Search

Abstract: Open fractures, which are exposed to the external environment, are at a high risk of infection. Administering antibiotics within 60 minutes of emergency department (ED) arrival is crucial to prevent infection. However, this is difficult to achieve due to high ED patient volumes. The purpose of our project was to improve time to antibiotics for patients presenting with long-bone open fractures at a Level 1 trauma center ED. We used the Lean Six Sigma Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control project framework to guide our efforts. Our interventions composed of developing educational initiatives, creating an electronic medical record order set, and restructuring the ED workflow to prioritize long-bone open fractures for immediate evaluation and antibiotic administration in our critical care zone. After our intervention, the time to antibiotics for long-bone open fractures improved significantly, decreasing from 76 to 40 minutes ( p < .001), with the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 60 minutes of ED arrival increasing from 64% to 92% ( p < .001). Age, sex, mechanism of injury, antibiotic choice, and location of the open fracture remained consistent between the two groups. Our results highlight the successful application of process improvement methodologies in improving antibiotic administration time for long-bone open fractures., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 National Association for Healthcare Quality.)

Introduction: Geriatric trauma patients experience disproportionate adverse outcomes compared to younger patients with similar injuries and represent an important target for quality improvement. Our institution created a Geriatric Trauma Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Admission Guideline to identify high-risk patients and elevate their initial level of care. The goal of implementation was reducing unplanned ICU admissions (UIAs), a recognized surrogate marker for adverse outcomes., Methods: The Geriatric Trauma ICU Admission Guideline was implemented on July 1, 2020, at a large academic level-1 trauma center. Using trauma registry data, we retrospectively analyzed geriatric patients who met the criteria for ICU admission 2 y preimplementation and postimplementation. The main outcome was UIAs in the target geriatric population. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ventilator days, mortality, and 30-d readmissions. Characteristics between groups were compared with t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test. Risk-adjusted logistic and negative binomial regressions were used for the categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively., Results: A total of 1075 patients were identified with 476 in the preimplementation and 599 in the postimplementation group. The groups were similar across most demographic and physiologic characteristics, with the exception of a higher incidence of hypertension in the preimplementation group (77.7% versus 71.6%, P = 0.02) and COVID in the postimplementation group (3.8% versus 0.4%, P < 0.001). While mechanism of injury was similar, there was a higher incidence of traumatic brain injury in the preimplementation group (35.1% versus 26.2%, P = 0.002). In the postimplementation group, there was a higher incidence ≥3 rib fractures (68% versus 61.3%, P = 0.02) and an expected increase in initial ICU level of care (69.5% versus 37.1%, P < 0.001). The odds of a UIA after guideline implementation were reduced by half (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.3-0.92). There was not a significant difference in the secondary outcomes of mortality, 30-d readmission, hospital-free days, ICU-free days, or ventilator-free days., Conclusions: Implementation of the Geriatric Trauma ICU Admission Guideline was associated with a reduction in UIAs by half in the target population. There was not a significant change in hospital-free days, ICU-free days, ventilator-free days, mortality, 30-d readmission, or venous thromboembolism. Further research is needed to better refine admission guidelines, examine the association of preventative admission on delirium, and determination of criteria that would allow safe, earlier downgrade., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The routine transfer of mild to moderate traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) to trauma centers with neurosurgical capabilities has recently been re-evaluated. The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) were developed to categorize TBI patients into three categories (BIG-1, BIG-2, and BIG-3), each representing a progressively increasing risk of clinical deterioration. This classification system has been previously validated at both level I and level III trauma centers. The authors hypothesized the population of their rural level II trauma center would further validate the BIG criteria., Methods: Using the institutional trauma registry, a retrospective analysis was performed on all patients with isolated TBIs who presented to our rural level II trauma center from 2018 to 2022. Patients were categorized according to the previously validated BIG criteria. All head computed tomography (CT) imaging studies were reviewed by one neurosurgeon. Outcomes and adverse events were compared to previously published data., Results: Four hundred fifty four patients were captured with our inquiry; 138 matched BIG-1 criteria, 51 matched BIG-2 criteria, and 263 matched BIG-3 criteria. Two patients in BIG-1 (6%) and two patients in BIG-2 (12.5%) showed progression of their bleed on CT. No patients in BIG-1 or BIG-2 groups, including those showing progression on repeat CT, required a neurosurgical intervention., Conclusions: Our results support the suppositions of the BIG authors who suggest patients categorized as BIG-1 or BIG-2 do not require repeat head CT scans, neurosurgery consultation, or transfer to a tertiary center., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Global surgery research efforts have been criticized for failure to transition from problem identification to intervention implementation. We developed a context-appropriate trauma quality improvement (TQI) bundle to ameliorate care gaps at a regional referral hospital in Cameroon. We determined associations between bundle implementation and improvement in trauma resuscitation practices., Methods: We implemented a TQI bundle consisting of a hospital-specific trauma protocol, staff training, a trauma checklist, provision of essential emergency trauma supplies in the resuscitation area, and monthly quality improvement meetings. We compared trends in target process measures (e.g., frequency and timing of vital sign collection and primary survey interventions) in the six-month period pre- and post-bundle implementation using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests., Results: We compared 246 pre-bundle patients with 203 post-bundle patients. Post-bundle patients experienced a greater proportion of all vital signs collected compared to the pre-intervention cohort (0 % pre-bundle vs. 69 % post-bundle, p < 0.001); specifically, the proportion of respiratory rate (0.8 % pre-bundle vs. 76 % post-bundle, p < 0.001) and temperature (7 % pre-bundle vs. 91 % post-bundle, p < 0.001) vital sign collection significantly increased. The post-bundle cohort had vital signs measured sooner (74 % vital signs measured within 15 min of arrival pre-bundle vs. 90 % post-bundle, p < 0.001) and more frequently per patient (7 % repeated vitals pre-bundle vs 52 % post-bundle, p < 0.001). Key primary survey interventions such as respiratory interventions (1 % pre-bundle vs. 8 % post-bundle, p < 0.001) and cervical collar placement (0 % pre-bundle vs. 7 % post-bundle, p < 0.001) also increased in the post-bundle cohort., Conclusions: The implementation of a context-appropriate TQI bundle was associated with significant improvements in previously identified trauma care deficits at a single regional hospital. Data-derived interventions targeting frontline capacity at the local level can bridge the gap between identifying care limitations and improvement in resource-limited settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Mark T. Yost and Dennis J. Zheng report financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center (award number D43TW009343) and the University of California Global Health Institute. Mark T. Yost reports financial support was provided by the H & H Lee Research Program and LB Research and Education Foundation. Catherine Juillard, Alain Chichom-Mefire, and S. Ariane Christie report financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health (award number U54TW012087). If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: We sought to determine the achievement of key performance indicators (KPIs) of initial trauma care at non-tertiary hospitals in Ghana during on-hours (8AM-5PM weekdays) compared to off-hours (nights, weekends, and holidays). We also sought to assess the effectiveness of a standardized trauma intake form (TIF) with built-in decision support prompts to improve care and to assess whether this effectiveness varied between on-hours and off-hours., Methods: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial was performed with research assistants directly observing trauma care before and after introducing the TIF at emergency units of eight hospitals for 17.5 months. Differences in KPIs and mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear mixed regression., Results: Management of 4,077 patients was observed; 1,126 (28 %) during on-hours and 2,951(72 %) during off-hours. At baseline, four of 20 KPIs were performed significantly more often during off-hours. TIF improved care during both on- and off-hours. Seventeen KPIs improved during on-hours and 18 KPIs improved during off-hours. After TIF, six KPIs were performed more often during on-hours, but differences, though significant, were small (1-5 %). Examples of KPIs which were performed more often during on-hours after TIF included: airway assessment (99 % for on-hours vs. 98 % for off-hours), evaluation for intra-abdominal bleeding (91 % vs. 87 %), and spine immobilization for blunt trauma (90 % vs. 85 %) (all p < 0.05). At baseline, mortality among seriously injured patients (Injury Severity Score >9) was higher during on-hours (27 %) compared to off-hours (17 %, p = 0.047). TIF lowered mortality for seriously injured patients during both on-hours (27 % before TIF, 8 % after, p = 0.027) and during off-hours (17 % before, 7 % after, p = 0.004). After TIF, mortality among seriously injured patients was equal between on- and off-hours (8 % vs. 7 %, NS)., Conclusions: At baseline, KPIs of trauma care were slightly better during off-hours compared with on-hours, and mortality was lower among seriously injured patient during off-hours. A quality improvement initiative (the TIF) using built-in decision support prompts improved care strongly in both on- and off-hours and eliminated the mortality difference between on- and off-hours. Use of similar decision support prompts during initial trauma care should be promoted widely in other low- and middle-income countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of the manuscript titled “Differences in trauma care between on-hours and off-hours and responsiveness to a trauma intake form with decision support prompts in Ghana: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial” declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Facilitating