Inclusive Trauma Systems Research Articles

Accuracy of Prehospital Triage of Adult Patients With Traumatic Injuries Following Implementation of a Trauma Triage Intervention

Adequate prehospital triage is pivotal to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems and reduce avoidable mortality, lifelong disabilities, and costs. A model has been developed to improve the prehospital allocation of patients with traumatic injuries and was incorporated in an application (app) to be implemented in prehospital practice. To evaluate the association between the implementation of a trauma triage (TT) intervention with an app and prehospital mistriage among adult trauma patients. This population-based, prospective quality improvement study was conducted in 3 of the 11 Dutch trauma regions (27.3%), with full coverage of the corresponding emergency medical services (EMS) regions participating in this study. Participants included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with traumatic injuries who were transported by ambulance between February 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019, from the scene of injury to any emergency department in the participating trauma regions. Data were analyzed between July 2020 and June 2021. Implementation of the TT app and the awareness of need for adequate triage created by its implementation (ie, the TT intervention). The primary outcome was prehospital mistriage, evaluated in terms of undertriage and overtriage. Undertriage was defined as the proportion of patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater who were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are mildly and moderately injured) and overtriage as the proportion of patients with an ISS of less than 16 who were initially transported to a higher-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are severely injured). A total of 80 738 patients were included (40 427 [50.1%] before and 40 311 [49.9%] after implementation of the intervention), with a median (IQR) age of 63.2 (40.0-79.7) years and 40 132 (49.7%) male patients. Undertriage decreased from 370 of 1163 patients (31.8%) to 267 of 995 patients (26.8%), while overtriage rates did not increase (8202 of 39 264 patients [20.9%] vs 8039 of 39 316 patients [20.4%]). The implementation of the intervention was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk for undertriage (crude risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99, P = .01; adjusted RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; P = .004), but the risk for overtriage was unchanged (crude RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .13; adjusted RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; P = .49). In this quality improvement study, implementation of the TT intervention was associated with improvements in rates of undertriage. Further research is needed to assess whether these findings are generalizable to other trauma systems.

Accuracy of pre-hospital trauma triage and field triage decision rules in children (P2-T2 study): an observational study

Adequate pre-hospital trauma triage is crucial to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems. Transport of children in need of specialised trauma care to lower-level trauma centres is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of paediatric field triage based on patient destination and triage tools. We did a multisite observational study (P2-T2) of all children (aged <16 years) transported with high priority by ambulance from the scene of injury to any emergency department in seven of 11 inclusive trauma regions in the Netherlands. Diagnostic accuracy based on the initial transport destination was evaluated in terms of undertriage rate (ie, the proportion of patients in need of specialised trauma care who were initially transported to a lower-level paediatric or adult trauma centre) and overtriage rate (ie, the proportion of patients not requiring specialised trauma care who were transported to a level-I [highest level] paediatric trauma centre). The Dutch National Protocol of Ambulance Services and Field Triage Decision Scheme triage protocols were externally validated using data from this cohort against an anatomical (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥16) and a resource-based reference standard. Between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, 12 915 children (median age 10·3 years, IQR 4·2-13·6) were transported to the emergency department with injuries. 4091 (31·7%) patients were admitted to hospital, of whom 129 (3·2%) patients had an ISS of 16 or greater and 227 (5·5%) patients used critical resources within a limited timeframe. Ten patients died within 24 h of arrival at the emergency department. Based on the primary reference standard (ISS ≥16), the undertriage rate was 16·3% (95% CI 10·8-23·7) and the overtriage rate was 21·2% (20·5-22·0). The National Protocol of Ambulance Services had a sensitivity of 53·5% (95% CI 43·9-62·9) and a specificity of 94·0% (93·4-94·6), and the Field Triage Decision Scheme had a sensitivity of 64·5% (54·1-74·1) and a specificity of 84·3% (83·1-85·5). Too many children in need of specialised care were transported to lower-level paediatric or adult trauma centres, which is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Current protocols cannot accurately discriminate between patients at low and high risk, and highly sensitive and child-specific triage tools need to be developed to ensure the right patient is transported to the right hospital. The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Innovation Fund Health Insurers.

