American College Of Surgeons Committee On Trauma Research Articles

A comparison of the psychometric properties of a person-administered vs. automated screening tool for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in traumatically injured patients

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-CoT) mandated that trauma centers have mental health screening and referral protocols in place by 2023. This study compares the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS) and the Automated Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Screen to assess their performance in predicting risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the same sample of trauma patients to inform trauma centers’ decision when selecting a tool to best fit their current clinical practice. MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies of traumatically injured patients (N = 255). The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves to predict risk of subsequent PTSD development. PTSD diagnosis at 6-month follow-up was assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5. ResultsJust over half the sample screened positive on the ITSS (57.7%), while 67.8% screened positive on the Automated EMR Screen. The area under the curve (AUC) for the two screens was not significantly different (ITSS AUC = 0.745 versus Automated EMR Screen AUC = 0.694, p = 0.21), similar performance in PTSD risk predication within the same general trauma population. The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen had similar sensitivities (86.5%, 89.2%), and specificities (52.5%, 40.9%) respectively at their recommended cut-off points. ConclusionBoth screens are psychometrically comparable. Therefore, trauma centers considering screening tools for PTSD risk to comply with the ACS-CoT 2023 mandate should consider their local resources and patient population. Regardless of screen selection, screening must be accompanied by a referral process to address the identified risk.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma: Clinical protocol for damage-control resuscitation for the adult trauma patient.

Damage-control resuscitation in the care of critically injured trauma patients aims to limit blood loss and prevent and treat coagulopathy by combining early definitive hemorrhage control, hypotensive resuscitation, and early and balanced use of blood products (hemostatic resuscitation) and the use of other hemostatic agents. This clinical protocol has been developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for optimal damage-control resuscitation in the care of trauma patients with hemorrhage.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and alcohol and drug use comorbidity at 25 US level I trauma centers

BackgroundQuestions regarding the extent to which post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is comorbid with alcohol and drug use are particularly germane in an era when the American College of Surgeons Committee...

In-House Attending Trauma Surgeon Does Not Reduce Mortality in Patients Presented to a Level 1 Trauma Center.

Trauma is the leading cause of death in the Western world. Trauma systems have been paramount in opposing this problem. Commonly, Level 1 Trauma Centers are staffed by in-house (IH) attending trauma surgeons available 24/7, whereas other institutions function on an on-call (OC) basis with defined response times. There is on-going debate about the value of an IH attending trauma surgeon compared to OC trauma surgeons regarding clinical outcome. This study was performed at a tertiary care facility complying with all requirements to be a designated Level 1 Trauma Center as defined by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT). Inclusion occurred from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013. Patients were assigned an identifier for IH trauma surgeon attendance versus OC attendance. The primary outcome variable studied was overall mortality in relation to IH or OC attending trauma surgeons. Additionally, time to operating theater, hospital length-of-stay (HLOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admittance were investigated. A total of 1,287 unique trauma cases in 1,285 patients were presented to the trauma team. Of all cases, 712 (55.3%) occurred between 1700h and 0800h. These 712 cases were treated by an IH attending in 66.3% (n = 472) and an OC attending in 33.7% (n = 240). In the group of patients treated by an IH attending trauma surgeon, the overall mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 26); in the group treated by an OC attending, the overall mortality rate was 4.6% (n = 11; P = .599). Cause of death was traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 57.6%. No significant difference was found in the time between initial presentation at the trauma room and arrival in the operating theater. In terms of trauma-related mortality during non-office hours, no benefit was demonstrated through IH trauma surgeons compared to OC trauma surgeons.

