Care Of Trauma Patients Research Articles

Hand Trauma Network in the United States: ASSH Member Perspective Over the Last Decade

Upper extremity trauma is common, however the provision of emergency call for hand trauma can be challenging for hospital systems and hand surgeons. Over the past decade, the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) has developed the Hand Trauma Network and an Emergency Hand Care Committee to refine care for hand trauma patients. The ASSH administered surveys to members about the provision of emergency hand call in 2010 and 2019. Demographic information was collected including surgeon age, years in practice, board certification, practice setting, and ACS trauma level. Other survey questions included willingness and obligation to take call, as well as barriers to providing emergency call. Financial aspects of call were also queried. Survey responses were obtained from 672 surgeons in 2010 and 1005 surgeons in 2019. There was a decrease in surgeons with obligatory hand call from 2010 to 2019 (70% vs 50%, P < .05) and an increase in the number of surgeons not taking hand call in 2019 (34%) compared to 2010 (18%, P < .05). In both surveys, the main barrier for providing hand call was "lifestyle considerations," 39% (2010) and 47% (2019). There was no change in the percentage of surgeons working at facilities that provide 24/7 emergency hand call services or the percentage of hand surgeons paid to take call. Certain aspects of providing emergency hand surgery care have not changed substantially in the past decade, including the number of centers that provide emergency hand coverage. A greater number of surgeons are not taking any hand call. Further efforts are required to promulgate advances in hand trauma call by the ASSH. The development of the ASSH Hand Trauma Network has not yet resulted insubstantive improvement in the number of facilities that provide emergency hand coverageor the number of hand surgeons providing emergency hand care.

738 Missed Injuries in Trauma Patients Attending a London Trauma Centre

Abstract Introduction Patients attending following trauma present a diagnostic challenge. Missed injuries may lead to increased morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. We reviewed the incidence of and contributing factors to missed injuries in trauma patients attending a London Trauma Centre. Method The records of all trauma patients admitted to a London Trauma Centre during September 2019 were studied to determine the extent and type of missed injuries. Missed injuries were classified as: Type 1 – missed during initial management (on primary and secondary survey) or Type 2 – missed on primary, secondary, and tertiary survey, but detected prior to discharge. Results Forty-two (42.4%) of 99 patients (24 Female, 75 Male) had 63 missed injuries (an average of 1.5 missed injuries per patient). Thirty-seven type 1 missed injuries occurred (5 fractures, 28 soft tissue injuries, 4 neurological injuries). Twenty-six type 2 missed injuries occurred (13 fractures, 7 soft tissue injuries, 3 neurological injuries and 3 visceral injuries). Conclusions Significant injuries can be missed despite primary, secondary, and tertiary surveys in trauma patients. Clinicians involved in the care of trauma patients should therefore remain alert to evolving/new injuries throughout hospital admission.

Trauma Tertiary Survey: Trauma Service Medical Officers and Trauma Nurses Detect Similar Rates of Missed Injuries.

Trauma tertiary surveys (TTSs) can improve patient outcomes by identifying missed injuries following initial trauma reception and resuscitation. Most TTSs are conducted by medical officers despite the multidisciplinary team approach of modern trauma care. The study aim was to assess the accuracy of detecting missed injuries when the TTS was performed by specialist trauma nursing staff, rather than trauma service medical officers (TSMOs). A prospective, convenience sample of adult trauma patients admitted to a tertiary trauma center and attended by the trauma service between October 2015 and August 2018 was obtained. For this sample, a TTS was completed by both the TSMO and the trauma nurse (TN). The number of radiological investigations ordered and missed injuries identified were compared between the two clinicians. Additional injuries were graded using the Clavien-Dindo system. The study sample consisted of 165 patients with a dual TTS, for which at least one team member requested 35 additional radiological investigations. There was fair agreement (κ = 0.36) between the TN and the TSMO in requesting additional radiological investigations. Ten missed injuries were identified by TN-initiated review (n = 24), and 4 missed injuries were identified by TSMO-initiated review (n = 21). Injuries identified following TTSs ranged in severity grading from 0 to 3. Performance of the TN on the TTS in the identification of missed injuries is similar to that of the TSMO. Trauma nurses use an appropriate and rationalized approach to ordering additional radiological investigations and contribute a valuable addition to trauma patient care.