Evaluating the need to reform the organisation of care for major trauma patients in Belgium: an analysis of administrative databases.

In light of the international evolutions to establish inclusive trauma systems and to concentrate the care for the most severely injured in major trauma centres, we evaluated the degree of dispersion of trauma care in Belgium. We used descriptive statistics to illustrate the dispersion of major trauma care in Belgium based on two independent administrative databases: the registry of Mobile Intensive Care Units (2009-2015) and the Belgian Hospital Discharge Dataset (2009-2014). Patients with a severe trauma (n = 3856 in 2015) were transported towards 145 different hospital sites (on a total of 198 hospital sites) resulting in a median of 17 cases per hospital site (min = 1; P25 = 4; P75 = 30; max = 165). A minority of major trauma patients is after admission transferred to another hospital (8%) with a median of 10 days after admission to the hospital (IQR 3.5-24). The dispersion of care for major trauma patients in Belgium is so high that a reorganisation of care for severe injured patients in major trauma centres concentrating professional expertise and specialised equipment is recommended to guarantee a high quality of care in a qualitative and sustainable way.

Factors Associated With Nontransfer in Trauma Patients Meeting American College of Surgeons’ Criteria for Transfer at Nontertiary Centers

Secondary triage from nontertiary centers is vital to trauma system success. It remains unclear what factors are associated with nontransfer among patients who should be considered for transfer to facilities providing higher-level care. To identify factors associated with nontransfer among patients meeting American College of Surgeons (ACS) guideline criteria for transfer from nontertiary centers. A retrospective cohort study was performed using multilevel logistic regression to ascertain factors associated with nontransfer from nontertiary centers, including demographics, injury characteristics, and center resources. With information obtained from the National Trauma Data Bank (January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012), relative proportion of variance in outcome across centers was determined for patient-level and center-level attributes. In all, 96 528 patients taken to nontertiary centers (levels III, IV, V, and nontrauma centers) that met ACS guideline transfer criteria were eligible for inclusion. Data analysis was performed from March 17, 2016, to May 20, 2016. The primary outcome was nontransfer from a nontertiary center. Among 96 528 patients meeting ACS guideline criteria for transfer taken initially to nontertiary centers, 55 611 (57.6%) were male and the median age was 52 years (interquartile range, 28-77 years). Only 19 396 patients (20.1%) underwent transfer. Patient-level factors associated with nontransfer included age older than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.46-1.98; P < .001), severe chest injury (AOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.42-1.89; P < .001), and commercial insurance (vs self-pay: AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.67; P < .001). Center-level factors associated with nontransfer included larger bed size (>600 vs <200 beds: AOR, 9.22; 95% CI, 7.70-11.05; P < .001), nontrauma center (vs level III centers: AOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.44-3.01; P < .001), university affiliation (vs community: AOR, 9.68; 95% CI, 8.03-11.66; P < .001), more trauma surgeons (per surgeon: AOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09; P < .001), and more neurosurgeons (per surgeon: AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.28; P < .001). For-profit status was associated with nontransfer at nontrauma centers (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.39-1.74; P < .001), but not at level III, IV, and V trauma centers. Overall, patient-level factors accounted for 36% and center-level factors accounted for 58% of the variation in transfer practices. Patient-level factors accounted for more variation at level III, IV, and V trauma centers (44%), but less variation at nontrauma centers (13%). Only 1 in 5 patients meeting ACS transfer criteria underwent transfer. Factors associated with nontransfer may be useful for trauma system stakeholders to target education and outreach to guide development of more inclusive trauma systems. Further study is necessary to critically evaluate whether these ACS criteria identify patients who require transfer.

The Impact of a Pan-regional Inclusive Trauma System on Quality of Care.