A prospective study comparing two methods of pre-hospital triage for trauma

We conducted a prospective study comparing two different pre-hospital triage tools for trauma: the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) field triage decision scheme and the TRENAU score. The main objective was to evaluate which triage tool was more appropriate in the setting of Lombardy's trauma system. Data were collected from the population of trauma patients admitted to Niguarda hospital in Milan from January to June 2021. RStudio and Excel were used for data analysis. For each triage tool performance measures, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves, and overtriage and undertriage rates were obtained. A total of 1439 injured patients admitted through 118 pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were included in the study. The ACS-COT triage tool showed a good accuracy but an excessive overtriage rate (59%). The TRENAU triage tool had a moderately good accuracy and a low overtriage rate (23%) while maintaining an acceptable undertriage rate (3.9%). The TRENAU triage tool proved to be efficient in optimizing the use of resources dedicated to trauma care while resulting safe for the injured patient. In a modern trauma system such as Lombardy's it would be more appropriate to adopt the TRENAU score over the ACS-COT field triage decision scheme.

An Analysis of Trauma Team Activations at a South African Level One Trauma Centre

ABSTRACT Introduction: South Africa has a high prevalence of trauma causing a significant healthcare and financial burden. Various scoring systems have been developed to guide trauma team activation (TTA). To date, however, there are no standardised criteria for TTA. The aim of this preliminary study was to analyse the practice of clinical judgement TTA when compared to the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) TTA guideline and the Loma Linda Rule for TTA. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of trauma registry data over a one-year period from a Level 1 trauma centre in South Africa. Results: There were 9207 trauma patients that presented to the Emergency Department during the 1-year study period. The prevalence of trauma team activation by clinical judgement was 9.4%. Only 407 patients (48%) of the clinical judgement TTAs fulfilled the ACS-COT guidelines for TTA. Using the Loma Linda Rule, 456 patients (53.8%) of the clinical judgement TTAs fulfilled TTA criteria. Despite the over-triage by the clinical judgement TTA, almost two-thirds of the TTA patients were admitted to the intensive care or high care units. Conclusions: This preliminary study showed that TTA using healthcare provider clinical judgement resulted in trauma team over-activation when compared to the ACS-COT guideline and the Loma Linda Rule. Over-activation of the trauma team consumes valuable resources and potentially endangers those patients who actually need TTA and cannot receive it. Implementation of a standardised TTA tool could potentially aid in the optimisation of patient care and appropriate resource utilisation.

Navigating an American College of Surgeons Virtual Verification Review Committee Visit: A Health System Perspective.

Faced with a global pandemic at the beginning of 2020, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) canceled in-person site visits. Late in 2020, the focus shifted to recovery and returning to a "new normal," and the ACS transitioned to virtual visits. This article provides insight from a health system perspective on how we developed a virtual platform, prepared our system and staff, organized our teams, and lessons learned during virtual ACS visits. The Northwell Health Trauma Institute, a member of the largest health system in New York State, oversees seven centers ranging from Level I to Level III, including two pediatric centers. Preparations for virtual visits began with standardizing processes to ensure a smooth transition for our centers. We utilized the ACS virtual agenda as a framework. The methods we used will be divided into categories, including technology, personnel, and preparations. Having multiple sites engage in the virtual visit enabled us to gain insight as we completed each visit. We standardized processes and created a team site for uploading documents. As a result, we established best practices. Shifting focus from an in-person visit to a virtual visit provided us with an opportunity to assess our preparations and to determine the most effective and efficient ways to navigate this new process. Having multiple sites allowed us to critique our process and make changes as we proceeded with subsequent sites.

Catalyzing the Translation of Patient-Centered Research Into United States Trauma Care Systems: A Case Example.

Background:The expedient translation of research findings into sustainable intervention procedures is a longstanding health care system priority. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has facilitated the development of “research done differently,” with a central tenet that key stakeholders can be productively engaged throughout the research process. Literature review revealed few examples of whether, as originally posited, PCORI’s innovative stakeholder-driven approach could catalyze the expedient translation of research results into practice.Objectives:This narrative review traces the historical development of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS/COT) policy guidance, facilitated by evidence supplied by the PCORI-funded studies evaluating the delivery of patient-centered care transitions. Key elements catalyzing the guidance are reviewed, including the sustained engagement of ACS/COT policy stakeholders who have the capacity to invoke system-level implementation strategies, such as regulatory mandates linked to verification site visits. Other key elements, including the encouragement of patient stakeholder voice in policy decisions and the incorporation of end-of-study policy summits in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial design, are discussed.Conclusions:Informed by comparative effectiveness trials, ACS/COT policy has expedited introduction of the patient-centered care construct into US trauma care systems. A comparative health care systems conceptual framework for transitional care which incorporates Research Lifecycle, pragmatic clinical trial and implementation science models is articulated. When combined with Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE), employed as a targeted implementation strategy, this approach may accelerate the sustainable delivery of high-quality patient-centered care transitions for US trauma care systems.

