. Hub-function Centers for time-dependent diseases were identified and Niguarda Hospital (Milan) was selected as main Regional Trauma Center. The purpose of our study is to report the experience of Niguarda Maxillofacial Trauma Team during this period, pointing out epidemiological changes in the presentation of trauma in comparison to the previous 3 years. Methods: Two hundred and sixteen patients were admitted to the Emergency Department from 8th March 2020 to 8th May 2020. One hundred and eighty-one had a diagnosis of Major Trauma and 36 had also facial fractures; 35 patients had isolated facial fractures. Data were compared to the activity during the same period in 2017-2019 and statistical analysis was carried out concerning demographic and clinical characteristics, trauma dynamics and positivity to COVID-19. Results: Cumulative curves of patients admitted because of Major Trauma describe a superimposable linear trend in years 2017-2019, while 2020 shows an increase from April 16th. Average age and number of more severe patients were higher than previous years. Epidemiological changes concerned road accidents, accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, interpersonal violence, suicide attempts and domestic accidents. The incidence of facial fractures was confirmed through years and, according to its measured severity, 75% of patients required management. COVID-19 positivity without systemic symptoms didn’t influence the type of treatment. Conclusion: The COVID-19 lockdown offers a unique opportunity to study the reversal epidemiological effects on trauma.

Outcome in an Urban Pediatric Trauma System with Unified Prehospital Emergency Medical Services Care

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. VanRooyen ◽  
Edward P. Sloan ◽  
John A. Barrett ◽  
Robert F. Smith ◽  
Hernan M. Reyes
Keyword(s):  
Head Injury ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Field Triage ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

AbstractHypothesis:Pediatric mortality is predicted by age, presence of head trauma, head trauma with a low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, a low Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), and transport directly to a pediatric trauma center.Population:Studied were 1,429 patients younger than 16 years old admitted to or declared dead on arrival (DOA) in a pediatric trauma center from January through October, 1988. The trauma system, which served 3-million persons, included six pediatric trauma centers.Methods:Data were obtained by a retrospective review of summary statistics provided to the Chicago Department of Health by the pediatric trauma centers.Results:Overall mortality was 4.8% (68 of 1429); 32 of the patients who died (47.1%) were DOA. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%. Head injury was the principal diagnosis in 46.2% of admissions and was a factor in 72.2% of hospital deaths. The mortality rate was 20.3% in children with a GCS≤10 and 0.4% when the GCS was >10 (odds ratio [OR] = 67.0, 95% CI = 15.0–417.4). When the PTS was ≤ 5, mortality was 25.6%; with a PTS > 5, the mortality was 0.2% (OR = 420.7, 95% CI = 99.3–2,520). Although transfers to a pediatric trauma center accounted for 73.6% of admissions, direct field triage to a pediatric trauma center was associated with a 3.2 times greater mortality risk (95% CI = 1.58–6.59). Mortality rates were equal for all age groups. Pediatric trauma center volume did not influence mortality rates.Conclusions:Head injury and death occur in all age groups, suggesting the need for broad prevention strategies. Specific GCS and PTS values that predict mortality can be used in emergency medical services (EMS) triage protocols. Although the high proportion of transfers mandates systemwide transfer protocols, the lower mortality in these patients suggests appropriate EMS field triage. These factors should be considered as states develop pediatric trauma systems.

The Management of Penetrating Neck Injury With Retained Knife: 15-Year Experience From a Major Trauma Center in South Africa

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110651
Author(s):  
Victor Kong ◽  
Cynthia Cheung ◽  
Jonathan Ko ◽  
William Xu ◽  
John Bruce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Neck Injury ◽  
Neck Exploration ◽  
Anterior Neck ◽  
Penetrating Neck Injury ◽  
Posterior Neck

Background This study reviews our cumulative experience with the management of patients presenting with a retained knife following a penetrating neck injury (PNI). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a major trauma center in South Africa over a 15-year period from July 2006 to December 2020. All patients who presented with a retained knife in the neck following a stab wound (SW) were included. Results Twenty-two cases were included: 20 males (91%), mean age: 29 years. 77% (17/22) were retained knives and 23% (5/22) were retained blades. Eighteen (82%) were in the anterior neck, and the remaining 4 cases were in the posterior neck. Plain radiography was performed in 95% (21/22) of cases, and computed tomography (CT) was performed in 91% (20/22). Ninety-five percent (21/22) had the knife or blade extracted in the operating room (OR). Formal neck exploration (FNE) was undertaken in 45% (10/22) of cases, and the remaining 55% (12/22) underwent simple extraction (SE) only. Formal neck exploration was more commonly performed for anterior neck retained knives than the posterior neck, although not statistically significant [56% (10/18) vs 0% (0/18), P = .096]. There were no significant differences in the need for intensive care admission, length of hospital stay, morbidities, or mortalities between anterior and posterior neck retained knives. Discussion Uncontrolled extraction of a retained knife in the neck outside of the operating room may be dangerous. Retained knives in the anterior neck commonly required formal neck exploration but not for posterior neck retained knives.

Clustered Arrivals of Firearm-Injured Patients in an Urban Trauma System: A Silent Epidemic

2019 ◽  
Vol 229 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica H. Beard ◽  
Shelby Resnick ◽  
Zoë Maher ◽  
Mark J. Seamon ◽  
Christopher N. Morrison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma System ◽  
System A ◽  
Injured Patients

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document