primary triage and care at pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) can improve outcomes for children after trauma. However, scene location and regional emergency medical services regulations may result in initial evaluation occurring at nonpediatric facilities with later transportation to PTCs for definitive care. In this study, we assessed the results of a change in transport time cutoff from 30 to 45 minutes on pediatric patient outcomes., Methods: After institutional review board approval, the Pediatric Trauma Database at a level 1 PTC was queried for patients seen before (January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017) and after (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020) the implementation of a policy increasing transport cutoff time from 30 to 45 minutes. Patient outcomes were compared by transport status and Injury Severity Score (ISS) using generalized linear regression analysis., Results: A total of 505 patients were seen before policy changes, and 413 patients, after policy changes. Both groups had similar numbers of severely injured patients (ISS, ≥15; pre, 64 [13%]; post, 61 [15%]). Average transport time increased after change (pre, 20 minutes [95% confidence interval, 18-22 minutes]; post, 29 minutes [95% confidence interval, 26-33 minutes]; p = 0.0252), consistent with policy compliance. The proportion of transferred patients did not change after policy implementation ( p = 0.5856), and the complications among all patients with an ISS of ≥15 did not significantly decrease (pre, 75%; post, 65.6%). However, those patients with an ISS of ≥15 admitted directly from the scene had a lower frequency of complications after the policy changes (pre, 76%; post, 59%; p = 0.0319), and in the postperiod, transferred patients with an ISS of ≥15 had a higher complication rate than those admitted directly from the scene ( p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Direct scene admission to a PTC is associated with a lower complication profile for patients with higher ISS. Methods to ensure adherence to cutoff thresholds for emergency medical services transport may have a positive benefit on patient outcomes., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To use updated 2021 weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS) data to identify a threshold level of trauma center emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness., Background: Most children in the United States receive initial trauma care at nonpediatric centers. The aim of the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) was to ensure that all EDs are prepared to provide quality care for children. Trauma centers reporting the highest quartile of wPRS on the 2013 national assessment have been shown to have lower mortality. Significant efforts have been invested to improve pediatric readiness in the past decade., Study Design: A retrospective cohort of trauma centers that completed the NPRP 2021 national assessment and contributed to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2019 to 2021 was analyzed. Center-specific observed-to-expected mortality estimates for children (0-15 y) were calculated using Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program models. Deterministic linkage was used for transferred patients to account for wPRS at the initial receiving center. Center-specific mortality odds ratios were then compared across quartiles of wPRS., Results: A total of 66,588 children from 630 centers with a median (interquartile range) wPRS of 79 (66-93) were analyzed. The average observed-to-expected odds of mortality [1.02 (0.97-1.06)] for centers in the highest quartile (wPRS≥93) was lower than any of the lowest 3 wPRS quartiles [1.19 (1.14-1.23) (Q1), 1.29 (1.24-1.33) (Q2), and 1.28 (1.19-1.36) (Q3), all P <0.05). The presence of a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan was the domain with the strongest independent association with mortality [standardized beta -0.095 (-0.146 to -0.044)]., Conclusion: Trauma centers should address gaps in pediatric readiness to include a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan and aim to achieve wPRS ≥93., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pediatric extremity vascular injuries constitute a rare yet serious entity that can lead to serious complications especially if left untreated or become late diagnosed. In our scoping review, we sought to evaluate different characteristics and outcomes of pediatric and combined adult trauma centers (ATCs) in the management of pediatric extremity vascular injury., Methods: We sought to analyze various characteristics and parameters that differentiate a dedicated pediatric and a combined pediatric ATC in terms of effectiveness and quality of care in the acute setting and to describe special features and characteristics of an acute vascular disease that constitute pediatric population unique from the aspect of diagnosis and management. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews guidelines to conduct the study., Results: The search identified 8,815 records in title using MeSH terms from PubMed/MEDLINE database among which 12 studies reporting a total of 2,124 pediatric patients with vascular extremity injuries were included for analysis. Incidence of pediatric extremity vascular injury was 0.5%. Upper extremity injuries were the most frequent presenting in 63% of cases followed by lower extremity injuries in 37% of cases. Blunt injuries were marginally more common than penetrating injuries (58% vs. 42%). In-hospital mortality and morbidity ranged from 13.2% to 0.9% and 13% to 30%, respectively. Limb-salvage rates were high, ranging from 92% to 99%. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined clinical guidelines involving the mode of imaging and diagnosis, the surgical specialties involved and the competency of nursing or medical staff overall., Conclusions: Dedicated children trauma centers theoretically represent the optimal path for acute pediatric trauma admission, especially in complex trauma necessitating vascular reconstruction. However, in the current setting of rapidly increasing health costs and economic crisis worldwide, regional or resource-related factors make this option rather unavailable. In any case, it is imperative the clinicians have a high index of suspicion when confronting with these types of injuries because early diagnosis is highly related with reduced morbidity and superior outcomes., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Case volumes of trauma centers and surgeons influence clinical outcomes following orthopaedic trauma surgery. This study quantifies surgical volume benchmarks for Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)-accredited fellowship training in the United States., Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of orthopaedic trauma fellows graduating between 2018 and 2019 to 2022-2023. Case volume percentiles were calculated across categories and variability defined as the fold-difference between 90th and 10th percentiles. Temporal trends were assessed with linear regression., Results: 446 orthopaedic trauma fellows were included in this study. Mean reported case volume increased from 898 ± 245 in 2018-2019 to 974 ± 329 in 2022-2023 (P = 0.066). Mean case volume was 924 over the study period and mostly consisted of other (418 cases, 45 %), subtrochanteric/intertrochanteric femoral neck (84 cases, 9 %), open fracture debridement (72 cases, 8 %), pelvic ring disruption / fracture (55 cases, 6 %), acetabular fracture (41 cases, 4 %), tibial shaft fracture (39 cases, 4 %), and femoral shaft fracture (38 cases, 4 %) cases. Overall variability in total reported case volume was 2.0. Variability was greatest in distal radius fracture (14.8), amputation (9.5), fasciotomy (8.0), and proximal humerus repair (5.0)., Conclusion: Graduates from OTA-accredited fellowship training perform 924 cases on average, which exceeds the current minimum requirement of 600 cases. Case volume benchmarks can assist trainees and faculty align training goals with fellowship program strengths. More research is needed to determine evidence-based case minimum requirements for core competency training in orthopaedic trauma surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes significant morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients and care is highly variable. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) summarizes the mortality rate of a specific center relative to the expected rates across all centers, adjusted for case-mix. This study aimed to evaluate variations in SMRs among pediatric trauma centers for TBI., Methods: Patients aged 1-18 diagnosed with TBI within the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2017 to 2019 were included. Center-specific SMRs and 95% confidence intervals identified centers with mortality rates significantly better or worse than the median SMR for all centers., Results: 316 centers with 10,598 patients were included. SMRs were risk-adjusted for patient risk factors. Unadjusted mortality ranged from 16.5 to 29.5%. Three centers (1.5%) had significantly better SMR (SMR <1) and three centers (1.5%) had significantly worse SMR (SMR >1). Significantly better centers had a lower proportion of neurosurgical intervention (2.4% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001), a higher proportion of supplemental oxygen administration (93.7% vs. 83.5%, p = 0.004) and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (53.2% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001) compared to significantly worse centers., Conclusions: This study identified centers that have significantly higher and lower mortality rates for pediatric TBI patients relative to the overall median rate. These data provide a benchmark for pediatric TBI outcomes and institutional quality improvement., Level of Evidence: Level III., Type of Study: Retrospective Comparative Study., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no competing interests or Financial disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nursing handoff of complete and accurate information is critical for patient safety yet is often difficult to achieve with consistency between nursing departments., Objective: This quality improvement project aims to describe the development and piloting of a standardized handoff tool for administration by computer tablet for nursing report., Methods: This descriptive quality improvement initiative was conducted in an 885-bed Level I trauma center in the Southeast Region of the United States. The study was completed in three phases. First, emergency department and trauma intensive care unit nurses were surveyed to determine handoff barriers and best practices. Second, the survey information was used to develop a standardized handoff tool incorporating tablet technology. Third, staff pilot testing was performed, followed by a final survey to ascertain staff feedback on the tool., Results: A total of n = 120 nurses completed the surveys, and pilot testing was conducted on n = 177 patient handoffs. Ninety-five percent of nurses expressed satisfaction with the tool and 65% with the tablet., Conclusion: This study supported using a standardized handoff tool between the emergency department and trauma intensive care unit and substantiated the benefits of using a tablet for face-to-face communication., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Society of Trauma Nurses.)