Trauma outcomes for blunt and penetrating injuries by mode of transportation and day/night shift

Effective management of trauma patients is dependent on pre-hospital triage systems and proper in-hospital treatment regardless of time of admission. We aim to investigate any differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between day vs. night arrival for adult trauma patients who were transported to the hospital via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and to determine if care/outcomes are inferior when admitted during the night shift as compared to the day shift. Retrospective cohort analysis of adult blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring full team trauma activation at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT)-verified Level 1 trauma center from 2011 to 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square analyses, independent-sample t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests were performed. Primary measurement outcome was adjusted observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios utilizing TRISS methodology. 8370 patients with blunt injuries and 1216 patients with penetrating injuries were analyzed. There were no significant differences in day vs. night O/Es overall (blunt 0.65 vs. 0.59; p = 0.46) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.87; p = 0.97). There also were no significant differences when stratified by GEMS (blunt 0.64 vs. 0.55; p = 0.08) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 1.10; p = 0.09) and HEMS admissions (blunt 0.76 vs. 0.75; p = 0.91) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.91; p = 0.85). At an ACSCOT-verified Level 1 Trauma Center, care/outcomes of patients admitted during the night shift were not inferior to those admitted during the day shift. Trauma Center verification by the ACSCOT and multidisciplinary collaboration may allow for consistent care despite injury type and time of day.

The Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Undergoing Interfacility Transfer

Previous literature demonstrates increased mortality for traumatic brain injury (TBI) with transfer to a Level II versus Level I trauma center. Our objective was to determine the effect of the most recent American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) "Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient" resources manual ("The Orange Book") on outcomes after severe TBI after interfacility transfer to Level I versus Level II center. Utilizing the Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons admission year 2017, we identified patients with isolated TBI undergoing interfacility transfer to either Level I or Level II trauma center. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations with mortality. There were 10,268 (71.6%) transferred to a Level I center and 4,025 (28.4%) were transferred to a Level II center. They were mostly male (61.4%) with a mean±SD age of 61±20.8years. Mean Injury Severity Score was 16.3±6.3 and most were injured in a single-level fall (51.5%). Patients transferred to a Level I center were less likely to be White (82.3% vs. 84.7%, 0.002) and more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (2.7% vs. 1.6%, <0.001). The incidence of severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS]= 3-8) was similar (9.3% vs. 8.3%, 0.068). On logistic regression, severity of TBI predicted death; however, there was no difference in adjusted mortality outcome with admission to a Level II versus a Level I center (0.998 [0.836-1.192], 0.985). There is no mortality discrepancy in patients with isolated TBI transferred to a Level II versus Level I center despite previous contrary evidence and thus no reason to bypass a Level II in favor of a Level I. This relative improvement potentially relates to the new requirements as defined in the latest version of the ACS-COT's resources manual.

Ketamine Use in Prehospital and Hospital Treatment of the Acute Trauma Patient: A Joint Position Statement

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) and the National Association of EMTs (NAEMT) have previously offered varied guidance on the use of ketamine in trauma patients. The following consensus statement represents the collective positions of the ACS-COT, ACEP, NASEMSO, NAEMSP and NAEMT. This updated uniform guidance is intended for use by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, EMS medical directors, emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, nurses and pharmacists in their treatment of the trauma patient in both the prehospital and hospital setting.