To evaluate the impact of the implementation of an inclusive pan-regional trauma system on quality of care. Inclusive trauma systems ensure access to quality injury care for a designated population. The 2007 National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found quality deficits for 60% of severely injured patients. In 2010, London implemented an inclusive trauma system. This represented an opportunity to evaluate the impact of a pan-regional trauma system on quality of care. Evaluation of the London Trauma System (ELoTS) utilized the NCEPOD study core methodology. Severely injured patients were identified prospectively over a 3-month period. Data were collected from prehospital care to 72 h following admission or death. Quality, processes of care, and outcome were assessed by expert review using NCEPOD criteria. Three hundred and twenty one severely injured patients were included of which 84% were taken directly to a major trauma center, in contrast to 16% in NCEPOD. Overall quality improved with the proportion of patients receiving "good overall care" increasing significantly [NCEPOD: 48% vs ALL-ELoTS: 69%, RR 1.3 (1.2 to 1.4), P < 0.01], primarily through improvements in organizational processes rather than clinical care. Improved quality was associated with increased early survival, with the greatest benefit for critically injured patients [NCEPOD: 31% vs All-ELoTS 11%, RR 0.37 (0.33 to 0.99), P = 0.04]. Inclusive trauma systems deliver quality and process improvements, primarily through organizational change. Most improvements were seen in major trauma centers; however, systems implementation did not automatically lead to a reduction in clinical deficits in care.

Understanding an inclusive trauma system through characterization of admissions at level IV centers

BackgroundLevel IV trauma centers are an integral part of inclusive trauma systems, although sparse data exists for these facilities. MethodsAn observational study was conducted using a Midwestern state's inpatient data files to characterize level IV center patients. Injury and severity levels, injury mechanism and/or intent, and distances to nearest tertiary centers were determined. ResultsDuring the study year, 3,346 injured patients were admitted at level IV centers. The median distance to nearest tertiary center was 43 miles. Median patient age was 81 years, and primary injury mechanism was falls. Overall, 22% of patients had an isolated hip fracture. Of moderately injured patients, 64% had an isolated hip fracture, 8% nonisolated hip fractures, and 9% rib fractures without hip fracture. Overall, 30% of patients had a high severity of injury. ConclusionsA large number of patients were admitted to level IV trauma centers. Patients admitted tended to be elderly and have orthopedic fall injuries. Study results provide important implications for provider education, prevention efforts, need for orthopedic surgical capabilities, and necessity of capturing these data in registries.

Trauma center verification and a more inclusive system: identifying unnecessary criteria for level lll/lV centers

INTRODUCTION: More inclusive trauma systems have been associated with better patient outcomes. However, the costs required by hospitals to participate as an ACS verified trauma center may serve as a barrier, particularly for potential Level III/IV centers. Eliminating unnecessary requirements may facilitate recruitment of more centers. We hypothesized that there are verification criteria that are infrequently used by Level III and IV centers.

Definitive care in level 3 trauma centres after severe injury: A comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes

BackgroundThe role of level 3 trauma centres (TC) in inclusive trauma systems has not been well defined. The absence of nationally recognised inter-facility transfer criteria for inclusive systems has often left individual level 3 TCs to decide upon their own what their spectrum of care is and particularly which severely injured patients to admit for definitive care. MethodsRetrospective cohort study in which the principal objective was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of severely injured (injury severity score>15) adult patients (≥18 years) who received definitive care at level 3 centres with severely injured adult patients who were transferred to level 1–2 TCs during the same time period. Data were derived from the National Trauma Data Bank (2010–2011). First, we utilised hierarchical logistic regression models to evaluate the risk-adjusted mortality of patients admitted at level 3 TCs compared to those who were transferred to level 1–2 TCs. Subgroup analysis was carried out for patients with isolated traumatic brain injury (iTBI). Finally, we explored the extent of variation in risk-adjusted mortality across level 3 TCs. ResultsWe identified 6433 severely injured patients who received definitive care across 150 level 3 TCs and 41,165 severely injured patients transferred to level 1–2 centres. Patients who received definitive care at level 3 TCs had a lower comorbidity burden and different injury profiles compared to those transferred to level 1–2 centres. There was no difference in crude mortality (10% vs. 11%, standardised difference 0.04); however, after risk-adjustment, the odds of death for patients who received definitive care at level 3 TCs were 1.24-fold higher (95%CI 1.08–1.43) when compared to those transferred to level 1–2 centres. A trend towards a higher likelihood of death at level 3 centres was observed when analysis was limited to patients with iTBI. Risk-adjusted mortality across level 3 TCs was with few exceptions, homogeneous (<10% of level 3 TCs were outliers with higher/lower mortality). ConclusionsLevel 3 trauma centres are providing definitive care for a subset of severely injured patients. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of severely injured patients admitted at level 3 centres might be worse compared to those transferred to level 1–2 centres; a finding independent of performance outliers. Further work is required to elucidate the determinants of admission after severe injury at level 3 trauma centres.

