Search

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of field orotracheal intubation (OI) by urban emergency medical technician-paramedics (EMT-Ps) on outcome compared with trauma score and injury severity score (TRISS) expectations. The records of all trauma patients intubated by EMT-Ps or hospital personnel were abstracted for OI attempts/ successes, use of neuromuscular blockade (NMB), scene time, discharge neurological status, and hospital survival compared with TRISS. EMT-Ps attempted 43% of all intubations; 81% were successful versus 98% by hospital staff (P < .05). NMB was used by 76% of hospital intubations versus none by EMS (P < .05). Scene time was 10.3 +/- 3.2 minutes versus 11.6 +/- 2.1 for patients intubated by emergency medical services (EMS) and hospital staff (P < .05). Sixty percent of patients intubated by EMS versus 68% by hospital staff had good/moderate discharge neurological status. Survival for patients intubated by EMS versus hospital staff was 11% and 40%, respectively, compared with 2% and 45% expected by TRISS. Field OI by urban EMT-Ps has a favorable impact on survival with good neurological outcome (P < .05).

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of a two-tier trauma response, using prehospital criteria for matching trauma center assets with severity of injury., Design: A prospective iterative study on a consecutive sample of patients to test the hypothesis., Material and Methods: Criteria were developed whereby in-hospital response was determined by information provided by prehospital personnel. Two modifications of these criteria were introduced at 6 and 9 months. Triage and response accuracy were evaluated using outcome variables. Cost savings were estimated using differences between the full and modified teams. Chi-squared analysis was used., Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,479 patients evaluated over a 9-month period, 682 (46%) received a full trauma team response, and a modified trauma team responded to 794 (54%). When compared with final designation by outcome variables, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were significantly improved after the first modification of criteria. After the second modification, there was no significant improvement; however, the number of undertriaged patients increased significantly. Estimated cost savings were about $178,000 over the 9-month period., Conclusions: Utilization of a two-tier response to trauma patients is effective, safe, and results in substantial cost savings.

Blunt trauma patients with pelvic fractures have been shown to have a two-fold to five-fold increased risk of aortic rupture compared with the overall blunt trauma population. A retrospective review was performed to determine whether the relationship between aortic rupture and pelvic fracture could be further delineated using a pelvic fracture classification based on mechanism of injury. Of 4,157 consecutive blunt trauma patients, 371 (8.9%) had pelvic fractures, 34 (0.8%) had ruptured thoracic aortas and 12 had both injuries. When pelvic fractures were classified according to vector of force, 10 of 12 (83%) aortic ruptures occurred in patients with an anterior-posterior compression fracture pattern, an incidence of aortic rupture eight times greater than that of the overall blunt trauma population. There was no increased incidence of aortic rupture among patients with any other pelvic fracture pattern. We conclude that the previously reported association between aortic rupture and pelvic fracture can be further specified to include, predominantly, those patients with an anterior-posterior compression fracture pattern.

The utility of TRISS as a component of trauma center quality assurance (QA) was evaluated. TRISS survival probabilities were estimated for a total of 2,023 consecutive trauma patients admitted to three level-I trauma centers during a 6-month period. A structured peer review was performed of the 50 patients (2.1%) having statistically unexpected outcomes. For 23 (18 survivors, five deaths) TRISS-designated outcomes were sustained in peer review. In 27 cases (one survivor, 26 deaths) TRISS-designated outcomes were not sustained by peer review and TRISS. Limitations were identified in each case. Peer review of unexpected outcomes identified by TRISS provided a consistent and objective QA methodology. An understanding of TRISS as an objective component of the trauma center QA process is essential in blending it with what is, at present, a largely subjective process in many hospitals. Use of TRISS standardizes the peer review process, resulting in a more reliable base for development and improvement of trauma center QA programs.