Modified Need for Trauma Intervention Criteria Reduces Cribari Trauma Overtriage Rate.

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-CoT) sets standards for appropriate trauma activation criteria. Overtriage and undertriage rates are traditionally determined by the Cribari matrix using the Injury Severity Score (ISS). In 2016, the Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI) criteria were developed by Baylor University Medical Center to overcome weaknesses in the Cribari matrix methodology. A retrospective review of trauma triage rates was conducted from March 2018 to February 2019. Overtriage rates were calculated using the Cribari matrix and then further evaluated using modified NFTI (MNFTI) criteria. Overtriaged patients meeting MNFTI criteria were considered appropriately triaged and deleted from the overtriage category, and adjusted triage rates were determined. Demographic, injury, and outcome data were compared between MNFTI-positive and MNFTI-negative groups. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess for predictors of patient mortality. Using the Cribari matrix, 248 patients were identified as overtriaged. Of these, 133 (53.6%) were found to meet MNFTI criteria. The average monthly overtriage rate was reduced from 55% using the Cribari matrix to 26% after applying the MNFTI criteria. Within the Cribari overtriage patient group, MNFTI-positive patients had significantly longer hospital length of stay (LOS) (3.7 vs. 6.0 days, p = .016), intensive care unit LOS (1.2 vs. 4.2 days, p < .001), and ventilator days (0.6 vs. 1.6 days, p = .002) than MNFTI-negative patients. A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that meeting any of the MNFTI criteria significantly increased the odds of mortality (OR = 10.38; 95% CI [3.87, 27.84], p < .001). Discharge ISS may not accurately reflect the patient's acuity on presentation. Applying MNFTI criteria to the Cribari matrix improved overtriage rates and may more accurately reflect need for full trauma team activation. Patients meeting MNFTI criteria had worse outcomes overall and had a 10-fold increase in the odds of mortality.

Domestic Violence and Safe Storage of Firearms in the COVID-19 Era.

Domestic Violence and Safe Storage of Firearms in the COVID-19 Era.

Increasing the Effectiveness of “Stop the Bleed” Training Through Stepwise Mastery Learning with Deliberate Practice

The Stop the Bleed (STB) Campaign supported by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCT) and numerous other national organizations aspires to translate lifesaving military successes into reductions in civilian hemorrhagic deaths. While a curricular framework has been described, precise approaches to hands-on training are not specified and training success rates are not yet optimized. Our aim was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of an STB program enhanced by stepwise mastery learning with deliberate practice. Learners participated in an STB program combining evidence-based training models: the Peyton 4-stage model and simulation-based mastery learning with deliberate practice. ASCTC-certified STB coaches used a 3-point, behaviorally explicit checklist to test 4 skills: apply direct pressure; apply standard and improvised tourniquets; pack a wound. An anonymous questionnaire was administered. Simulation Center, Emory University School of Medicine. College students (N = 30) with no previous trauma training. 100% of participants reached mastery level for all 4 hemorrhage control skills within 4 tries. Additionally, 87% could state a definitive sign of life-threatening bleeding. 76% predicted comfort using a tourniquet in a real-life emergency; among 6 who would be very uncomfortable, 5 nonetheless would definitely recommend the course. We demonstrate feasibility and increased effectiveness of an STB course using evidence-based procedural training techniques. Adopting these techniques in current STB programs could close the current trainee performance gap and substantially increase the annual number of successfully trained laypersons over current reported levels with no increase required in enrollees, programs, or resources. Future studies should address the challenges of knowledge retention and skill decay, just-in-time innovations, implementation science methods to broaden access, and barriers to responding to real-life crisis events. Surgery education leaders can close performance gaps and make a unique contribution to the Hartford Consensus principle: No one should die from uncontrolled bleeding.

