Trauma Center Designation Research Articles

Prehospital use of spinal precautions by emergency medical services in children and adolescents.

Limited evidence exists to guide the management of children with possible spinal injuries in the prehospital setting. As a first step to address this, we set out to describe the epidemiology and management of children <18 years presenting with possible cervical spinal injuries to EMS in Victoria, Australia. Retrospective case record review of all children with concerns of head or neck trauma and/or documented cervical spine collar use presenting to the statewide Ambulance Victoria (AV) EMS service, Victoria, Australia, between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. Demographic, clinical features, mechanism of injury and spinal immobilisation practices were extracted. 2100 children were included; 61% were male and the median age was 13 years (interquartile range: 9-15). Over half of the children were transported to suburban (32.2%) and rural/regional (22.9%) EDs, with 37.5% taken to designated trauma centres. The most common mechanisms of injury were sports/activity, motor vehicle accidents and falls in 35.4%, 27.9% and 26.3%, respectively. Spinal precaution use was recorded in 93.7% of cases; cervical collar use was the most common procedure recorded (87.1%). Younger age groups were less likely to have spinal precautions initiated; 51% of children aged 0-3 years, compared to 96.3% of children aged 12 and older (odds ratio = 23.8; 95% confidence interval = 14.5-37; P < 0.001). Prehospital spinal precautions were initiated commonly in children, with use increasing with age, and most were transported to suburban, regional and rural hospitals, not trauma centres. These data will inform the integration of emerging paediatric-specific evidence into prehospital guidelines to risk stratify children.

Preinjury and Event-Related Characteristics of Pediatric Firearm Injuries: The American College of Surgeons Firearm Study, United States, March 2021‒February 2022.

Objectives. To assess differences in contextual factors by intent among pediatric firearm injury patients and determine factors associated with data missingness. Methods. We retrospectively queried the American College of Surgeons Firearm Study database (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) for patients aged 18 years or younger. We stratified preinjury, firearm-related, and event-related factors by intent and compared them by using Fisher exact, χ2, or 1-way analysis of variance testing. Secondary analysis estimated the adjusted odds of missingness by using generalized linear modeling with binominal logit link. Results. Among 17 395 patients, 2974 (17.1%) were aged 18 years or younger; 1966 (66.1%) were injured by assault, 579 (19.5%) unintentionally, and 76 (2.6%) by self-inflicted means. Most contextual factors differed by intent, including proportion of youths with previous adverse childhood experiences, mental illness, and violent assaults or injury, firearm type and access, perpetrator relationship, and injury location. In adjusted analyses, age, trauma center designation, intent, and admission status were associated with missingness. Conclusions. Contextual factors related to pediatric firearm injury vary by intent. Specific predictors associated with missingness may inform improved future data collection. Public Health Implications. Contextual factors related to pediatric firearm injury can be obtained in a systematic manner nationally to inform targeted interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1097-1109. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307754).

Geography of the Underserved: The Contribution of Rural Non-Trauma Hospitals to Trauma Care.

To determine the proportion and characteristics of injured rural residents treated at urban trauma centers (TCs), urban non-trauma centers (NTCs), rural TCs, and rural NTCs. Timely treatment at a designated trauma center improves outcomes for patients with serious injuries, but rural residents have limited access to designated trauma centers. Rural non-trauma centers may constitute an underrecognized source of trauma care. We used the National Emergency Department Sample to conduct a retrospective, pooled cross-sectional study of ED visits among rural residents with injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 (indicating at least moderate injury). Hospitals were designated as a trauma (TC) or non-trauma center (NTC) and as rural or urban. We compared management, disposition, and outcomes among hospital types. Of 748,587 injured rural residents from 2016-2020, 384,113 (51.3%) were treated in rural NTCs, 232,845 (31.1%) in urban TCs, 116,493 (15.6%) in urban NTCs, and 15,137 (2.0%) in rural TCs. Injuries treated at rural NTCs were moderate in severity (ISS 9-15) in 76.6% of visits, severe (ISS 16-25) in 15.7%, and very severe (ISS > 25) in 1.1%. Urban TCs saw the highest proportion of very severe injuries (17.3%). Rural NTCs managed 77.5% of visits definitively, discharging 72.8%. They transferred 21.9% of patients. Length of stay was longest and hospital charges highest for patients treated in urban TCs, which also performed the most procedures. Rural NTCs had the shortest length of stay and lowest mean charges. Rural non-trauma centers provided initial care for more than half of injured rural residents, including 2 in 5 of those with the most severe injuries, and managed more than 3 in 4 definitively. These hospitals may be an under-recognized component of the US trauma system.