Introduction: The differentiators of centers performing at the highest level of quality and patient safety are likely both structural and cultural. We aimed to combine five indicators representing established domains of trauma quality and to identify and describe the structural characteristics of consistently performing centers., Methods: Using American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data from 2017 to 2020, we evaluated five quality measures across several care domains for adult patients in levels I and II trauma centers: (1) time to operating room for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds and shock, (2) proportion of patients receiving timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, (3) failure to rescue (death following a complication), (4) major hospital complications, and (5) mortality. Overall performance was summarized as a composite score incorporating all measures. Centers were ranked from highest to lowest performer. Principal component analysis showed the influence of each indicator on overall performance and supported the composite score approach., Results: We identified 272 levels I and II centers, with 28 and 27 centers in the top and bottom 10%, respectively. Patients treated in high-performing centers had significant lower rates of death major complications and failure to rescue, compared with low-performing centers ( p < 0.001). The median time to operating room for gunshot wound was almost half that in high compared with low-performing centers, and rates of timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were over twofold greater ( p < 0.001). Top performing centers were more likely to be level I centers and cared for a higher number of severely injured patients per annum. Each indicator contributed meaningfully to the variation in scores and centers tended to perform consistently across most indicators., Conclusion: The combination of multiple indicators across dimensions of quality sets a higher standard for performance evaluation and allows the discrimination of centers based on structural elements, specifically level 1 status, and trauma center volume., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic /Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Trauma is recognized globally as a great public health challenge. It stands as the predominant cause of mortality among those under the age of 45 and is also ranked among the top five causes of death for both urban and rural populations within China. This stark reality underscores the critical urgency in establishing an efficient system for trauma care, which is pivotal for substantially enhancing the survival rates of patients. An optimally developed system for trauma care not only guarantees that patients promptly receive professional medical assistance but also facilitates significant improvements in the outcomes of trauma care through the strategic establishment of trauma centers. At present, a considerable variation exists in the quality of trauma care provided across various regions within China. The adoption of comprehensive quality management strategies for the medical processes involved in trauma care, alongside the standardized management of on-site rescue operations, pre-hospital emergency care, and in-hospital treatment protocols, stands as a fundamental approach to boost the capabilities of trauma care and, consequently, the survival rates of trauma patients. Serving as the cornerstone of comprehensive medical quality management, key quality control indicators possess the capacity to steer the development direction of trauma centers. In a concerted effort to further augment the medical quality management of trauma care, standardize clinical diagnosis and treatment methodologies, and advocate for the standardization and ho-mogenization of medical services, the Medical Quality Control Professional Committee of the National Center for Trauma Medicine has undertaken a detailed refinement and update of the 16 key quality control indicators for trauma centers. These were initially put forward in the "Notice on Further Enhancing Trauma Care Capabilities" disseminated by the National Health Commission in 2018.Consequent to this endeavor, a revised set of 19 quality control indicators has been devised. This comprehensive set, inclusive of the indicators' names, definitions, calculation methodologies, significance, and the subjects for quality control, is designed for utilization within the quality management and control operations of trauma centers across various levels. This initiative aims to furnish a concrete and executable roadmap for the quality control endeavors of trauma centers. Through the enactment of these quality control indicators, medical institutions are empowered to conduct more stringent monitoring and evaluative measures across all facets of trauma care. This not only facilitates the prompt identification and rectification of existing challenges but also substantially boosts the efficiency of internal collaboration. It enhances the synergy between different departments, thereby markedly improving the efficiency and quality of trauma care.

Background: Trauma outcome prediction models have traditionally relied upon patient injury and physiologic data (eg, Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS]) without accounting for comorbidities. We sought to prospectively evaluate the role of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) score and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk-Calculator (NSQIP-SRC), which are measurements of comorbidities, in the prediction of trauma outcomes, hypothesizing that they will improve the predictive ability for mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications compared to TRISS alone in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours., Methods: A prospective, observational multicenter study (9/2018-2/2020) of trauma patients ≥18 years undergoing operation within 24 hours of admission was performed. Multiple logistic regression was used to create models predicting mortality utilizing the variables within TRISS, ASA-PS, and NSQIP-SRC, respectively. Linear regression was used to create models predicting LOS and negative binomial regression to create models predicting complications., Results: From 4 level I trauma centers, 1213 patients were included. The Brier Score for each model predicting mortality was found to improve accuracy in the following order: 0.0370 for ASA-PS, 0.0355 for NSQIP-SRC, 0.0301 for TRISS, 0.0291 for TRISS+ASA-PS, and 0.0234 for TRISS+NSQIP-SRC. However, when comparing TRISS alone to TRISS+ASA-PS ( P = .082) and TRISS+NSQIP-SRC ( P = .394), there was no significant improvement in mortality prediction. NSQIP-SRC more accurately predicted both LOS and complications compared to TRISS and ASA-PS., Conclusions: TRISS predicts mortality better than ASA-PS and NSQIP-SRC in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. The TRISS mortality predictive ability is not improved when combined with ASA-PS or NSQIP-SRC. However, NSQIP-SRC was the most accurate predictor of LOS and complications., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Introduction: Fixation of major fractures plays a pivotal role in the surgical treatment of polytrauma patients. In addition to ongoing discussions regarding the optimal timing in level I trauma centers, it appears that the respective trauma systems impact the implementation of both, damage control and safe definitive surgery strategies. This study aimed to assess current standards of polytrauma treatment in a Europe-wide survey., Methods: A survey, developed by members of the polytrauma section of ESTES, was sent online via SurveyMonkey ® , between July and November 2020, to 450 members of ESTES (European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery). Participation was voluntary and anonymity was granted. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data and included questions about the definition of "polytrauma" and the local standards for the timing of fracture fixation., Results: In total, questionnaires of 87 participants (19.3% response rate) were included. The majority of participants were senior consultants (50.57%). The mean work experience was 19 years, and on average, 17 multiple-injured patients were treated monthly. Most of the participants stated that a polytrauma patient is defined by ISS ≥ 16 (44.16%), followed by the "Berlin Definition" (25.97%). Systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, tachycardia or vasopressor administration (86.84%), pH deviation, base excess shift (48.68%), and lactate > 4 mmol (40.79%) or coagulopathy defined by ROTEM (40.79%) were the three most often stated indicators for shock. Local guidelines (33.77%) and the S-3 Guideline by the DGU® (23.38%) were mostly stated as a reference for the treatment of polytrauma patients. Normal coagulation (79.69%), missing administration of vasopressors (62.50%), and missing clinical signs of "SIRS" (67.19%) were stated as criteria for safe definite secondary surgery., Conclusion: Different definitions of polytrauma are used in the clinical setting. Indication for and the extent of secondary (definitive) surgery are mainly dependent on the polytrauma patient`s physiology. The «Window of Opportunity» plays a less important role in decision making., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Structured emergency room concepts have been shown to contribute to patient safety. Until now there has been no uniform emergency room concept for critically ill and seriously injured children and adolescents in the emergency room at the Altona Children's Hospital in Hamburg. This concept has been newly developed in interdisciplinary cooperation and includes the use of new clinical premises as well as new responsibilities and team compositions. The introduction of new processes and rooms for handling emergencies is associated with a risk of overlooking latent safety deficiencies or detecting them only after the process has been implemented. This may have a direct impact on patient safety. Before moving to new clinical premises, in situ simulation can be helpful to identify and to resolve latent safety threats in advance. Therefore, this method was chosen to test the newly created emergency room concept in the future emergency room at the Altona Children's Hospital., Methods: Two in situ simulations were carried out in the future real emergency room. Latent safety threats detected by the observation team and the participants (medical and nursing staff of the Altona Children's Hospital from the departments of pediatric surgery, traumatology, orthopedics, pediatrics, anesthesia, intensive care medicine, radiology, emergency medicine) were collected using free text notes after the simulations and evaluated retrospectively. In order to better deal with these latent safety threats, the observations were classified into different categories: working environment (e.g., lack of equipment, unfavorable positioning of material), process (e.g., lack of defined responsibilities in the team) and other safety threats that did not fall into one of the two categories defined., Results: A total of 51 latent safety threats were identified during the two in situ simulations. Of