An Analysis of Patients Dead on Arrival in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File Data Set.

Trauma patient care begins on-scene as field triage and mode of transportation are determinants of patient outcomes. This study evaluates the US national patterns of dead on arrival (DOA) among the trauma population. A cross-sectional review of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File (TQP-PUF) data set (2013-2017) was performed. Trauma patients reported as DOA were stratified by ISS into low (<15), intermediate (15-24), or high (≥25) severity. Each group was then subdivided by patient demographics, mechanism, type of injury, and mode of transportation. Of the 4336816 injury cases in the TQP-PUF data set, 33199 were DOA (.77%). 77.1% (25604/33199) of DOAs were male. In the low-ISS group, .36% (13272/3639811) were DOA; in the intermediate-ISS group, 1.2% (4868/421994) were DOA; and in the high-ISS group, 5.5% (15059/275011) were DOA. Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) (11262) and firearms (8894) were the most common injury types, equating to 60.7% of DOAs. Falls accounted for 9.1% of all DOAs. The most common DOA age-group was 18-64 years, followed by ≥65years. DOA trauma patients are predominately adult men suffering fatal blunt force injuries most frequently via MVC. DOAs are caused by all ranges of injury severity. We recommend further development of prevention programs thereby reducing the prevalence of common traumatic injuries, notably MVC, falls, and firearms to improve survival. Future studies should also investigate the access to and distribution of trauma centers and the role of helicopter, ground, and police transport modalities and transport time on and reducing DOAs and improving trauma patient outcomes.

Effects of the first lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trauma surgery clinic of a German Level I Trauma Center

PurposeThe effects of the first pandemic wave on a German Level I Trauma Center should be evaluated to find ways to redistribute structural, personnel, and financial resources in a targeted manner in preparation for the assumed second pandemic wave.MethodsWe examined the repercussions of the first wave of the pandemic on the trauma surgery clinic of a Level I Trauma Center and compared the data with data from 58 other trauma clinics. The results could aid in orientating the distribution of structural, financial, and human resources (HR) during the second wave. The period between March 16 and April 30, 2020 was compared with the data over the same period during 2019. Information was collected from the HR department, central revenue management, and internal documentation.ResultsThe proportion of trauma surgical patients in the emergency room decreased by 22%. The number of polytrauma cases increased by 53%. Hospital days of trauma surgery patients in the intensive and intermediate care wards increased by 90%. The number of operations decreased by 15%, although the operating time outside of normal working hours increased by 44%. Clinics with more than 600 beds recorded a decrease in cases and emergencies by 8 and 9%, respectively, while the Trauma Center showed an increase of 19 and 12%. The results reflect the importance of level I trauma centers in the lockdown phase.ConclusionTo reduce the risk of an increased burden on the healthcare infrastructure, it suggests the care of trauma and COVID-19 patients should be separated locally, when possible.

Comparison of Geriatric Versus Non-geriatric Trauma Patients With Palliative Care Consultations