Association of emergency department characteristics with presence of recommended pediatric-specific behavioral health policies.

In the United States, pediatric emergency department (ED) visits for behavioral health (BH) are increasing. We sought to determine ED-level characteristics associated with having recommended BH-related policies. We conducted a retrospective serial cross-sectional study of National Pediatric Readiness Project assessments administered to US EDs in 2013 and 2021. Changes in responses related to BH items over time were examined. Multivariable logistic regression models examined ED characteristics associated with the presence of specific BH-related policies in 2021. Of 3554 EDs that completed assessments in 2021, 73.0% had BH-related policies, 66.5% had transfer guidelines for children with BH issues, and 38.6% had access to BH resources in a disaster. Of 2570 EDs that completed assessments in both 2013 and 2021, presence of specific BH-related policies increased from 48.6% to 72.0% and presence of appropriate transfer guidelines increased from 56.2% to 64.9%. The adjusted odd ratios (aORs) of having specific BH-related policies were lower in rural (aOR 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.92) and remote EDs (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.88) compared to urban EDs; lower among EDs with versus without trauma center designation (aOR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67, 0.95); and higher among EDs with a nurse and physician pediatric emergency care coordinator (PECC) (aOR 1.89; 95% CI 1.54, 2.33) versus those without a PECC. Although pediatric readiness for BH conditions increased from 2013 to 2021, gaps remain, particularly among rural EDs and designated trauma centers. Having nurse and physician PECCs is a modifiable strategy to increase ED pediatric readiness pertaining to BH.

Burn Center Verification and Safety-net Status: Are There Differences in Discharge to Inpatient Rehabilitation?

Discharge to acute rehabilitation following major burn injury is crucial for patient recovery and quality of life. However, barriers to acute rehabilitation, including race and payor type impede access. The effect of burn center organizational structure on discharge disparities remains unknown. This study aims to investigate associations between patient demographics, burn center factors, and discharge to acute rehabilitation on a population level. Using the California Healthcare Access and Information Database, 2009-2019, all inpatient encounters at verified and non-verified burn centers were extracted. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged to acute rehabilitation. Key covariates included age, race, burn center safety net status, diagnosis related group, American Burn Association (ABA) verification status, and American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level 1 trauma center designation. Logistic regression and mixed-effects modeling were performed, with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing. Among 27,496 encounters, 0.8% (228) were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation. By race/ethnicity, the proportion admitted to inpatient rehabilitation was 0.9% for White, 0.6% for Black, 0.7% for Hispanic, and 1% for Asian. After adjusting for burn severity and age, notable predictors for discharge to inpatient rehabilitation included Medicare as payor (OR 0.30-0.88, p=0.015) compared to commercial insurance, trauma center status (OR 1.45-3.43, p<.001), ABA verification status (OR 1.16-2.74, p=0.008), and safety-net facility status (OR 1.09-1.97, p=0.013). Discharge to inpatient rehabilitation varies by race, payor status, and individual burn center. Verified and safety-net burn centers had more patients discharge to inpatient rehabilitation adjusted for burn severity and demographics.

Review of a large trauma registry in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: insights into prehospital care and provider training for trauma quality improvement

BackgroundInjury is a major cause of death and disability in Ethiopia. ALERT Hospital, one of only three designated trauma centers in the country, has employed a basic trauma registry since...

