Search

Introduction: Injury is a major global health burden. Trauma registries have been used for decades to monitor the burden of injury and inform trauma care. However, the extent to which trauma registries have fulfilled their potential remains uncertain. The aims of this study were to determine the current and priority uses of trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand and to establish the priority clinical outcomes, the probability for which, if known for an individual trauma patient, would better inform that same patient's care, during hospital admission.Methods: A prospective observational study using survey methodology was conducted. Participants were sourced from the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry (ATR) participating hospitals. The survey questions included: the current uses and priorities for both single-site trauma registries and the binational trauma registry; the five top-ranked priority outcomes for which knowing the probability, for an individual patient, would inform care; and the priority timepoints for applying patient-level outcome prediction models.Results: Of the 26 ATR-participating hospitals, 25 were represented by a total of 54 participants in the survey, including trauma service directors and trauma nurse coordinators. The main trauma registry use and priority for the single site registries was to inform the quality improvement program; for the ATR, the main use was periodic reporting and the main priority was benchmarking. For each potential purpose of the registry, the future priority level was ranked more highly than the current level of utilisation. The most highly ranked priority patient-level outcomes requiring prediction were: preventable death, missed injury, quality of life, admission costs, pulmonary embolism, post-traumatic stress disorder, length of hospital stay, errors in decision-making and deep venous thrombosis. The time period between leaving the emergency department and the 24 h mark following presentation was considered the preferred time for patient-level priority outcome prediction.Conclusion: There is a mismatch between current trauma registry uses and future priorities. The priority outcomes demanding prediction in the first 24 h of a trauma patient's stay are preventable death, missed injury, quality of life, hospital costs, thromboembolism, post-traumatic stress disorder, length of hospital stay and errors in clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reviewing prehospital trauma deaths provides an opportunity to identify system improvements that may reduce trauma mortality. The objective of this study was to identify the number and rate of potentially preventable trauma deaths through expert panel reviews of prehospital and early in-hospital trauma deaths.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prehospital and early in-hospital (<24 h) trauma deaths following a traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that were attended by Ambulance Victoria (AV) in the state of Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2014. Expert panels were used to review cases that had resuscitation attempted by paramedics and underwent a full autopsy. Patients with a mechanism of hanging, drowning or those with anatomical injuries deemed to be unsurvivable were excluded.Results: Of the 1183 cases that underwent full autopsies, resuscitation was attempted by paramedics in 336 (28%) cases. Of these, 113 cases (34%) were deemed to have potentially survivable injuries and underwent expert panel review. There were 90 (80%) deaths that were not preventable, 19 (17%) potentially preventable deaths and 4 (3%) preventable deaths. Potentially preventable or preventable deaths represented 20% of those cases that underwent review and 7% of cases that had attempted resuscitation.Conclusions: The number of potentially preventable or preventable trauma deaths in the pre-hospital and early in-hospital resuscitation phase was low. Specific circumstances were identified in which the trauma system could be further improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: An audit of ambulance service clinical records from 2001 to 2002 in Melbourne, Australia revealed 10 patients with tension pneumothorax on arrival at hospital which had been undetected or untreated by paramedics. The clinical practice guideline for paramedic recognition of tension pneumothorax was subsequently changed to emphasise heightened clinical suspicion of a tension pneumothorax in the setting of chest trauma, especially when patients were managed with positive pressure ventilation. This study was undertaken to determine whether the number of undetected or untreated tension pneumothoraces had decreased after the new clinical practice guideline and associated education program; if there were unintended consequences arising from earlier paramedic intervention; and what effect, if any, this change had on subsequent hospital treatment. Methods: Retrospective case note review of all patients requiring intercostal catheter (ICC) insertion at The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, using records from Ambulance Victoria, the Alfred Trauma Registry and the National Coronial Information System. Results: In 2001–2002 paramedics treated 22 patients with suspected tension pneumothorax before transport to the Alfred Hospital. In 2006–2007 this number had increased to 81. There was a decrease from ten to four in the number of unrecognised or untreated tension pneumothoraces between the two time periods. No unintended or adverse consequences of prehospital needle decompression could be found. However, there was an increase in the number of patients who had prehospital needle decompression that needed further treatment for tension pneumothorax on arrival at hospital. This need for further treatment was associated with use of shorter cannulas and unilateral needle decompression by paramedics. Conclusion: A small change in clinical practice guidelines, supported by an education and audit program, led to a reduction in unrecognised untreated tension pneumothoraces by paramedics without an increase in complications. Paramedics should be aware that a shorter cannula may fail to reach the pleural space and that both sides of the chest may require decompression. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Introduction: The aim of effective clinical handover is seamless transfer of information between care providers. Handover between paramedics and the trauma team provides challenges in ensuring that information loss does not occur. Handover is often time-pressured and paramedics’ clinical notes are often delayed in reaching the trauma team. Documentation by trauma team members must be accurate. This study evaluated information loss and discordance as patients were transferred from the scene of an incident to the Trauma Centre. Methods: Twenty-five trauma patients presenting by ambulance to a tertiary Emergency and Trauma Centre were randomly selected. Audiotaped (pre-hospital) and videotaped (in-hospital) handover was compared with written documentation. Results: In the pre-hospital setting 171/228 (75%) of data items handed over by paramedics to the trauma team were documented and in the in-hospital handover 335/498 (67%) of information was documented. Information least likely to be documented by trauma team members (1) in the pre-hospital setting related to treatment provided and (2) in the in-hospital setting related to signs and symptoms. While 79% of information was subsequently documented by paramedics, 9% (n =59) of information was not documented either by trauma team members or paramedics and constitutes information loss. Information handed over was not congruent with documentation on seven occasions. Discrepancies included a patient''s allergy status and sites of injury (n =2). Demographic details were most likely to be documented but not handed over by paramedics. Conclusion: By documenting where deficits in handover occur we can identify points of vulnerability and strategies to capture this information. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: The incidence of major trauma and associated fatalities in the State of Victoria, Australia, have declined over 20 years following the successful implementation of strategies to modify environmental and behavioural factors that contribute to motor vehicle injuries. However, several system deficiencies in the management of major trauma patients had remained unresolved. To investigate these shortfalls the State Government of Victoria established a taskforce in 1997 to review trauma and emergency services. The taskforce adopted the principle of “the right patient to the right hospital in the shortest time” and in 2000 began to deploy an integrated State Trauma System. Implementation of such a system required the designation of specific hospitals of various levels to care for trauma patients; the concentration of trauma expertise at these centres; integration and coordination between the service providers; development of agreed triage and transfer protocols and improved education, training and research programs. A statewide major trauma database was established to enable system monitoring and facilitate further enhancements. The Victorian experience with the development of an integrated trauma system should aid in the development of similar systems nationally and internationally and is described in this paper. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]