Abstract No. 637 Implementation of American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma guidelines for interventional radiology: a retrospective review of prospective data compared with historic cohort

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) recommends that an interventional radiologist (IR) be available within 30 minutes to perform procedures in all designated Level 1 and Level 2 trauma centers but does not require an in-house IR service. Several studies have observed that delays in IR response times are linked to poor patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall feasability and patient outcomes associated with a prospective continuous quality improvement (QI) process that was enacted to meet the ACS-COT criterion for angioembolization. A QI process was established at our institution to increase compliance with the ACS-COT criterion by establishing clearly defined indications for IR trauma activation. In addition, a simplified, reproducible and measurable workflow for electronic recording of response times was adopted. We reviewed 110 acute trauma patients for whom Level 1 activation for angioembolization was initiated between April 2015 and March 2019. The prospective cohort (n = 58) was collected after QI changes were enacted in April 2017. The prospective and retrospective cohorts were comparable with no statistical difference in demographic data, ISS scores and anatomical location of bleeding (pelvic vs. non-pelvic vascular). Median IR response time in the prospective group was 28.5 minutes (IQR 15,41), and 40/58 (69%) were compliant with the ACS-COT criteria of being available to perform procedure within 30 minutes. Median activation to procedure start time was 72 minutes in the prospective group and 183 minutes in the retrospective (P <0.001). In the prospective group, 40/58 patients (69%) underwent an embolization procedure, while in the retrospective group, 23/52 (44.2%) underwent an embolization procedure (P = 0.007). No significant difference was observed in the mortality rates or the hospital length of stay between the two groups. It is possible to meet the ACS-COT criteria for IR responses by establishing strict resource utilization parameters.

Analysis of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) Approved Pilot Project: Increasing Provider Communication During Interhospital Transfer.

Analysis of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) Approved Pilot Project: Increasing Provider Communication During Interhospital Transfer.

Analysis of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) Approved Pilot Project: Increasing Provider Communication During Interhospital Transfer.

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma requires physician-to-physician communication prior to interhospital transfer. This requirement can be difficult to achieve in high-volume trauma centers. This pilot project utilizes trauma advanced practice providers (APPs) as the primary communicator, in lieu of the trauma surgeon, prior to interhospital transfer. The hypothesis suggests that APPs can provide safe recommendations and accurately triage patients for the highest level trauma alert. From January to April 2018, a total of 1,145 patients were transferred to a Level I or Level II trauma center. All interhospital trauma transfers were dispatched through a designated transfer center APP (TCAPP). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency of core TCAPP recommendations, including reversal agents for anticoagulants, antibiotics for open fractures, direct admission criteria, administration of blood products, and triaging to the highest level of trauma activation. TCAPP triage accuracy was analyzed and reported as percentages. Percentages are compared between independent groups using a chi-square test. Prior to implementation of the TCAPP role, provider-to-provider communication occurred in less than 1% of interhospital transfers; TCAPP-to-provider communication occurred 92% of the time (p < .001). During the study period, the TCAPP made 398 care-related recommendations. Three (<1%) TCAPP recommendations were deemed inappropriate. The TCAPP (89.7%) and physician (89.9%) triage accuracy was not significantly different (p = .43). Interhospital transfer communication and recommendations can be performed safely and accurately by a trauma trained APP.

The impact of level of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification and state designation status on trauma center outcomes.

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma (COT) verification and State designation of trauma centers (TCs) into Level 1 or 2 establishes a distinction based on resources, trauma volume, and educational commitment. The ACS COT and individual states each verify TCs to differentiate performance levels. We aim to determine the relationship between ACS and State Level 1 versus 2, and injury-adjusted, all-cause mortality in a national sampling.TCs were identified by review of the National Sample Program (NSP) from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB)—the largest validated trauma database in the nation—of the year 2013. TCs were categorized by ACS or State Level 1 or 2 status, all others were excluded. Adjusted mortality was determined using observed/expected mortality (O/E) ratios, derived by trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) methodology. Chi-squared and t test analyses were used for categorical variables, with a statistical significance defined as P-value <.05.Of the 94 TCs in the NSP, 67 had ACS and 80 had State designations. There were 38 ACS Level 1 TCs and 29 ACS Level 2. For State designations, there were 45 as State Level 1 and 35 State Level 2. ACS Level 1 TCs had a similar O/E compared with ACS Level 2 verified centers (0.73 vs 0.75, chi-square, P = .36). Level 1 TCs designated by their state, had a similar O/E compared with State Level 2 centers (0.70 vs 0.74, chi-square, P = .08).Both ACS and State Level 1 and 2 trauma centers performed similarly on injury adjusted, all-cause mortality.

