Search

Gender differences in outcomes from major trauma have been described previously, and exogenous female hormone administration appears to be neuroprotective following traumatic brain injury (TBI). This analysis explored outcomes in pre- and post-menopausal females versus age-matched males. A total of 13,437 patients (n = 3,178 females, n = 10,259 males) with moderate-to-severe TBI (head AIS > or = 3) were identified from our county trauma registry. Overall mortality was similar between males and females (22% for both). Logistic regression was used to compare gender outcome differences, with a separate analysis performed for premenopausal (< 50 years) versus postmenopausal (> or = 50 years) patients, and after stratification by decade of life. No statistically significant difference in outcomes was observed for pre-menopausal females versus males (odds ratio [OR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83, 1.35; p = 0.633), but outcomes were significantly better in postmenopausal females versus males (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.81, p < 0.001) after adjusting for age, mechanism of injury, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), hypotension (SBP < or = 90 mm Hg), head Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Stratification by decade of life revealed the gender survival differential inflection point to occur between ages 40-49 (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.66-1.71, p = 0.798) and ages 50-59 (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.74, p = 0.005). In addition, Revised Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) was used to calculate probability of survival (PS); all patients were then stratified by decade of life, and males and females were compared with regard to mean survival differential (outcome - PS). The identical pattern of improved outcomes in post-menopausal but not pre-menopausal females versus age-matched males was observed. These data suggest that endogenous female sex hormone production is not neuroprotective.

Objective: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome., Methods: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection., Results: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2. 4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5. 1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, beside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning., Conclusions: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.