these, 22 (43.1%) were assigned to the "working environment" category, 20 (39.2%) to the "process" category and 9 (17.7%) to the "other safety threats" category. Of the latent safety threats identified, 46 (90.2 %) could be resolved before the emergency room was put into operation. For the non-recoverable safety threats, safety concepts were developed in order to further minimize the risk of patient hazard., Discussion: With the help of this study, it could be shown that the implementation of in situ simulation before the commissioning of new clinical premises and the introduction of new processes can contribute to the detection of latent safety threats in an interdisciplinary German pediatric emergency department., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: There is conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between trauma center type and mortality for children with traumatic brain injuries. Identification of mortality differences following brain injury across differing trauma center types may result in actionable quality improvement initiatives to standardize care for these children., Methods: We used Trauma Quality Improvement Program data from 2017 to 2020 to identify children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) managed at levels I and II state or American College of Surgeon-verified trauma centers. We used a random intercept multilevel logistic regression model to assess the relationship between exposure (trauma center type either adult, pediatric, or mixed) and outcome (in-hospital mortality). Several secondary analyses were performed to assess the influence of trauma center volume, age strata, and TBI heterogeneity., Results: There were 10,105 patients identified across 512 trauma centers. Crude mortality was 25.2%, 36.2%, and 28.9% for pediatric, adult, and mixed trauma centers, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, odds of mortality were higher for children managed at adult trauma centers (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.13) compared with pediatric trauma centers. There were several patient demographic and injury factors associated with greater odds of death; these included male sex, self-pay insurance status, interfacility transfer, non-fall related inury, age-adjusted hypotension, lack of pupil reactivity and midline shift >5 mm. Adjustment for trauma volume and subgroup analysis using a homogenous TBI subgroup did not change the demonstrated associations., Conclusion: Our results suggest that mortality was higher at adult trauma centers compared with mixed and pediatric trauma centers for children with traumatic brain injuries. Importantly, there exists the potential for unmeasured confounding. We aim for these findings to direct continuing quality improvement initiatives to improve outcomes for brain injured children., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Pediatric trauma system development is essential to public health infrastructure and pediatric health systems. Currently, trauma systems are managed at the state level, with significant variation in consideration of pediatric needs. A recently developed Pediatric Trauma System Assessment Score (PTSAS) demonstrated that states with lower PTSAS have increased pediatric mortality from trauma. Critical gaps are identified within six PTSAS domains: Legislation and Funding, Access to Care, Injury Prevention and Recognition, Disaster, Quality Improvement and Trauma Registry, and Pediatric Readiness. For each gap, a recommendation is provided regarding the necessary steps to address these challenges. Existing national organizations, including governmental, professional, and advocacy, highlight the potential partnerships that could be fostered to support efforts to address existing gaps. The organizations created under the US administration are described to highlight the ongoing efforts to support the development of pediatric emergency health systems.It is no longer sufficient to describe the disparities in pediatric trauma outcomes without taking action to ensure that the health system is equipped to manage injured children. By capitalizing on organizations that intersect with trauma and emergency systems to address known gaps, we can reduce the impact of injury on all children across the United States., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Importance: Civilian trauma centers have revived interest in whole-blood (WB) resuscitation for patients with life-threatening bleeding. However, there remains insufficient evidence that the timing of WB transfusion when given as an adjunct to a massive transfusion protocol (MTP) is associated with a difference in patient survival outcome., Objective: To evaluate whether earlier timing of first WB transfusion is associated with improved survival at 24 hours and 30 days for adult trauma patients presenting with severe hemorrhage., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program databank from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for adult patients presenting to US and Canadian adult civilian level 1 and 2 trauma centers with systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, with shock index greater than 1, and requiring MTP who received a WB transfusion within the first 24 hours of emergency department (ED) arrival. Patients with burns, prehospital cardiac arrest, deaths within 1 hour of ED arrival, and interfacility transfers were excluded. Data were analyzed from January 3 to October 2, 2023., Exposure: Patients who received WB as an adjunct to MTP (earlier) compared with patients who had yet to receive WB as part of MTP (later) at any given time point within 24 hours of ED arrival., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were survival at 24 hours and 30 days., Results: A total of 1394 patients met the inclusion criteria (1155 male [83%]; median age, 39 years [IQR, 25-51 years]). The study cohort included profoundly injured patients (median Injury Severity Score, 27 [IQR, 17-35]). A survival curve demonstrated a difference in survival within 1 hour of ED presentation and WB transfusion. Whole blood transfusion as an adjunct to MTP given earlier compared with later at each time point was associated with improved survival at 24 hours (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.73; P = .003). Similarly, the survival benefit of earlier WB transfusion remained present at 30 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.45; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, receipt of a WB transfusion earlier at any time point within the first 24 hours of ED arrival was associated with improved survival in patients presenting with severe hemorrhage. The survival benefit was noted shortly after transfusion. The findings of this study are clinically important as the earlier timing of WB administration may offer a survival advantage in actively hemorrhaging patients requiring MTP.

Introduction: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 indicated the need for a national strategy to improve trauma care among military treatment facilities (MTFs). Part of the proposed strategy to improve trauma outcomes was to convert identified MTFs into verified trauma centers. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) verifies trauma centers through an evaluation process based on available resources at a facility. It has been proven that trauma centers, specifically those verified by the ACS, have improved trauma outcomes. In 2017, we implemented steps to become a level III trauma program, according to the standards for designation by the state and verification through the ACS. The goal of this retrospective review is to evaluate the impact of this implementation with regard to both patient care and the MTF., Materials and Methods: Data from a single-MTF trauma registry from 2018, at the initiation of the trauma program, to present were reviewed. Outcomes were selected based upon the ACS verification criteria. Specifically, emergency department length of stay (ED LOS), nonsurgical admissions, injury severity score, diversion rates, and time to operating room were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t-tests. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was not required for this study as it was performed as a quality improvement project using deidentified data., Results: ED LOS decreased significantly after implementation of the trauma program from an average of 6.43 h in 2018 to 4.73 h in 2019 and 4.6 h in 2020 (P < .04). Nonsurgical admissions decreased significantly from 57.8% in 2018, with rates of <20% in all subsequent years (P < .01). The average injury severity score increased from 5.61 in 2018 to 7.52 in 2020 (P < .01) and 7.27 in 2021 (P < .01). Diversion rates also decreased from >5% in 2018 to 0% in 2021., Conclusions: The establishment of a trauma program in accordance with the standards of the ACS for verification improved metrics of care for trauma patients at our MTF. This implementation as part of the local trauma system also led to increased injury severity seen by the MTF, which enhances readiness for its providers., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2022. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Twenty years ago, the landmark report To Err Is Human illustrated the importance of system-level solutions, in contrast to person-level interventions, to assure patient safety. Nevertheless, rates of preventable deaths, particularly in trauma care, have not materially changed. The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program developed a voluntary Mortality Reporting System to better understand the underlying causes of preventable trauma deaths and the strategies used by centers to prevent future deaths. The objective of this work is to describe the factors contributing to potentially preventable deaths after injury and to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies identified by trauma centers to mitigate future harm, as reported in the Mortality Reporting System., Methods: An anonymous structured web-based reporting template based on the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations taxonomy was made available to trauma centers participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program to allow for reporting of deaths that were potentially preventable. Contributing factors leading to death were evaluated. The effectiveness of mitigating strategies was assessed using a validated framework and mapped to tiers of effectiveness ranging from person-focused to system-oriented interventions., Results: Over a 2-year period, 395 deaths were reviewed. Of the mortalities, 33.7% were unanticipated. Errors pertained to management (50.9%), clinical performance (54.7%), and communication (56.2%). Human failures were cited in 61% of cases. Person-focused strategies like education were common (56.0%), while more effective system-based strategies were seldom used. In 7.3% of cases, centers could not identify a specific strategy to prevent future harm., Conclusion: Most strategies to reduce errors in trauma centers focus on changing the performance of providers rather than system-level interventions such as automation, standardization, and fail-safe approaches. Centers require additional support to develop more effective mitigations that will prevent recurrent errors and patient harm., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management, level V., (Copyright © 2021 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Objective: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) conducts a robust quality improvement program for ACS-verified trauma centers, yet many injured patients receive care at non-accredited facilities. This study tested for variation in outcomes across non-trauma hospitals and characterized hospitals associated with increased mortality., Summary Background Data: The study included state trauma registry data of 37,670 patients treated between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Clinical data were supplemented with data from the American Hospital Association and US Department of Agriculture, allowing comparisons among 100 nontrauma hospitals., Methods: Using Bayesian techniques, risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted rates of mortality and interfacility transfer, as well as Emergency Departments length-of-stay (ED-LOS) among patients transferred from EDs were calculated for each hospital. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients ages >55 years and those with decreased Glasgow coma scores (GCS). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data., Results: Mortality varied 3-fold (0.9%-3.1%); interfacility transfer rates varied 46-fold (2.1%-95.6%); and mean ED-LOS varied 3-fold (81-231 minutes). Hospitals that were high and low statistical outliers were identified for each outcome, and subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable hospital variation. Metropolitan hospitals were associated increased mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7, P = 0.004], decreased likelihood of interfacility transfer (OR 0.7, P ≤ 0.001), and increased ED-LOS (coef. 0.1, P ≤ 0.001) when compared with nonmetropolitan hospitals and risk-adjusted., Conclusions: Wide variation in trauma outcomes exists across nontrauma hospitals. Efforts to improve trauma quality should include engagement of nontrauma hospitals to reduce variation in outcomes of injured patients treated at those facilities., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elderly rib fracture patients are generally admitted to an ICU which may result in overutilization of scarce resources. We hypothesized that this practice results in significant overtriage., Methods: Retrospective study of patients over age 70 with acute rib fracture(s) as sole indication for ICU admission. Primary outcomes were adverse events (intubation, pneumonia, death), which we classified as meriting ICU admission. We utilized Cribari matrices to calculate triage rates., Results: 101 patients met study criteria. 12% had adverse events occurring on average at day 5. Our undertriage rate was 6% and overtriage rate 87%. The 72 overtriaged patients utilized 295 total ICU days. Evaluating guideline modification, ≥3 fractures appears optimal. Changing to this would have liberated 50 ICU days with 3% undertriage., Conclusion: Elderly patients with small numbers of rib fractures are overtriaged to ICUs. Modifying guidelines to ≥3 rib fractures will improve resource utilization and save ICU beds., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are limited data on the accuracy of documentation of trauma activations in the electronic medical record (EMR) compared with a paper chart. Our primary objective was to compare the accuracy of documentation between a paper chart and EMR in pediatric trauma., Methods: We studied video recordings of trauma activations at a level 1 pediatric trauma center. These videos were reviewed, and data points collected were used to compare accuracy of documentation in the paper chart and EMR., Results: We reviewed 106 videos with 1614 data points collected. Of those, 805 data points were compared with their corresponding paper chart with 710 data points correctly documented (88.2%). The remaining 809 data points were compared with their corresponding electronic documentation after implementation of the EMR with 681 data points being correctly documented (84.2%). Overall, we found that paper documentation was significantly more accurate than the EMR (p = 0.019). When analyzed in subcategories of pre-arrival information, primary and secondary survey, and interventions, paper documentation was found to be significantly more accurate than the EMR for components of the primary and secondary survey (87.3% vs. 80.4%, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in accuracy of documentation between paper and EMR for pre-arrival information (88.1% vs. 89.4%) or interventions (90.3% vs. 92%)., Conclusion: Documentation of trauma activations is overall more accurate using a paper chart than EMR. Although documentation was accurate for most categories using both a paper chart and EMR, we found significantly less accuracy in documentation of the primary and secondary survey in the EMR., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no disclosures or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs in approximately 30% of trauma patients. Because neurosurgeons hold expertise in treating TBI, increased neurosurgical staffing may improve patient outcomes. We hypothesized that TBI patients treated at level I trauma centers (L1TCs) with ≥3 neurosurgeons have a decreased risk of mortality vs. those treated at L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons., Methods: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2010-2016) was queried for patients ≥18 years with TBI. Patient characteristics and mortality were compared between ≥3 and <3 neurosurgeon-staffed L1TCs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with mortality., Results: Traumatic brain injury occurred in 243 438 patients with 5188 (2%) presenting to L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons and 238 250 (98%) to L1TCs with ≥3 neurosurgeons. Median injury severity score (ISS) was similar between both groups (17, P = .09). There were more Black (37% vs. 12%, P < .001) and Hispanic (18% vs. 12%, P < .001) patients in the <3 neurosurgeon group. Nearly 60% of L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons are found in the South. Mortality was higher in the <3 vs. the ≥3 group (12% vs. 10%, P < .001). Patients treated in the <3 neurosurgeon group had a higher risk for mortality than those treated in the ≥3 neurosurgeon group (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.01-1.26, P = .028)., Discussion: There exists a significant racial disparity in access to neurosurgeon staffing with additional disparities in outcomes based on staffing. Future efforts are needed to improve this chasm of care that exists for trauma patients of color.

Background: Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs., Methods: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013., Results: 112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% ( P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182)., Discussion: Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.

Introduction: Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity., Methods: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression., Results: Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584)., Conclusion: The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Study, level IV., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trauma care is associated with unplanned readmissions, which may occur at facilities other than the index treatment facility. This "fragmentation of care" may be associated with adverse outcomes. We evaluated a statewide database that includes readmissions to analyze the incidence and impact of FC., Methods: The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development patient discharge data set was evaluated for calendar years 2016 to 2018. Patients 15 years or older diagnosed with blunt abdominal solid organ injury during the index admission were identified. Readmissions were evaluated postdischarge at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients readmitted within 6 months to a facility other than the index admission facility (fragmented care [FC]) were compared with those readmitted to their index admission facility (non-FC). Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate risk of FC., Results: Of the total 1,580 patients, there were 752 FC (47.6%) and 828 (52.4%) non-FC. Readmissions representing FC at months 1, 3, and 6 were 40.3%, 49.3%, and 53.4%, respectively. At index admission, the groups were demographically and clinically similar, with similar rates of abdominal operations and complications. Non-FC patients had a higher rate of abdominal reoperation at readmission (5.8% non-FC vs. 2.9% FC, p = 0.006). In an adjusted model, multiple readmissions (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, p = 0.014), readmission >30 days after index facility discharge (OR, 1.98; p < 0.001), and discharge to a nonmedical facility (OR, 2.46; p < 0.0001) were associated with increased odds of FC. Operative intervention at index admission was associated with lower odds of FC (OR, 0.77; p = 0.039). However, FC was not independently associated with demographic or insurance characteristics., Conclusion: The rate of FC among patients with blunt abdominal injury is high. The risk of FC is mitigated when patients are managed operatively during the index admission. Trauma systems should implement measures to ensure that these patients are followed postdischarge., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III; Care management, level IV., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) ultrasound exams are central to the care of the unstable trauma patient. We examined six years of eFAST quality assurance data to identify the most common reasons for false positive and false negative eFAST exams., Methods: This was an observational, retrospective cohort study of trauma activation patients evaluated in an urban, academic Level 1 trauma center. All eFAST exams that were identified as false positive or false negative exams compared with computed tomography (CT) imaging were included., Results: 4860 eFAST exams were performed on trauma patients. 1450 (29.8%) were undocumented, technically limited, or incomplete (missing images). Of the 3410 remaining exams, 180 (5.27%) were true positive and 3128 (91.7%) were true negative. 