Evaluation and Comparison of Different Prehospital Triage Scores of Trauma Patients on In-Hospital Mortality

Introduction: Several prehospital major trauma patient triage scores have been developed, the triage revised trauma score (T-RTS), Vittel criteria, Mechanism/Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Systolic blood pressure score (MGAP), and the new trauma score (NTS). These scoring schemes allow a rapid and accurate prognostic assessment of the severity of potential lesions. The aim of our study was to compare these scores with in-hospital mortality predictions in a cohort of consecutive trauma patients admitted in a Level 1 trauma center. Materials: Between 2013 and 2016, 1,112 patients were admitted to the "major trauma" spinneret of a Level 1 trauma center in the south of France. All prehospital data needed to calculate the T-RTS, Vittel criteria, the MGAP score, and the NTS were collected. The main evaluation criterion was in-hospital mortality at 30 days for all causes. The predictive performances of these scores were evaluated and compared with each other using the analysis of the receiver operating curves. Results: A total of 1,001 patients were included in the analysis, 238 (24%) females, aged 43 ± 19 years with ISS 15 ± 13. The area under the curve was for each score: T-RTS, AUC = 0.84, [0.82–0.87]; Vittel criteria, AUC = 0.87 [0.85–0.89]; MGAP score, AUC = 0.91 [0.89–0.92] and NTS, AUC = 0.90 [0.88–0.92]. By comparing the ROC curves of these scores, the MGAP and NTS scores were statistically higher than the T-RTS. With the current thresholds, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these scores were 91%, 35%, 10%, 98% for T-RTS, 100%, 2%, 8%, 100% for Vittel criteria, 91%, 71%, 24%, 99% for MGAP score, 82%, 86%, 33%, 98% for NTS. Only Vittel's criteria allowed undertriage below 5% as recommended by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT). Conclusion: The comparison of these different triage scores concluded with a superiority of the MGAP and NTS scores compared with the T-RTS. Including the calculation of MGAP or NTS scores with the Vittel criteria would reduce the risk of overtriage in the Level 1 trauma centers by further directing patients at low risk of death to a lower-level trauma facility.

Evaluation of RFID Technology to Capture Surgeon Arrival Time to Meet American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Verification Guidelines

Background The presence of an attending surgeon at all highest-level trauma activations is a requirement for American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) verification for level I to III trauma centers. Programs must demonstrate compliance with this criterion at least 80% of the time. Documentation of compliance can increase administrative burden presenting an opportunity for automation. Objectives The aim of this quality improvement project was to compare surgeon arrival documentation rates obtained utilizing radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology with manual documentation. Methods This project was conducted at a single level-I trauma center. RFID badges were distributed to all trauma surgeons. Arrival times for surgeons using manual nursing documentation and RFID activation were collected from October 2017 through March 2018. Presence of appropriate documentation and attending arrival within 15 minutes of trauma activation were compared by documentation method: nursing manual documentation or RFID system. Results There were 98 code trauma activations included in the analysis over the 6-month period. Nursing documentation of trauma surgeon attendance occurred 83% of the time (n = 81), with 81% (n = 79) in compliance within 15 minutes of code trauma activation. RFID badges were activated 91% (n = 89) of the time, with 86% (n = 84) in compliance within 15 minutes. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of nursing documentation and RFID badge activation. Conclusion RFID technology is a reliable, complementary method of documenting compliance for trauma surgeon attendance. Trauma centers searching for technological solutions to address compliance with ACS-COT guidelines and to reduce administrative burden may consider the use of RFID technology.