Patient and Hospital Characteristics Associated with Admission Among Patients With Minor Isolated Extremity Firearm Injuries: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

To quantify the association between insurance and hospital admission following minor isolated extremity firearm injury. The association between insurance and injury admission has not been examined. This was an observational retrospective cohort study of minor isolated extremity firearm injury captured in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Emergency Department Databases in 6 states (New York, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Florida, and Maryland) from 2016 to 2017 among patients aged 16 years or older. The primary exposure was insurance. Admitted patients were propensity score matched to nonadmitted patients on age, extremity Abbreviated Injury Score, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index with exact matching within hospital to adjust for selection bias. A general estimating equation logistic regression estimated the association between insurance and odds of admission in the matched cohort while controlling for sex, race, injury intent, injury type, hospital profit type, and trauma center designation with observations clustered by propensity score-matched pairs within hospital. A total of 8151 patients presented to hospital with a minor isolated extremity firearm injury between 2016 and 2017 in 6 states. Patients were 88.0% male, 56.6% Black, and 71.7% aged 16 to 36 years old, and 22.1% were admitted. A total of 2090 patients were matched on propensity for admission. Privately insured matched patients had 1.70 higher adjusted odds of admission and 95% confidence interval of 1.30 to 2.22, compared with uninsured after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Insurance was associated with hospital admission for minor isolated extremity firearm injury.

Trauma Center Hospitals Charged Higher Prices For Some Nontrauma Care Than Non-Trauma Center Hospitals, 2012-18.

Rising prices are a major cause of increased health care spending and health insurance premiums in the US. Hospital prices, specifically-for both inpatient and outpatient care-are the largest driver of rising health care spending in the commercial insurance market. As a result, policy makers and employers are increasingly interested in understanding the determinants of hospital prices. Hospitals serving as trauma centers are often endowed by regulators with monopoly power over trauma services in their geographic areas, and this monopoly power may spill over to nontrauma services. This study focused on the growing number of designated trauma centers and how trauma center status affects hospital prices for other, nontrauma services. We found that hospitals designated as trauma centers charged higher prices for nontrauma inpatient admissions and nontrauma emergency department visits when compared with hospitals that were not designated as trauma centers, even after controlling for potential confounders.

A survey of low titer O whole blood use within the trauma quality improvement program registry.

The use of low titer O whole blood (LTOWB) has expanded although it remains unclear how many civilian trauma centers are using LTOWB. We analyzed data on civilian LTOWB recipients in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database 2020-2021. Unique facility keys were used to determine the number of centers that used LTOWB in that period. A total of 16,603 patients received LTOWB in the TQIP database between 2020 and 2021; 6600 in 2020, and 10,003 in 2021. The total number of facilities that reported LTOWB use went from 287/779 (37%) in 2020 to 302/795 (38%) in 2021. Between 2020 and 2021, among all level 1-3 designated trauma facilities that report to TQIP LTOWB use increased at level-1 centers (118 to 129), and level-2 centers (81 to 86), but decreased in level-3 facilities (9 to 4). Among pediatric and dual pediatric-adult designated hospitals there was a decrease in the number of pediatric level-1 centers (29 to 28) capable of administering LTOWB. Among centers with either single or dual level-1 trauma center designation with adult centers, the number that administered LTOWB to injured pediatric patients also decreased from 17 to 10, respectively. There was an increase in the number of facilities transfusing LTOWB between 2020 and 2021. The use of LTOWB is underutilized in children at centers that have it available. These findings inform the expansion of LTOWB use in trauma.

Trends in Emergency Department Capacity and Utilization (2005 -2022): An Update from California, Pre- and Post-COVID-19