27 (0.79%) exams were identified as false positive and 75 (2.19%) were identified as false negative. Of the false positive scans, 7 had no CT scan and 8 had correct real-time trauma paper documentation of eFAST exam results when compared to CT and were excluded, leaving 12 false positive scans. Of the false negative scans, 11 were excluded for concordant documentation in real-time trauma room paper documentation, 20 were excluded for no CT scan, and 2 were excluded as incomplete, leaving 42 false negative scans. Pelvic fluid, double-line sign, pericardial fat pad, and the thoracic portion of the eFAST exam were the most common source of errors., Conclusion: The eFAST exams in trauma activation patients are highly accurate. Unfortunately poor documentation and technically limited/incomplete studies represent 29.8% of our eFAST exams. Pelvic fluid, double-line sign, pericardial fat pad, and the thoracic portion of the eFAST exam are the most common source of errors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors do not have a financial interest or relationship to disclose regarding this research project., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Trauma accounts for a third of the deaths in Western countries, exceeded only by cardiovascular disease and cancer. The high risk of massive bleeding, which depends not only on the type of fractures, but also on the severity of any associated parenchymal injuries, makes pelvic fractures one of the most life-threatening skeletal injuries, with a high mortality rate. Therefore, pelvic trauma represents an important condition to correctly and early recognize, manage, and treat. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach involving trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, emergency room physicians and interventional radiologists is needed to promptly manage the resuscitation of pelvic trauma patients and ensure the best outcomes, both in terms of time and costs. Over the years, the role of interventional radiology in the management of patient bleeding due to pelvic trauma has been increasing. However, the current guidelines on the management of these patients do not adequately reflect or address the varied nature of injuries faced by the interventional radiologist. In fact, in the therapeutic algorithm of these patients, after the word "ANGIO", there are no reports on the different possibilities that an interventional radiologist has to face during the procedure. Furthermore, variations exist in the techniques and materials for performing angioembolization in bleeding patients with pelvic trauma. Due to these differences, the outcomes differ among different published series. This article has the aim to review the recent literature on optimal imaging assessment and management of pelvic trauma, defining the role of the interventional radiologist within the multidisciplinary team, suggesting the introduction of common and unequivocal terminology in every step of the angiographic procedure. Moreover, according to these suggestions, the present paper tries to expand the previously drafted algorithm exploring the role of the interventional radiologist in pelvic trauma, especially given the multidisciplinary setting., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: A community lockdown has a profound impact on its citizens. Our objective was to identify changes in trauma patient demographics, volume, and pattern of injury following the COVID-19 lockdown., Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a Level-1 Trauma Center from 2017 to 2020., Results: A downward trend in volume is seen December-April in 2020 (R 2  = 0.9907). February through April showed an upward trend in 2018 and 2019 (R 2= 0.80 and R 2  = 0.90 respectively), but a downward trend in 2020 (R 2  = 0.97). In April 2020, there was 41.6% decrease in total volume, a 47.4% decrease in blunt injury and no decrease in penetrating injury. In contrast to previous months, in April the majority of injuries occurred in home zip codes., Conclusions: A community lockdown decreased the number of blunt trauma, however despite social distancing, did not decrease penetrating injury. Injuries were more likely to occur in home zip codes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No authors have conflicts of interest to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: A major incident is any emergency requiring special arrangements by the emergency services. All hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) detailing the response to such events. In 2006 and 2019, we assessed the preparedness and knowledge of key individuals in hospitals across England and found a substantial gap in responding to the MIP. In this report, we compare responses from doctors at major trauma centres (MTCs) and other hospitals (non-MTCs)., Methods: We identified trusts in England that received over 30 000 patients through the ED in the fourth quarter of 2016/2017. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked three questions assessing their confidence in using their hospital's MIP: (1) Have you read your hospital's MIP? (2) Do you know where you can access your hospital's MIP guidelines? (3) Do you know what role you would play if an MIP came into effect while you are on call?We compared data from MTCs and non-MTCs using multinomial mixed proportional odds models., Results: There was a modest difference between responses from individuals at MTCs and non-MTCs for question 2 (OR=2.43, CI=1.03 to 5.73, p=0.04) but no evidence of a difference between question 1 (OR=1.41, CI=0.55 to 3.63, p=0.47) and question 3 (OR=1.78, CI=0.86 to 3.69, p=0.12). Emergency medicine and anaesthetic registrars showed significantly higher preparedness and knowledge across all domains. No evidence of a systematic difference in specialty response by MTC or otherwise was identified., Conclusions: Confidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England remains low. Doctors at MTCs tended to be better prepared and more knowledgeable, but this effect was only marginally significant. We make several recommendations to improve education on major incidents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Traumatic pediatric cervical spine injury can be challenging to diagnose, and the clinical algorithms meant to aid physicians differ from adult trauma protocols. Despite the existence of standardized guidelines, imaging decisions may vary according to physician education, subjective assessment, and experience with pediatric trauma patients. Our study investigates the rates of pediatric posttraumatic cervical spine imaging across trauma centers, hypothesizing that more specialized centers will have lower rates of advanced cervical spine imaging., Methods: The 2015 to 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was reviewed for patients younger than 18 years- to assess rates of cervical spine imaging on presentation across different trauma centers. Propensity stratification logistic regression was performed controlling for patient- and center-specific variables. p Values less than 0.05 were considered significant., Results: Of 110,769 pediatric trauma patients, 35.2% were female, and the average age was 9.6 years. Overall, 3.6% had cervical spine computed tomography (CT) and less than 1% had cervical spine MRI or X-ray. Compared with all others, Level I trauma centers were significantly less likely to use cervical spine CT for the initial evaluation of younger (≤14 years) but not older trauma patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.99; AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.09); Level I centers had higher odds of cervical spine MRI use, but only for patients 14 years or younger (AOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.09-2.44). Pediatric-designated trauma centers had significantly lower odds of cervical spine CT (≤14 years: AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; >14 years: AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75) and higher odds of cervical spine X-ray (≤14 years: AOR, 4.75; 95% CI, 3.55-6.36; >14 years: AOR, 4.50; 95% CI, 2.72-7.45) for all ages, but higher odds of cervical spine MRI for younger patients only (≤14 years: AOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21)., Conclusion: Level I and pediatric designations were associated with lower rates of cervical spine CT. Pediatric centers were also more likely to use cervical spine X-ray. This variability of imaging use further supports the need to disseminate and educate providers on pediatric-specific cervical spine evaluation guidelines., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Importance: The National Pediatric Readiness Project is a US initiative to improve emergency department (ED) readiness to care for acutely ill and injured children. However, it is unclear whether high ED pediatric readiness is associated with improved survival in US trauma centers., Objective: To evaluate the association between ED pediatric readiness, in-hospital mortality, and in-hospital complications among injured children presenting to US trauma centers., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of 832 EDs in US trauma centers in 50 states and the District of Columbia was conducted using data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017. Injured children younger than 18 years who were admitted, transferred, or with injury-related death in a participating trauma center were included in the analysis. Subgroups included children with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or above, indicating overall seriously injured (accounting for all injuries); any Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or above, indicating at least 1 serious injury; a head AIS score of 3 or above, indicating serious brain injury; and need for early use of critical resources., Exposures: Emergency department pediatric readiness for the initial ED visit, measured through the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (range, 0-100) from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project ED pediatric readiness assessment., Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality, with a secondary composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or complication. For the primary measurement tools used, the possible range of the AIS is 0 to 6, with 3 or higher indicating a serious injury; the possible range of the ISS is 0 to 75, with 16 or higher indicating serious overall injury. The weighted Pediatric Readiness Score examines and scores 6 domains; in this study, the lowest quartile included scores of 29 to 62 and the highest quartile included scores of 93 to 100., Results: There were 372 004 injured children (239 273 [64.3%] boys; median age, 10 years [interquartile range, 4-15 years]), including 5700 (1.5%) who died in-hospital and 5018 (1.3%) who developed in-hospital complications. Subgroups included 50 440 children (13.6%) with an ISS of 16 or higher, 124 507 (33.5%) with any AIS score of 3 or higher, 57 368 (15.4%) with a head AIS score of 3 or higher, and 32 671 (8.8%) requiring early use of critical resources. Compared with EDs in the lowest weighted Pediatric Readiness Score quartile, children cared for in the highest ED quartile had lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75), but not fewer complications (aOR for the composite outcome 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.04). These findings were consistent across subgroups, strata, and multiple sensitivity analyses. If all children cared for in the lowest-readiness quartiles (1-3) were treated in an ED in the highest quartile of readiness, an additional 126 lives (95% CI, 97-154 lives) might be saved each year in these trauma centers., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, injured children treated in high-readiness EDs had lower mortality compared with similar children in low-readiness EDs, but not fewer complications. These findings support national efforts to increase ED pediatric readiness in US trauma centers that care for children.