BackgroundPalliative care in trauma patients is still evolving. The goal was to compare characteristics, outcomes, triggers and timing for palliative care consultations (PCC) in geriatric (≥65 y.o.) and non-geriatric trauma patients. Materials and methodsRetrospective study included 432 patients from two level 1 trauma centers who received PCC between December 2012 and January 2019. Non-geriatric (n = 61) and geriatric (n = 371) groups were compared for: mechanism of injury (MOI), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders, futile interventions (FI), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), ICU admissions, ICU and hospital lengths of stay (ICULOS; HLOS), timing to PCC, and mortality. Further propensity matching (PM) analysis compared 59 non-geriatric to 59 Geriatric patients matched by ISS, GCS, and DNR. ResultsGeriatric patients were older (85.2 versus 49.7), with falls as predominant MOI. Non-geriatric patients comprised 14.1% of all patients with PCC and were more severely injured than Geriatrics: with statistically higher ISS (24.1 versus 18.5), lower RTS (5.4 versus 7.0), GCS (7.1 versus 11.5), with predominant MOI being traffic accidents, all P < 0.01. Non-Geriatrics had more ICU admissions (96.7% versus 88.1%), longer ICULOS (10.2 versus 4.7 days), DMV (11.1 versus 4.1 days), less DNR (57.4% versus 73.9%), higher in-hospital mortality (12.5% versus 2.6%), but double the time admission-PCC (11.3 versus 4.3 days) compared to Geriatrics, all P < 0.04. In PM comparison, despite same injury severity, Non-geriatrics had triple the time to PCC, five times the HLOS of geriatrics, and more FI (25.4% versus 3.4%), all P < 0.001. ConclusionsPCC remains underutilized in non-geriatric trauma patients. Despite higher injury severity, non-geriatrics received more aggressive treatment, and had three times longer time to PCC, resulting in higher rate of FI than in Geriatrics.

A trauma patient care simulation using extended reality technology in the hybrid emergency room system.

V.

Age-Dependent Patient and Trauma Characteristics and Hospital Resource Requirements-Can Improvement Be Made? An Analysis from the German Trauma Registry.

Background and objectives: The burden of geriatric trauma patients continues to rise in Western society. Injury patterns and outcomes differ from those seen in younger adults. Getting a better understanding of these differences helps medical staff to provide a better care for the elderly. The aim of this study was to determine epidemiological differences between geriatric trauma patients and their younger counterparts. To do so, we used data of polytraumatized patients from the TraumaRegister DGU®. Materials and Methods: All adult patients that were admitted between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 were included from the TraumaRegister DGU®. Patients aged 55 and above were defined as the elderly patient group. Patients aged 18–54 were included as control group. Patient and trauma characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome were compared between groups. Results: A total of 114,169 severely injured trauma patients were included, of whom 55,404 were considered as elderly patients and 58,765 younger patients were selected for group 2. Older patients were more likely to be admitted to a Level II or III trauma center. Older age was associated with a higher occurrence of low energy trauma and isolated traumatic brain injury. More restricted utilization of CT-imaging at admission was observed in older patients. While the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) throughout the age groups stayed consistent, mortality rates increased with age: the overall mortality in young trauma patients was 7.0%, and a mortality rate of 40.2% was found in patients >90 years of age. Conclusions: This study shows that geriatric trauma patients are more frequently injured due to low energy trauma, and more often diagnosed with isolated craniocerebral injuries than younger patients. Furthermore, utilization of diagnostic tools as well as outcome differ between both groups. Given the aging society in Western Europe, upcoming studies should focus on the right application of resources and optimizing trauma care for the geriatric trauma patient.

Impact of the SARS-COV-2 outbreak on epidemiology and management of major traumain France: a registry-based study (the COVITRAUMA study)

BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests that the reallocation of health care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts health care system. This study describes the epidemiology and the outcome of major trauma patients admitted to centers in France during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodsThis retrospective observational study included all consecutive trauma patients aged 15 years and older admitted into 15 centers contributing to the TraumaBase® registry during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France. This COVID-19 trauma cohort was compared to historical cohorts (2017–2019).ResultsOver a 4 years-study period, 5762 patients were admitted between the first week of February and mid-June. This cohort was split between patients admitted during the first 2020 pandemic wave in France (pandemic period, 1314 patients) and those admitted during the corresponding period in the three previous years (2017–2019, 4448 patients). Trauma patient demographics changed substantially during the pandemic especially during the lockdown period, with an observed reduction in both the absolute numbers and proportion exposed to road traffic accidents and subsequently admitted to traumacenters (348 annually 2017–2019 [55.4% of trauma admissions] vs 143 [36.8%] in 2020 p < 0.005). The in-hospital observed mortality and predicted mortality during the pandemic period were not different compared to the non-pandemic years.ConclusionsDuring this first wave of COVID-19 in France, and more specifically during lockdown there was a significant reduction of patients admitted to designated trauma centers. Despite the reallocation and reorganization of medical resources this reduction prevented the saturation of the trauma rescue chain and has allowed maintaining a high quality of care for trauma patients.

