Search

Blank

© 2018 Background: Simulation has been promoted as a platform for training trauma teams. However, it is not clear if this training has an impact on health service delivery and patient outcomes. This study evaluates the association between implementation of a simulation based multidisciplinary trauma team training program at a metropolitan trauma centre and subsequent patient outcomes. Method: This was a retrospective review of trauma registry data collected at an 850-bed Level 1 Adult Trauma Centre in Sydney, Australia. Two concurrent four-year periods, before and after implementation of a simulation based multidisciplinary trauma team training program were compared for differences in time to critical operations, Emergency Department (ED) length of stay (LOS) and patient mortality. Results: There were 2389 major trauma patients admitted to the hospital during the study, 1116 in the four years preceding trauma team training (the PREgroup) and 1273 in the subsequent 4 years (the POST group). There were no differences between the groups with respect to gender, body region injured, incidence of polytrauma, and pattern of arrival to ED. The POST group was older (median age 54 versus 43 years, p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of falls and assaults (p < 0.001). There was a reduction in time to critical operation, from 2.63 h (IQR 1.23–5.12) in the PRE-group to 0.55 h (IQR 0.22–1.27) in the POST-group, p < 0.001. The overall ED LOS increased, and there was no reduction in mortality. Post-hoc analysis found LOS in ED was reduced in the cohort requiring critical operations, p < 0.001. Conclusion: The implementation of trauma team training was associated with a reduction in time to critical operation while overall ED length of stay increased. Simulation is promoted as a platform for training teams; but the complexity of trauma care challenges efforts to demonstrate direct links between multidisciplinary team training and improved outcomes. There remain considerable gaps in knowledge as to how team training impacts health service delivery and patient outcomes. Level of evidence: Retrospective comparative therapeutic/care management study, Level III evidence.