Dataset Information

Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers.

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.

SUBMITTER: Sewalt CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344140 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeBetween 0.1-3% of injured children who present at a hospital emergency department ultimately die as a result of their injuries. These events are typically reported as unnatural causes of death and may result from either accidental or non-accidental trauma (NAT). Examples of the latter include trauma that is inflicted directly or resulting from neglect. Although consultation with a forensic physician is mandatory for all deceased children, the prevalence of fatal inflicted trauma or neglect among children is currently unclear.MethodsThis is a retrospective study that included children (0-18 years) who presented and died at one of the 11 Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect team or those of forensic pathologists and/or the court in cases referred for legally mandated autopsies. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of death were reviewed by an expert panel.ResultsThe study included 175 cases of childhood death. Seventeen (9.7%) of these children died due to inflicted trauma (9.7%), 18 (10.3%) due to neglect, and 140 (80%) due to accidents. Preschool children (< 5 years old) were significantly more likely to present with injuries due to inflicted trauma and neglect compared to older children (44% versus 6%, p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66-12.65). Drowning accounted for 14 of the 18 (78%) pediatric deaths due to neglect, representing 8% of the total cases. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed on 37 (21%) of all cases of childhood death.ConclusionOne of every five pediatric deaths in our nationwide Level I trauma center study was attributed to NAT; 44% of these deaths were the result of trauma experienced by preschool-aged children. A remarkable number of fatal drownings were due to neglect. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed in only one-fifth of all deceased children. The limited use of postmortem investigations may have resulted in missed cases of NAT, which will result in an overall underestimation of fatal NAT experienced by children.

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:BackgroundThe Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify injured patients who may benefit from scene helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport. External validation using a different data set is essential to ensure reliable performance. The study objective was to validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from HEMS using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry.MethodsPatients 16 years or older undergoing scene HEMS or ground EMS (GEMS) transport in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry 2000-2013 were included. Patients with 2 or higher AMPT score points were triaged to HEMS, while those with less than 2 points were triaged to GEMS. Multilevel Poisson regression determined the association of survival with actual transport mode across AMPT score triage assignments, adjusting for demographics, mechanism, vital signs, interventions, and injury severity. Successful validation was defined as no survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, with a survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients treated by advanced life support providers and patients with transport times longer than 10 minutes.ResultsThere were 222,827 patients included. For patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.009; p = 0.08). For patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score, actual HEMS transport was associated with a 6.7% increase in the relative probability of survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.067; 95% confidence interval, 1.040-1.083, p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.ConclusionsThis study is the first to externally validate the AMPT score, demonstrating the ability of this tool to reliably identify trauma patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport. The AMPT score should be considered when protocols for HEMS scene transport are developed and reviewed.Level of evidenceEpidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons delineates 108 requirements for level I trauma centers. Some of these requirements include: minimum of 1,200 trauma admissions per year; an average of 35 major trauma patients per surgeon; residency training programs; and 10 peer-reviewed journal submissions every three years. This study examines the variation in services provided among U.S. level I trauma centers.Methods218 facilities identified as level I trauma centers in 2005 were contacted for participation. 136 centers in 37 states completed the questionnaire. Surveys queried variances in trauma, neurosurgery, plastics, and orthopaedic surgery with regard to type of center, type of accreditation, number and training of participating physicians, number of beds, dedicated OR support (staff/rooms), call pay, and research.ResultsOf the level I centers surveyed, 66% are university-affiliated facilities that employ more surgeons and staffing across trauma and all subspecialties compared to community-based or public centers. However, the community and public centers have more surgeons per capita (44% of the university-affiliated hospitals have six or more trauma surgeons on staff compared to 59% of the community and 70% of the public facilities). University-affiliated centers also provide more in-house subspecialty services (orthopaedic, neurosurgery, and plastics). Thirty-nine percent do not have ACS accreditation and are designated trauma facilities by state or local governments. Only 49% of trauma centers provide on-call pay to trauma surgeons, and these percentages decline for all subspecialties. Dedicated operating rooms and research programs are also lacking among all subspecialties.ConclusionBased on our findings, we conclude that there are no homogeneous criteria for being accredited as a level I trauma center. Reliable resources should be offered at any facility that claims a level I trauma designation. We do not know if such diversity of services truly impacts care or how it can be measured; nevertheless, it would be logical to presume that at some point services that fall below a minimum threshold would potentially adversely affect the quality of care. In order to develop appropriate policy to decrease possible disparities, differentiation in services between trauma centers must be further researched and described.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the incidence and risk factors of chronic critical illness after severe blunt trauma.DesignProspective observational cohort study (NCT01810328).SettingTwo level-one trauma centers in the United States.PatientsOne hundred thirty-five adult blunt trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock who survived beyond 48 hours after injury.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsChronic critical illness was defined as an ICU stay lasting 14 days or more with evidence of persistent organ dysfunction. Three subjects (2%) died within the first 7 days, 107 (79%) exhibited rapid recovery and 25 (19%) progressed to chronic critical illness. Patients who developed chronic critical illness were older (55 vs 44-year-old; p = 0.01), had more severe shock (base deficit, -9.2 vs -5.5; p = 0.005), greater organ failure severity (Denver multiple organ failure score, 3.5 ± 2.4 vs 0.8 ± 1.1; p < 0.0001) and developed more infectious complications (84% vs 35%; p < 0.0001). Chronic critical illness patients were more likely to be discharged to a long-term care setting (56% vs 34%; p = 0.008) than to a rehabilitation facility/home. At 4 months, chronic critical illness patients had higher mortality (16.0% vs 1.9%; p < 0.05), with survivors scoring lower in general health measures (p < 0.005). Multivariate analysis revealed age greater than or equal to 55 years, systolic hypotension less than or equal to 70 mm Hg, transfusion greater than or equal to 5 units packed red blood cells within 24 hours, and Denver multiple organ failure score at 72 hours as independent predictors of chronic critical illness (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).ConclusionsAlthough early mortality is low after severe trauma, chronic critical illness is a common trajectory in survivors and is associated with poor long-term outcomes. Advancing age, shock severity, and persistent organ dysfunction are predictive of chronic critical illness. Early identification may facilitate targeted interventions to change the trajectory of this morbid phenotype.