This study investigates long-term trends in hospital emergency department (ED) capacity and utilization in California, focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) and the U.S. Census Bureau, we analyzed trends over an 18-year period (2005-2022), segmented into pre-pandemic (2005-2019), pandemic (2020-2021), and post-pandemic (2022) phases. Adjusting for population growth, our findings indicate a 7.3% decrease in total admissions and a 14.0% reduction in total inpatient days. Conversely, ED visits increased by 16.1%. Despite an 8.5% decrease in the number of hospitals with EDs, ED treatment stations expanded by 36.3%. The average number of ED visits per treatment station decreased by 10.2%, suggesting improved capacity utilization. Additionally, the number of hospitals with designated trauma centers increased by 11.5%. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted these trends, initially causing sharp declines in ED visits and total admissions in 2020. However, by 2022, ED visits and inpatient days rebounded close to pre-pandemic levels. The pandemic also accelerated the adoption of telehealth, which partially offset the burden on EDs. Despite this, the average inpatient length of stay increased, indicating more complex or severe cases requiring longer hospitalization. Overall, our study highlights the critical role of EDs in hospital operations, with a growing reliance on EDs for hospital admissions, which rose from 43% in 2005 to 68% in 2022 for non-maternity patients. These findings underscore the need for strategic planning to enhance ED capacity and efficiency, ensuring resilience against future public health emergencies. The economic implications of rising healthcare costs and the essential nature of ED services in contract negotiations with commercial health plans are also discussed, emphasizing the strengthened bargaining position of hospitals due to the indispensable nature of emergency services. Further research is needed to explore alternative care models and payment schemes to improve efficiency and reduce healthcare costs.

Admission to a Verified Pediatric Trauma Center is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Severely Injured Children

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown improved survival for severely injured adult patients treated at American College of Surgeons verified level I/II trauma centers compared to level III and undesignated centers. However, this relationship has not been well established in pediatric trauma centers (PTCs). We hypothesize that severely injured children will have lower mortality at verified level I/II PTCs compared to centers without PTC verification. MethodsAll patients 1–15 years of age with ISS >15 in the 2017–2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Programs (ACS TQP) dataset were reviewed. Patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest, burns, and those transferred out for ongoing inpatient care were excluded. Logistic regression models were used to assess the effects of pediatric trauma center verification on mortality. Results16,301 patients were identified (64 % male, median ISS 21 [17–27]), and 60 % were admitted to verified PTCs. Overall mortality was 6.0 %. Mortality at centers with PTC verification was 5.1 % versus 7.3 % at centers without PTC verification (p < 0.001). After controlling for injury mechanism, sex, age, pediatric-adjusted shock index (SIPA), ISS, arrival via interhospital transfer, and adult trauma center verification, pediatric level I/II trauma center designation was independently associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.61–0.85). ConclusionsTreatment at ACS-verified pediatric trauma centers is associated with improved survival in critically injured children. These findings highlight the importance of PTC verification in optimizing outcomes for severely injured pediatric patients and should influence trauma center apportionment and prehospital triage. Level of EvidenceLevel IV – Retrospective review of national database.

Identification of Performance Improvement Objectives After Management of a Mass Shooting Incident: A Retrospective Study.

Mass shootings are firearm incidents involving four or more victims at one or more locations close to one another. Although some American College of Surgeons designated trauma centers have the experience and resources to adequately treat mass shooting victims who arrive simultaneously or in close proximity to each other, many others do not. Therefore, the objective of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment of five consecutive gunshot wound victims who presented to a Level II trauma center within 36 minutes of each other. Lessons learned from that experience were used to identify the most effective pre-hospital and hospital management interventions. Opportunities for performance improvement were analyzed with respect to the current literature and the American College of Surgeons 2022 consensus recommendations for mass shootings.

Incidence and characteristics of vascular trauma at a level 2 trauma center

ObjectiveDespite the significant number of trauma patients treated at level 2 trauma centers (L2TCs) in the United States, most of the literature describing vascular trauma is from level 1 trauma centers (L1TCs). Currently, trauma center designation criteria do not require vascular surgery as a necessary component service. MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed for all trauma patients with a vascular surgery consultation seen at our L2TC between 2013 and 2018. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes were collected and analyzed with descriptive statistics. ResultsOf the 3062 trauma patients evaluated at our L2TC, 110 (3.6%) had a vascular surgery consultation. Operative intervention was performed in 35.2% of consults, and 1.0% of all trauma patients had a vascular intervention. Average age was 57 years, and the majority were male (n = 75; 68.2%). Mean Injury Severity Score was 12.0 ± 9.6, and blunt injury (n = 77; 87.5%) was more common than penetrating (n = 11; 12.5%). The most common location of injury was the lower extremity (n = 23; 74.2%), followed by upper extremity (n = 3; 9.7%), chest (n = 2; 6.5%), neck (n = 2; 6.5%), and pelvis (n = 1; 3.2%). Endovascular interventions were performed by the vascular surgery service in 67.7% (n = 21) of all injuries. There was one amputation (3.2%) and one postoperative mortality (3.2%). ConclusionsAt our L2TC, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates at 30 days were substantially lower compared with previously reported data. However, mean injury severity score and the incidence of penetrating and polytrauma were also lower at our institution. Most patients were managed nonoperatively, but when they did require an operation, endovascular therapies were more commonly implemented. Vascular surgery should be considered an integral service in trauma level designation, and there is a need for further investigation of these outcomes in L2TCs.