New Horizons in Understanding Appropriate Prehospital Identification and Trauma Triage for Older Adults.

Caring for older people is an important part of prehospital practice, including appropriate triage and transportation decisions. However, prehospital triage criteria are designed to predominantly assess injury severity or high-energy mechanism which is not the case for older people who often have injuries compounded by multimorbidity and frailty. This has led to high rates of under-triage in this population. This narrative review aimed to assess aspects other than triage criteria to better understand and improve prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. This includes integrating frailty assessment in prehospital trauma triage, which was shown to predict adverse outcomes for older trauma patients. Furthermore, determining appropriate outcome measures and the benefits of Major Trauma Centers (MTCs) for older trauma patients should be considered in order to direct accurate and more beneficial prehospital trauma triage decisions. It is still not clear what are the appropriate outcome measures that should be applied when caring for older trauma patients. There is also no strong consensus about the benefits of MTC access for older trauma patients with regards to survival, in-hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, and complications. Moreover, looking into factors other than triage criteria such as distance to MTCs, patient or relative choice, training, unfamiliarity with protocols, and possible ageism, which were shown to impact prehospital triage decisions but their impact on outcomes has not been investigated yet, should be more actively assessed and investigated for this population. Therefore, this paper aimed to discuss the available evidence around frailty assessment in prehospital care, appropriate outcome measures for older trauma patients, the benefits of MTC access for older patients, and factors other than triage criteria that could adversely impact accurate prehospital triage decisions for older trauma patients. It also provided several suggestions for the future.

Exploring the utility of a novel point‐of‐care whole blood thrombin generation assay following trauma: A pilot study

IntroductionPlasma thrombin generation kinetics as measured by the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) assay is a predictor of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after trauma. We hypothesized that data from a new prototype assay for measurement of thrombin generation kinetics in fresh whole blood (near patient testing of thrombin generation), will correlate with the standard CAT assay in the same patients, making it a potential tool in the future care of trauma patients. MethodsPatients were enrolled from June 2018 to February 2020. Within 12 hours of injury, blood samples were collected simultaneously for both assays. Variables compared and correlated between assays were lag time, peak height, time to peak, and endogenous thrombin potential. Data are presented as median with interquartile range (IQR). Spearman and Pearson correlations were estimated and tested between both assays; a P value of <0.05 was considered to be significant. ResultsA total of 64 trauma patients had samples analyzed: injury severity score = 17 (IQR), 10‐26], hospital length of stay = 7.5 (IQR), 2‐18) days, age = 52 (IQR, 35‐63) years, 71.9% male, and 42.2% of patients received a transfusion within 24 hours of injury. Thrombin generation parameters between plasma and whole blood were compared and found that all parameters of the two assays correlate in trauma patients. ConclusionIn this pilot study, we have found that a novel point‐of‐care whole blood thrombin generation assay yields results with modest but statistically significant correlations to those of a standard plasma thrombin generation assay. This finding supports studying this device in a larger, adequately powered study.

Orthopaedic assessment unit: a service model for the delivery of orthopaedic trauma care in a major trauma centre during the global pandemic (COVID-19).

We describe a new service model, the Orthopaedic Assessment Unit (OAU), designed to provide care for trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients without COVID-19 symptoms and isolated musculoskeletal injuries were redirected to the OAU. We prospectively reviewed patients throughput during the peak of the global pandemic (7 May 2020 to 7 June 2020) and compared with our historic service provision (7 May 2019 to 7 June 2019). The Mann-Whitney and Fisher Exact tests were used to test the statistical significance of data. A total of 1,147 patients were seen, with peak attendances between 11am and 2pm; 96% of all referrals were seen within 4h. The majority of patients were seen by orthopaedic registrars (52%) and nurse practitioners (44%). The majority of patients suffered from sprains and strains (39%), followed by fractures (22%) and wounds (20%); 73% of patients were discharged on the same day, 15% given follow up, 8% underwent surgery and 3% were admitted but did not undergo surgery. Our volume of trauma admissions and theatre cases decreased by 22% and 17%, respectively (p=0.058; 0.139). There was a significant reduction of virtual fracture clinic referrals after reconfiguration of services (p<0.001). Rapid implementation of a specialist OAU during a pandemic can provide early definitive trauma care while exceeding national waiting time standards. The fall in trauma attendances was lower than anticipated. The retention of orthopaedic staff in the department to staff the unit and maintain a high standard of care is imperative.

