Management of severe trauma worldwide: implementation of trauma systems in emerging countries: China, Russia and South Africa

As emerging countries, China, Russia, and South Africa are establishing and/or improving their trauma systems. China has recently established a trauma system named “the Chinese Regional Trauma Care System” and covered over 200 million populations. It includes paramedic-staffed pre-hospital care, in-hospital care in certified trauma centers, trauma registry, quality assurance, continuous improvement and ongoing coverage of the entire Chinese territory. The Russian trauma system was formed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Pre-hospital care is region-based, with a regional coordination center that determines which team will go to the scene and the nearest hospital where the victim should be transported. Physician-staffed ambulances are organized according to three levels of trauma severity corresponding to three levels of trauma centers where in-hospital care is managed by a trauma team. No national trauma registry exists in Russia. Improvements to the Russian trauma system have been scheduled. There is no unified trauma system in South Africa, and trauma care is organized by public and private emergency medical service in each province. During the pre-hospital care, paramedics provide basic or advanced life support services and transport the patients to the nearest hospital because of the limited number of trauma centers. In-hospital care is inclusive with a limited number of accredited trauma centers. In-hospital care is managed by emergency medicine with multidisciplinary care by the various specialties. There is no national trauma registry in South Africa. The South African trauma system is facing multiple challenges. An increase in financial support, training for primary emergency trauma care, and coordination of private sector, need to be planned.

Effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

IntroductionThe introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally.Methods and analysisThe proposed review will comply with the checklist of the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis’. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019142842.

Dispatch, Prehospital time, Interventions and Outcomes in a Norwegian Trauma population – assessing initial trauma management in urban and rural areas. The DIONT-project: a national registry-based research protocol (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Time is considered an essential determinant in the initial care of trauma patients. In Norway, the particular time indicator response time (i.e. time from dispatch center call to ambulance arrival at scene) is a controversial national quality indicator. However, no national requirements for response times have been established. There is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal configuration of the Norwegian trauma system. Recent centralization of trauma services and closure of emergency hospitals have increased distances for prehospital transports, predominantly for rural trauma patients. The impact of trauma system configuration on early trauma management in urban and rural areas is inadequately described. OBJECTIVE The project will assess the injured patient´s initial pathway through the trauma system and explore differences between central and rural areas in a Norwegian trauma cohort. This field is unexplored at a national level and existing evidence for an optimal organization of trauma care is still inconclusive regarding the impact of prehospital time. METHODS Three quantitative registry-based retrospective cohort studies are planned. The studies based on data from the Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) (Study 1, 2 and 3) and local Emergency Medical Communications Center (EMCC) data (Study 2). All injured adult patients admitted to a Norwegian hospital and registered in the NTR in the period 1st of January 2015 to 31st of December 2020 will be included in the analysis. Trauma registry data will be analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and relevant statistical methods to compare prehospital time in rural and central areas including regression analyses and adjusting for confounders. RESULTS The project received funding autumn 2020 and is approved by the Oslo University Hospital data protection officer, case number 18/02592. Registry data including approximately 40.000 trauma patients will be extracted during the first quarter of 2022 and analysis will begin immediately thereafter. Results are expected to be ready for publication from the third quarter of 2022. CONCLUSIONS : Findings from the study will contribute to new knowledge regarding existing quality indicators and with an increasing centralization of hospitals and residents, the study will contribute to further development of the Norwegian trauma system. A high generalizability to other trauma systems is expected, given the similarities between demographical changes and trauma systems in many high-income countries.

Assessing trauma care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and evidence synthesis mapping the Three Delays framework to injury health system assessments

BackgroundThe large burden of injuries falls disproportionately on low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Health system interventions improve outcomes in high-income countries. Assessing LMIC trauma systems supports their improvement. Evaluating systems using a Three Delays framework, considering barriers to seeking (Delay 1), reaching (Delay 2) and receiving care (Delay 3), has aided maternal health gains. Rapid assessments allow timely appraisal within resource and logistically constrained settings. We systematically reviewed existing literature on the assessment of LMIC trauma systems, applying the Three Delays framework and rapid assessment principles.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis of articles assessing LMIC trauma systems. We searched seven databases and grey literature for studies and reports published until October 2018. Inclusion criteria were an injury care focus and assessment of at least one defined system aspect. We mapped each study to the Three Delays framework and judged its suitability for rapid assessment.ResultsOf 14 677 articles identified, 111 studies and 8 documents were included. Sub-Saharan Africa was the most commonly included region (44.1%). Delay 3, either alone or in combination, was most commonly assessed (79.3%) followed by Delay 2 (46.8%) and Delay 1 (10.8%). Facility assessment was the most common method of assessment (36.0%). Only 2.7% of studies assessed all Three Delays. We judged 62.6% of study methodologies potentially suitable for rapid assessment.ConclusionsWhole health system injury research is needed as facility capacity assessments dominate. Future studies should consider novel or combined methods to study Delays 1 and 2, alongside care processes and outcomes.