Evaluation of Acute Outcomes and Factors Influencing the Care of Chest Trauma in a District General Hospital in the United Kingdom.

Background The rate of chest trauma admissions under the Queen Hospital Burton Orthopedic team has been steadily increasing, surpassing other hospital trusts. Patients are managed locally by the Orthopedic department, unlike in major trauma centres. Understanding the management outcomes and patient factors in this setting is crucial for enhancing patient safety. Methodology A retrospective analysis of 139 patients with chest trauma referred to the QHB Orthopedic team from October 2017 to May 2021 was conducted using the Meditech-V6 electronic medical records system (Meditech, Westwood, US). This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients admitted with chest trauma and improve current practices. The objectives include assessing patient factors influencing outcomes, initiating discussions with a major trauma centre, and enhancing the quality of care for chest trauma patients. Results The mechanism of injury in all cases of chest injuries was blunt trauma, accounting for 100% of the cases. The specific mechanisms of injury observed in the study included falls from standing, falls from height, road traffic collisions, and assault. The study comprised 139 individuals, 128 of whom were diagnosed with rib fractures, and 11 who did not have any rib fractures. In addition, two patients were hospitalized with bilateral rib fractures, both of which were life-threatening. Tragically, one of these cases resulted in the death of the patient. With regardto outcomes,67% of the patients received a consultation at Royal Stoke Hospital (RSH). Eight individuals were transferred to RSH for further management, while the remaining 131 patients were not transferred.Eighty-seven individuals were discharged from the hospital, indicating successful recovery and readiness for discharge. However, it is noteworthy that nine patients experienced complications during their hospital stay, highlighting the potential challenges and risks associated with chest trauma management. Tragically, seven patients succumbed to their injuries and passed away. Conclusions The majority of patients in this study were aged 65 and over and presented with multiple comorbidities, indicating the complex medical profile of this population. However, despite the presence of life-threatening injuries and the associated risks, only a minority of patients in the study were transferred to a designated trauma centre. This raises concerns about the adequacy of the current transfer protocols and the potential impact on patient outcomes.

Pediatric vs Adult or Mixed Trauma Centers in Children Admitted to Hospitals Following Trauma

Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking. To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023. Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years). This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI). A total of 56 studies with 286 051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.

Does Trauma Center Volume Account for the Association Between Trauma Center Verification Level and In-Hospital Mortality among Children Injured by Firearms in California?

Heterogeneity in trauma center designation and injury volume offer possible explanations for inconsistencies in pediatric trauma center designation's association with lower mortality among children. We hypothesized that rigorous trauma center verification, regardless of volume, would be associated with lower firearm injury-associated mortality in children. This retrospective cohort study leveraged the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development patient discharge data. Data from children aged 0 to 14 years in California from 2005 to 2018 directly transported with firearm injuries were analyzed. American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma center verification level was the primary predictor of in-hospital mortality. Centers' annual firearm injury volume data were analyzed as a mediator of the association between center verification level and in-hospital mortality. Two mixed-effects multivariable logistic regressions modeled in-hospital mortality and the estimated association with center verification while adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. One model included the center's firearm injury volume and one did not. The cohort included 2,409 children with a mortality rate of 8.6% (n = 206). Adjusted odds of mortality were lower for children at adult level I (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80), pediatric (aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.61), and dual (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93) trauma centers compared to nontrauma/level III/IV centers. Firearm injury volume did not mediate the association between ACS trauma center verification and mortality (aOR/10 patient increase in volume 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03). Trauma center verification level, regardless of firearm injury volume, was associated with lower firearm injury-associated mortality, suggesting that the ACS verification process is contributing to achieving optimal outcomes.