Using the Palliative Performance Scale as a Trigger to Increase Goals-of-Care Conversations in Elderly Trauma Patients (F425B)

1.Discuss the utility of using the Palliative Performance Scale to increase goals of care conversations in elderly trauma patients.2.Discuss how a low palliative performance scale can be used to increase goals of care conversations. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) guidelines recommend all trauma patients receive palliative care assessment within 24 hours of admission. Those identified with a life-threatening or disabling injury, severe co-morbidities or frailty should have goals of care conversation (GOCC) within 72 hours. We previously showed that pre-injury Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) <80 predicts long-term mortality and poor function in older trauma patients. We hypothesized that PPS <80 would be an excellent trigger for GOCC, to improve quality of care for older trauma patients. Increase GOCC for older trauma patients. Our quality improvement plan for patients >55 years included a standard pathway with PPS assessment and documentation. PPS <80 triggered a GOCC by trauma or palliative care team. Additional GOCC/palliative care consults for patients with high PPS were at the discretion of the trauma team. After 6 months, we analyzed the rate and timing of GOCC stratified by Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) and compared to baseline cohort. During the 6-month period 147/172 (85%) of the cohort had a documented PPS; 42 (24%) had PPS <80. Of these 39/42 (93%) had a GOCC, compared to 38% at baseline. Eleven patients died, 91% had GOCC. Almost one half (48%) of cohort were discharged alive with a poor functional outcome (GOSE 2-4), and 56% had a GOCC. Compared to baseline, this represents a 25% increase. There was no change in timing of GOCC, 55% vs 65% occurred within 72 hours of admission. PPS <80 is a feasible and effective trigger for GOCC in older trauma patients, especially for those with poor functional outcomes. This quick screening tool is easily learned and can be integrated into routine trauma care to improve palliative care.

Implications of positive urine toxicology screening in trauma patients.

Pain management in trauma patients can be difficult due to their varied injuries and presence or absence of illicit substances in their systems. Additionally, trauma patients have variable lengths of stay. Limiting length of stay to what is medically necessary and preventing long-term dependence on narcotic medications are important in trauma patient care. We performed a retrospective review of 385 consecutive trauma activations at a Level II trauma center with urine toxicology screens from 2015. Main outcome measures recorded were urine toxicology results, average daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME), length of stay (LOS), injury severity score (ISS). We also recorded patient demographic information. Statistical analysis compared outcomes and demographics between trauma patients with positive urine toxicology screens to those with negative screens. Significance was set at p<0.05. Positive urine toxicology screens were present in 230/385 (59.7%) patients. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) daily MME usage in the positive urine toxicology group was 25.2 (12.0-48.6) versus 12.4 (2.5-27.5) for those with a negative drug screen (p < 0.001). Median LOS was 3 (1-6) days versus 2 (1-4) days for the positive and negative groups, respectively (p=0.004). There were no differences in age, gender distribution, or ISS between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed urine toxicology positive for opiates, benzodiazepines, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were associated with increased daily MME. Benzodiazepines and amphetamines were associated with increased LOS. This study identifies a positive toxicology screening as a risk factor for increased narcotic demands and longer length of stay in trauma patients. These findings may assist in developing treatment plans and setting expectations in this population. This information can also lead to proactive interventions aimed at minimizing narcotic use and shortening LOS in this population.

The Effect of Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Use in Trauma Patients on Mortality and Length of Stay.