Background: A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon., Methods: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures., Results: In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented., Conclusion: A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions., Level of Evidence: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Protocols are common in intensive care, however the association between protocol prevalence and outcomes in surgical ICU patients is unclear. We hypothesized that ICUs in a multicenter database using more protocols had better outcomes., Material and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a 2-d prevalence study with 30-d follow up, on surgical and trauma patients in ICUs at 42 trauma centers. Use of forty clinical protocols was queried. Protocol prevalence was categorized by quartile into Low (first), Moderate (second and third), or High (fourth) use ICUs. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were ventilator, ICU, and hospital days, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, renal replacement, transfusion, and hospital-acquired infections., Results: Data from 1044 surgical and trauma patients were analyzed. Protocol use was not different for "closed" (n = 20), "open" (n = 9), or "semi-open" (n = 13) ICUs (P= 0.20). Thirty-day in-hospital mortality was 8.4%, and not associated with number of protocols (OR 1.01 [95% CI 0.98-1.03], P= 0.65). There was no statistically significant difference between High and Low use ICUs for ventilator days (OR 0.86; 0.52-1.43), tracheostomy (OR 0.8; 0.47-1.38), renal replacement therapy (OR 0.66; 0.04-9.82), transfusion (OR 0.95; 0.58-1.57), or hospital-acquired infections (OR 1.07; 0.67-1.7). Higher mortality was seen in open (versusclosed; OR 1.74 [1.05-2.89], P= 0.033), and surgical/trauma (versustrauma; OR 1.86 [1.33-2.61]; P< 0.001)., Conclusions: In this multicenter observational study of surgical ICU patients, no association was found between the number of protocols used and patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous US-based studies have shown that a trauma center designation of level 1 is associated with improved patient outcomes. However, most studies are cross-sectional, focus on volume-related issues and are direct comparisons between levels. This study investigates the change in patient characteristics when individual trauma centers transition from level 2 to level 1 and whether the patients have similar outcomes during the initial period of the transition., Study Design: We performed a retrospective cohort study that analyzed hospital and patient records included in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2016. Patient characteristics were compared before and after their hospitals transitioned their trauma level. Mortality; complications including acute kidney injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac arrest with CPR, deep surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, extremity compartment syndrome, surgical site infection, osteomyelitis, pulmonary embolism, and so on; ICU admission; ventilation use; unplanned returns to the OR; unplanned ICU transfers; unplanned intubations; and lengths of stay were obtained following propensity score matching, comparing posttransition years with the last pretransition year., Results: Sixteen trauma centers transitioned from level 2 to level 1 between 2007 and 2016. One was excluded due to missing data. After transition, patient characteristics showed differences in the distribution of race, comorbidities, insurance status, injury severity scores, injury mechanisms, and injury type. After propensity score matching, patients treated in a trauma center after transition from level 2 to 1 required significantly fewer ICU admissions and had lower complication rates. However, significantly more unplanned intubations, unplanned returns to the OR, unplanned ICU transfers, ventilation use, surgical site infections, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections and higher mortality were reported after the transition., Conclusions: Trauma centers that transitioned from level 2 to level 1 had lower overall complications, with fewer patients requiring ICU admission. However, higher mortality and more surgical site infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, unplanned intubations, and unplanned ICU transfers were reported after the transition. These findings may have significant implications in the planning of trauma systems for administrators and healthcare leaders., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: We sought to determine the secondary overtriage rate of pediatric trauma patients admitted to pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that pediatric secondary overtriage (POT) would constitute a large percentage of admissions to PTC., Materials and Methods: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for pediatric (age ≤ 18 y) trauma patients transferred to accredited pediatric trauma centers in Pennsylvania (n = 6). Patients were stratified based on discharge within (early) and beyond (late) 24 h following admission. POT was defined as patients transferred to a PTC with an early discharge. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model controlling for demographic and injury severity covariates were utilized to determine the adjusted impact of injury patterns on early discharge., Results: A total of 37,653 patients met inclusion criteria. For transfers, POT compromised 18,752 (49.8%) patients. Compared to POT, non-POT were more severely injured (ISS: 10 versus 6;P < 0.001) and spent less time in the ED (Min: 181 versus 207;P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, concussion, closed skull vault fractures, supracondylar humerus fractures, and consults to neurosurgery were associated with increased odds of POT. Overall, femur fracture, child abuse evaluation, and consults to plastic surgery, orthopedics, and ophthalmology were all associated with a decreased risk of being POT., Conclusions: POT comprises 49.8% of PTC transfer admissions in Pennsylvania's trauma system. Improving community resources for management of pediatric concussion and mild TBI could result in decreased rates of POT to PTCs. Developing better inter-facility transfer guidelines and increased education of adult TC and nontrauma center hospitals is needed to decrease POT., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic study, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to compare adolescent mortality rates between different types of major trauma centre (MTC or level 1; adult, children's and mixed)., Methods: Data were obtained from TARN (Trauma Audit Research Network) from English sites over a 6-year period (2012-2018), with adolescence defined as 10-24.99 years. Results are presented using descriptive statistics. Patient characteristics were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's post-hoc analysis for pairwise comparison and χ 2 test for categorical variables., Results: 21 033 cases met inclusion criteria. Trauma-related 30-day crude mortality rates by MTC type were 2.5% (children's), 4.4% (mixed) and 4.9% (adult). Logistic regression accounting for injury severity, mechanism of injury, physiological parameters and 'hospital ID', resulted in adjusted odds of mortality of 2.41 (95% CI 1.31 to 4.43; p=0.005) and 1.85 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.35; p=0.041) in adult and mixed MTCs, respectively when compared with children's MTCs. In three subgroup analyses the same trend was noted. In adolescents aged 14-17.99 years old, those managed in a children's MTC had the lowest mortality rate at 2.5%, compared with 4.9% in adult MTCs and 4.4% in mixed MTCs (no statistical difference between children's and mixed). In cases of major trauma (Injury Severity Score >15) the adjusted odds of mortality were also greater in the mixed and adult MTC groups when compared with the children's MTC. Median length of stay (LoS) and intensive care unit LoS were comparable for all MTC types. Patients managed in children's MTCs were less likely to have a CT scan (46.2% vs 62.8% mixed vs 64% adult)., Conclusions: Children's MTC have lower crude and adjusted 30-day mortality rates for adolescent trauma. Further research is required in this field to identify the factors that may have influenced these findings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DR is a member of TARNLet (the Paediatric Working Group on behalf of TARN). OB is employed as a Medical Statistician for TARN., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Acute care surgery (ACS) model of care delivery has many benefits. However, since the ACS surgeon has limited control over the volume, timing, and complexity of cases, traditional metrics of operating room (OR) efficiency almost always measure ACS service as "inefficient." The current study examines an alternative method-performance fronts-of evaluating changes in efficiency and tests the following hypotheses: (1) in an institution with a robust ACS service, performance front methodology is superior to traditional metrics in evaluating OR throughput/efficiency, and (2) introduction of an ACS service with block time allocation will improve OR throughput/efficiency., Methods: Operating room metrics 1-year pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation were collected. Overall OR efficiency was calculated by mean case volumes for the entire OR and ACS and general surgery (GS) services individually. Detailed analysis of these two specific services was performed by gathering median monthly minutes-in block, out of block, after hours, and opportunity unused. The two services were examined using a traditional measure of efficiency and the "fronts" method. Services were compared with each other and also pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation., Results: Overall OR case volumes increased by 5% (999 ± 50 to 1,043 ± 46: p < 0.05) with almost all of the increase coming through ACS (27 ± 4 to 68 ± 16: p < 0.05). By traditional metrics, ACS had significantly worse median efficiency versus GS in both periods: pre (0.67 [0.66-0.71] vs. 0.80 [0.78-0.81]) and post (0.75 [0.53-0.77] vs. 0.83 [0.84-0.85]) (p < 0.05). As compared with the pre, GS efficiency improved significantly in post (p < 0.05), but ACS efficiency remained unchanged (p > 0.05). The alternative fronts chart demonstrated the more accurate picture with improved efficiency observed for GS, ACS, and combined., Conclusion: In an institution with a busy ACS service, the alternative fronts methodology offers a more accurate evaluation of OR efficiency. The provision of an OR for the ACS service improves overall throughput/efficiency., (Copyright © 2021 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Background: The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN)., Methods: Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared., Results: There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding., Conclusion: When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols., Level of Evidence: Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Local trauma care and regional trauma systems are data-rich environments that are amenable to machine learning, artificial intelligence, and big-data analysis mechanisms to improve timely access to care, to measure outcomes, and to improve quality of care. Pilot work has been done to demonstrate that these methods are useful to predict patient flow at individual centers, so that staffing models can be adapted to match workflow. Artificial intelligence has also been proven useful in the development of regional trauma systems as a tool to determine the optimal location of a new trauma center based on trauma-patient geospatial injury data and to minimize response times across the trauma network. Although the utility of artificial intelligence is apparent and proven in small pilot studies, its operationalization across the broader trauma system and trauma surgery space has been slow because of cost, stakeholder buy-in, and lack of expertise or knowledge of its utility. Nevertheless, as new trauma centers or systems are developed, or existing centers are retooled, machine learning and sophisticated analytics are likely to be important components to help facilitate decision-making in a wide range of areas, from determining bedside nursing and provider ratios to determining where to locate new trauma centers or emergency medical services teams., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Burn Association (ABA) has developed comprehensive referral criteria to determine which burn-injured patient should be transferred to burn centers. This was a retrospective analysis of burn injuries using Illinois inpatient and outpatient hospital data from 2010 to 2015. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were developed to evaluate ABA burn center referral criteria adherence and to compare treatment outcomes among those treated in verified burn center (VB), nonverified burn center (NVB), and other facilities (OF). In this study, 66% of those treated in facilities without specialized burn teams met the ABA referral criteria. Patients who were older than the age of 40 years, lived farther from burn units, and were originally treated in level I trauma center without burn units were less likely to be transferred to burn centers. Those transported and treated in burn centers had overall better treatment outcomes including fewer infection complications (VB vs OF: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-0.6; NVB vs OF: aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4-0.6), fewer patients requiring additional care in skilled nursing/rehabilitation facilities (VB vs OF: aOR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4-0.6; NVB vs OF: aOR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.9), shorter length of hospitalization (VB vs OF: β: -0.4, P < .001; NVB vs OF: β: -0.8, P < .001), and comparable in-hospital mortality (VB vs OF: aOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.97-1.7; NVB vs OF: aOR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.7-1.5). While verified and unverified burn centers demonstrated better treatment outcomes, the data demonstrated a need to understand the barriers of adhering to ABA criteria and an improved regional burn center referral guidelines education., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The American College of Surgeons (ACS), Committee on Trauma, trauma center verification process is designed to help hospitals improve trauma care. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic social distancing restrictions, performing virtual site visits was piloted., Objective: The purpose of this article is to describe the first pilot ACS pediatric trauma center virtual reverification visit performed in the United States., Methods: This is a descriptive review of a 2020 pilot virtual Level I pediatric trauma center reverification visit. In-person site visit checklists were altered to adjust to the virtual format. All documents, prereview questionnaire, patient charts, and resource documents were prepared electronically. Collaboration with the departments of information technology, clinical education and informatics, and the general counsel's office prepared the infrastructure to allow reviewers access to protected health information., Results: Multiple hospital departments collaborated to facilitate the transition to an electronic format. Organized virtual meeting room scheduling, communications, and coordination between the ACS staff, the reviewers, and the various hospital departments resulted in a successful virtual visit., Conclusion: Lessons learned and opportunities for improvement were identified for this first-ever pilot virtual pediatric trauma center reverification site visit. Once the information technology logistic questions were answered, allowing reviewers protected health information access, the general program and document preparation for a virtual trauma reverification site visit was similar to an in-person site visit. Although the review day agenda was similar, execution challenges were identified., Competing Interests: The author declares no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Society of Trauma Nurses.)

Background: A comparison of outcomes between Level I (LI) and Level II (LII) Trauma Centers (TCs) performing surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) has not been well described. We sought to compare risk of mortality for patients undergoing SSRF between LI and LII TCs., Methods: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients presenting with rib fracture to LI or LII TCs from 2010 to 2015. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed., Results: 14,046 (7.1%) of 199,020 patients with rib fractures underwent SSRF. SSRF increased from 1304 in 2010 to 3489 in 2015: a geometric mean annual increase of 22%. LI TCs demonstrated a mortality incidence of 1.6% while LII TCs demonstrated a mortality incidence of 1.5% (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in risk of mortality after SSRF between LI and LII TCs (odds ratio 1.12, confidence interval 0.79-1.59, p-value 0.529)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing SSRF at LI and LII TCs have no significant difference in risk of mortality. Additionally, there is an annually growing trend across all centers in SSRF performed both for flail and non-flail segments., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our objective was to examine the construct validity of the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT) and its relationship to traumatic brain injury (TBI) of differing severities. Data were analyzed on 1422 patients with TBI and 170 orthopedic trauma controls (OTC) from the multi-center Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study. Participants were assessed at 6 months post-injury with the BTACT and an in-person neuropsychological battery. We examined the BTACT's factor structure, factorial group invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, and relationship to TBI and TBI severity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported both a 1-factor model and a 2-factor model comprising correlated Episodic Memory and Executive Function (EF) factors. Both models demonstrated strict invariance across TBI severity and OTC groups. Correlations between BTACT and criterion measures suggested that the BTACT memory indices predominantly reflect verbal episodic memory, whereas the BTACT EF factor correlated with a diverse range of cognitive tests. Although the EF factor and other BTACT indices showed significant relationships with TBI and TBI severity, some group effect sizes were larger for more comprehensive in-person cognitive tests than the BTACT. The BTACT is a promising, brief, phone-based cognitive screening tool for patients with TBI. Although the BTACT's memory items appear to index verbal Episodic Memory, items that purport to assess EFs may reflect a broader array of cognitive domains. The sensitivity of the BTACT to TBI severity is lower than domain-specific neuropsychological measures, suggesting it should not be used as a substitute for comprehensive, in-person cognitive testing at 6 months post-TBI.

Accurate prognostication of outcomes following traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects not only the aggressiveness of intervention and therapeutic decision-making but also clinicians' ability to provide reliable expectations. To investigate the relative ability of clinicians to accurately predict a patient's outcomes, compared with point-of-care prognostic models, we surveyed clinical providers of 86 patients with moderate-severe TBI at admission, Day 3, and Day 7 post-injury for a patient's predicted mortality and functional outcome at 6 months. The predicted mortality and functional outcomes were compared with actual occurrence of 14-day mortality and functional outcomes at six months. A prognostic score was then calculated utilizing the Corticoid Randomization After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) and International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) models and categorized as high, intermediate, and low likelihood of mortality or poor functional outcome, and compared with clinical predictions. Overall, clinicians of varying backgrounds showed an accurate prediction of survival (87.2-97.4%) but struggled in prognosticating poor functional outcomes (24.3-36.6%). These values did not statistically improve over 7 days. Stratified CRASH (87.2%) and IMPACT (84.9%) accuracy rates were statistically better than clinical judgment alone in predicting functional outcomes ( p  < 0.0001). Prognostic models calculated at admission showed to be potentially useful, in conjunction with clinical judgment, in accurately predicting both survival and 6-month functional outcomes.

Background: Incidental findings (IFs) are reported in 20% or more of trauma CT scans. In addition to the importance of patient disclosure, there is considerable legal pressure to avoid missed diagnoses. We reported previously that 63.5% of IFs were disclosed before discharge and with 20% were nondisclosed. We initiated a multidisciplinary systemic plan to effect predischarge disclosure by synoptic CT reports with American College of Radiology recommended follow-up, electronic medical records discharge prompts, and provider education., Study Design: Prospective observational series patients from November 2019 to February 2020 were included. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS, version 21 (IBM Corp)., Results: Eight hundred and seventy-seven patients underwent 1 or more CT scans for the evaluation of trauma (507 were male and 370 were female). Mean age of the patients was 57 years (range 14 to 99 years) and 96% had blunt injury. In 315 patients, there were 523 IFs (1.7 per patient); the most common were lung (17.5%), kidney (13%), and liver (11%). Radiology report compliance rate was 84% (210 of 249 patients). There were 66 studies from outside facilities. Sixteen IFs were suspicious for malignancy. A total of 151 patients needed no follow-up and 148 patients needed future follow-up evaluation. Predischarge IF disclosure compliance rate was 90.1% (286 patients); 25 were post discharge. Four patients remained undisclosed. Compared with our previous report, clearer reporting and electronic medical records prompts increased predischarge disclosure from 63.5% to 90.1% (p < 0.01, chi-square test) and decreased days to notification from 29.5 (range 0 to 277) to 5.2 (range 0 to 59) (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test)., Conclusions: Timely, complete disclosure of IFs improves patient outcomes and reduces medicolegal risk. Collaboration among trauma, radiology, and information technology promotes improved disclosure in trauma populations., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)