Escape the Monotony: Gamification Enhances Nursing Education

IntroductionCreating meaningful and engaging learning opportunities can be challenged by budgets, time, and learning management systems with limited methods of interaction. An innovative method was necessary to meet competency evaluation and continuing education needs for emergency department staff. DesignGamification and simulation techniques were combined to offer an interactive learning opportunity through an escape room format to improve engagement and knowledge retention. This educational offering was designed to enhance staff learning of trauma care and processes at emergency departments that are not designated trauma centers. OutcomesEmergency department team members completed the trauma escape room challenge, and postsurvey results demonstrated favorable ratings of new knowledge acquisition, skill competency, teamwork, and confidence when providing care for a trauma patient. DiscussionNurse educators can “escape” the monotony of passive learning by using active learning strategies including the fun of gamification to improve clinical skills and confidence.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWhile simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care.MethodsWe will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I–III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.DiscussionOn completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm.Trial registrationThis protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, #NCT05744154).

Comparison between level 1 and level 2 trauma centers for the management of splenic blunt trauma

IntroductionThe management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved in the last years, from mainly operative approach to the non-operative management (NOM). The aim of this study is to investigate whether trauma center (TC) designation (level 1 and level 2) affects blunt splenic trauma management. MethodsA retrospective analysis of blunt trauma patients with splenic injury admitted to 2 Italian TCs, Niguarda (level 1) and San Carlo Borromeo (level 2), was performed, receiving either NOM or emergency surgical treatment, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Univariate comparison was performed between the two centers, and multivariate analysis was carried out to find predictive factors associated with NOM and splenectomy. Results181 patients were included in the study, 134 from level 1 and 47 from level 2 TCs. The splenectomy/emergency laparotomy ratio was inferior at level 1 TC for high-grade splenic injuries (30.8% for level 1 and 100% for level 2), whose patients presented higher incidence of other injuries. Splenic NOM failure was registered in only one case (3.3%). At multivariate analysis, systolic pressure, spleen organ injury scale (OIS) and injury severity score (ISS) resulted significant predictive factors for NOM, and only spleen OIS was predictive factor for splenectomy (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04–0.49 CI 95%, P < .01). ConclusionBoth level 1 and 2 trauma centers demonstrated application of NOM with a high rate of success with some management difference in the treatment and outcome of patients with splenic injuries between the two types of TCs.

Injury outcomes across Canadian trauma systems: a historical cohort study.

Most North American trauma systems have designated trauma centres (TCs) including level I (ultraspecialized high-volume metropolitan centres), level II (specialized medium-volume urban centres), and/or level III (semirural or rural centres). Trauma system configuration varies across provinces and it is unclear how these differences influence patient distributions and outcomes. We aimed to compare patient case mix, case volumes, and risk-adjusted outcomes of adults with major trauma admitted to designated level I, II, and III TCs across Canadian trauma systems. In a national historical cohort study, we extracted data from Canadian provincial trauma registries on major trauma patients treated between 2013 and 2018 in all designated level I, II, or III TCs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; level I and II TCs in New Brunswick; and four TCs in Ontario. We used multilevel generalized linear models to compare mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and competitive risk models for hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS). Ontario could not be included in outcome comparisons because there were no population-based data from this province. The study sample comprised 50,959 patients. Patient distributions in level I and II TCs were similar across provinces but we observed significant differences in case mix and volumes for level III TCs. There was low variation in risk-adjusted mortality and LOS across provinces and TCs but interprovincial and intercentre variation in risk-adjusted ICU admission was high. Our results suggest that differences in the functional role of TCs according to their designation level across provinces leads to significant variations in the distribution of patients, case volumes, resource use, and clinical outcomes. These results highlight opportunities to improve Canadian trauma care and underline the need for standardized population-based injury data to support national quality improvement efforts.