Though many trauma patients are on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy (AAT), there are few generalizable data on the risks for these patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy on mortality and length of stay (LOS) in general trauma patients. A retrospective review was performed of patients in the institutional trauma registry during 2019 to determine AAT use on admission and discharge. Outcomes were compared using standard statistics. Of 2261 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 2 were excluded due to an incomplete medication reconciliation, resulting in 2259 patients. Patients on AAT had a higher mortality (4.5% vs 2.1%). On multivariable analysis, preadmission AC (odds ratio OR, 3.325, P = .001), age (OR 1.040, P < .001), and injury severity score ((ISS) 1.094, P < .001) were associated with mortality. Anticoagulation use was also associated with longer LOS on multivariable analysis (OR: 1.626, P = .005). Antiplatelet use was not associated with higher mortality or longer LOS. More patients on AAT were unable to be discharged home. However, patients on AAT did not have a greater blood transfusion requirement or need more hemorrhage control procedures. Lastly, 23.7% of patients on preadmission AAT were not discharged on any AAT. These data demonstrate that patients on AC, but not AP, have greater mortality and longer hospital LOS. This may provide guidance for those being newly started on AAT. Further work to determine which patients benefit most from restarting AAT would lead to improvement in the care of trauma patients.

Predicting and Communicating Geriatric Trauma Outcomes

To provide an overview of the most recent research in geriatric trauma outcomes, specifically highlighting advances in risk prediction for the elderly injured patient. Geriatric-specific evidence and best practices continue to evolve for older adult trauma patients. There are a number of risk stratification systems that offer insights into prognosis for elderly patients, and newer models using machine learning methods show promise in this population as well. These non-linear models can provide useful prognostic information to guide communication with patients and families, including the incorporation of palliative care interventions and geriatric-specific pathways that have been shown to be of benefit to this patient population. Key aspects of care for geriatric trauma patients include knowing the best clinical practices for this population, along with up-to-date research on risk prediction in this group. While there has been some success with the use of risk stratification systems to guide implementation of palliative care interventions, further implementation-based research is needed on specific programs in order to make this more widespread.

Equipos de trauma: realidad mundial e implementación en un país en desarrollo. Descripción narrativa

Introducción. El trauma es una de las entidades con mayor morbimortalidad en el mundo. Los equipos especializados en la atención del paciente traumatizado son llamados &lt;&lt;equipos de trauma&gt;&gt;. Dichos equipos surgieron de la necesidad de brindar tratamiento oportuno multidisciplinario a individuos con heridas que condicionan gran severidad en la guerra; sin embargo, con el paso del tiempo se trasladaron al ámbito civil, generando un impacto positivo en términos de tiempos de atención, mortalidad y morbilidad.&#x0D; El objetivo de este estudio fue describir el proceso de desarrollo de los equipos de trauma a nivel mundial y la experiencia en nuestra institución en el suroccidente colombiano.&#x0D; Métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda en la base de datos PUBMED, que incluyó revisiones sistemáticas, metaanálisis, revisiones de Cochrane, ensayos clínicos y series de casos.&#x0D; Resultados. Se incluyeron 41 estudios para esta revisión narrativa, y se observó que el tiempo de permanencia en el Emergencias, el tiempo de traslado a cirugía, la mortalidad y las complicaciones asociadas al trauma fueron menores cuando se implementan equipos de trauma.&#x0D; Discusión. El diseño de un sistema de atención y valoración horizontal de un paciente con traumatismos severos produce un impacto positivo en términos de tiempos de atención, mortalidad y morbilidad. Se hace necesario establecer los parámetros operativos necesarios en las instituciones de salud de alta y mediana complejidad en nuestro país para implementar dichos equipos de trabajo.

Evaluation of firearm injuries by trauma scoring systems in a secondary health care institution.

