scholarly journals Mortality profile of geriatric trauma at a level 1 trauma center

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 269
Author(s):  
Chhavi Sawhney ◽  
Sanjeev Lalwani ◽  
Sakshi Gera ◽  
Purva Mathur ◽  
Parin Lalwani ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (8) ◽  
pp. 877-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S. Walker ◽  
Bryan R. Collier ◽  
Katie L. Bower ◽  
Daniel I. Lollar ◽  
Emily R. Faulks ◽  
...  

The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use is a list of medications with multiple risks in older patients. Approximately 24 per cent use rate is reported in prior studies. Our objective was to determine the local PIM use and subsequent fall risk in geriatric trauma patients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of PIM use in all geriatric patients evaluated at our Level 1 trauma center between 2014 and 2017. Patients were identified from our trauma database. Pre-admission medication use was determined through medication reconciliation from our electronic medical record (EMR). Patients not undergoing medication reconciliation were excluded. After initial analysis, patients were stratified by age into three groups: 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios of falls for specific PIMs. In all, 2181 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 71.2 per cent of geriatric trauma patients were prescribed at least one PIM—73.1 per cent of falls compared with 68.6 per cent for other mechanisms. Specific PIM use varied by age group. PIMs associated with fall risk in all patients included antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and diclofenac. For those aged 65 to 74 years, antihistamines, diclofenac, proton pump inhibitors, and promethazine were associated. In those aged 75 to 84 years, alprazolam, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, cyclobenzaprine, diclofenac, and muscle relaxants were implicated. No significant associations were found for patients aged ≥85 years. PIM use at our trauma center seems to be rampant and well above the national average. Geriatric falls were associated with using ≥1 PIM and multiple specific PIMs implicated. We are designing a targeted educational program for local primary care physicians (PCPs) that will attempt to decrease geriatric PIM use.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Lowe ◽  
Jeffrey Pearson ◽  
Michael Leslie ◽  
Russell Griffin

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.


1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rupert ◽  
J. Duncan Harviel ◽  
Grace S. Rozycki ◽  
Howard R. Champion

2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 461-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Roden ◽  
Winnie Tong ◽  
Matthew Surrusco ◽  
William W. Shockley ◽  
John A. Van Aalst ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document