Scoring systems are widely used in trauma patients and are very important in the care of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of scoring systems in evaluating the patients who were brought to a hospital without a trauma center due to firearm injuries (FIs) using scoring systems, and the efficacy of these systems in identifying patients who should be treated in a trauma center. Patients brought to Hakkari Yüksekova State Hospital due to FIs between January 2010 and December 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Patients aged 16 and over were included in the study. Patients who were brought to the hospital while deceased and those who did not respond to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital were excluded from the study. In addition, patients who underwent simple outpatient medical intervention were not included in the patient group. Patients were evaluated demographically. The mortality predictions of trauma scoring systems, which are widely used in the evaluation of trauma patients, were examined. In addition, the effectiveness of scoring systems in identifying patients who should be treated in trauma centers was investigated. In the study, 331 patients, 96.9% of whom were male, were evaluated. The patient group consisted of young patients and the median age was 27 (IQR, 24-29) years. A total of 74 (22.4%) patients were referred to trauma referral hospitals for diagnosis and treatment. Mortality occurred in 46 (13.9%) patients. Glasgow coma scale, injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score, new trauma score, and trauma revised ISS were found effective for predicting mortality in patients, and scoring systems were correlated with each other. However, scoring systems were not found effective in distinguishing patients who should be treated in a trauma center. Scoring systems are significant in predicting mortality of patients with gunshot wounds. However, trauma scoring systems have not been found to be effective in distinguishing patients who require referral to a trauma center.

Identifying Challenges of Providing Care for Trauma Patients; A Concurrent Mixed Methods Study

Background: Caregiving for trauma patients has many challenges. Inadequate knowledge of these challenges can affect the patients and worsen their conditions. Objectives: We aimed to explore the caregivers’ experiences about these challenges and problems of caring for patients with trauma emergencies. Methods: The study adopted a concurrent triangulation mixed-method and was conducted in Shahid Rajaee Hospital, southern Iran, in 2019. Semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observation and ward document assessments were conducted with focusing on the challenges experienced by the caregivers. A checklist was used to assess the performance of caregivers and measure the indices related to the care process. Statistical results and qualitative data on the main categories were compared and integrated for data analysis. Results: In total,307 codes were extracted by analyzing the content of the interviews and available evidence. The codes were summarized in 20 subcategories, and six main categories were extracted as follows: lack of professional capability, uncoordinated team response, deficits in managerial commitments, inadequate work motivation, complex nature of trauma emergency, and lack of clinical communication. The quantitative results indicated that caregivers’ performance was considerably far from the expected scores and also many indices indicated a waste of time in responding to the patient needs. Conclusion: Various dimensions of trauma care challenges indicate that professional capability, team coordination and communication, managerial commitments and work motivation considering the complex nature of trauma emergency wards are crucial to enhance patients' access to optimum quality care. Caregivers’ performance and quality of indices also affect the care process. Future studies are required for compiling strategies and protocols for the quality of care for trauma patients.

Assessment of the effectiveness of pain management among trauma patients in the emergency department

Background: In the emergency department (ED), pain is the most common complaint, especially among trauma patients. However, two-thirds of trauma patients are discharged from EDs with moderate to severe pain. Therefore, pain management is an important part of care in trauma patients. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of pain management among trauma patients in the ED. Method: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted on adult trauma patients who attended the ED in King Abdulaziz medical city (KAMC) in Jeddah from June 2016 to July 2018. The study evaluated if the pain was evaluated during the patient encounters, and the pain score was registered. Furthermore, we assessed if pain medications were administered, their type and dosage, and the pain score evaluation before and after administration. Pain score was scored using the numeric pain scale. Data were collected from the health information system (Best care�) and analyzed using SPSS version 24. Results: Initial pain assessment occurred only in 69% of our population, while assessment after medication administration happened in 71% of patients. The median between the time of arrival and the time of Initial Assessment was 19 minutes. The Mean difference between pain scores before and after pain management was one on a numeric pain scale with a P-Value of 0.001. 36.7% of Patients received appropriate medication based on their pain score improvement result. Opioid was used as an initial pain management drug in 35% of patients. Conclusion: There is a big room for improvement in pain management in trauma patients in emergency departments. Emergency care providers should observe the timeliness and appropriateness of pain management. Evaluation and re-evaluation of pain before and after pain medications or other pain-relieving intervention needs to be more frequent and efficient.