Do inclusive trauma systems improve outcomes after renal trauma?

Our aim is to assess state variation in renal trauma outcomes. We hypothesize that states with more hospitals participating in a trauma system will have lower nephrectomy and mortality rates. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study of all patients hospitalized with renal injury from partnering states during 2001, 2004, and 2007. State trauma systems were categorized based on the proportion of all acute care hospitals designated as a trauma center (Levels I-V) with higher proportions correlating to a more inclusive system. Poisson regression for relative risks (RRs) of inpatient nephrectomy and case fatality were performed adjusting for patient and state level factors. Patients in states with the "most inclusive" trauma systems had a 30% lower risk of nephrectomy (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.88) and a 2.06% lower unadjusted inpatient case fatality rate compared with states with "exclusive" trauma systems. Inpatient case fatality risk varied significantly by trauma system inclusiveness. Patients treated in states with either a "more inclusive" (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97) or "most inclusive" (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85) trauma system were independently associated with a lower inpatient case fatality risk compared with states with "exclusive" systems. A reduced risk of nephrectomy and inpatient case fatality are more common among states that have a higher proportion of acute care hospitals participating as a trauma center (Levels I-V). Standardization of care may correlate with improved patient outcomes after renal trauma. II, exploratory cohort analysis.

National Variation in Outcomes and Costs for Splenic Injury and the Impact of Trauma Systems

To measure national variation in splenectomy rates, mortality, and costs for hospitalized patients with splenic injury and the impact of state trauma systems on these outcomes. Using the HCUP State Inpatient Database for 2001, 2004, and 2007, all patients hospitalized with splenic injury were identified from 19 participating states. Multivariate regression was performed to compare splenectomy rates, inpatient mortality, and costs between states. Inclusiveness of statewide trauma systems was categorized based on the proportion of hospitals designated as a trauma center. Of 33,131 patients, 26.2% underwent splenectomy, 6.1% died, and median hospital costs were $14,317. After adjusting for patient, injury, and hospital characteristics, there was a 1.7-fold variation (RR 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.01) among the 19 states in rates of splenectomy. Adjusted inpatient mortality varied more than 2-fold between the highest and lowest states (RR 2.43; 95% CI, 1.76-3.37). Adjusted hospital costs varied over 60% between the highest and lowest states (cost ratio 1.61; 95% CI, 1.41-1.83). States with the most inclusive trauma systems had significantly lower splenectomy rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) and lower mortality (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.87), but similar hospital costs (CR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16) compared to states with exclusive or no trauma systems. Significant geographic variation in the management, outcome, and costs for splenic injury exists in the United States, and may reflect differences in quality of care. Inclusive trauma systems seem to improve outcomes without increasing hospital costs.

Inclusive Trauma Systems Must Embody Appropriate Triage Guidelines

Inclusive Trauma Systems Must Embody Appropriate Triage Guidelines

Sustaining an Inclusive Trauma System in a Rural State

Different approaches exist for developing inclusive trauma systems with a regional system approach. The purpose of this article is to describe a sustainable and replicable structure for developing a trauma system with urban and rural environments. A relatively new trauma system is presented to show (1) how rural health networks and relationships can support rural trauma system development; (2) how partnerships help to support trauma system development; and (3) how the trauma system infrastructure has used assessment and assurance strategies to support regional systems of care to foster optimal care of the trauma patient.

Regional Trauma System Reduces Mortality and Changes Admission Rates

To evaluate the effect of the introduction of a regionalized trauma system. Trauma systems have proven to be efficacious in reducing mortality in trauma patients in the United States. To date, this was not proven for inclusive trauma systems outside the United States. The current study evaluates the effect of the introduction of an inclusive trauma system in the Netherlands in 1999. Retrospective pre- and post analyses of a trauma care system on hospital discharge data regarding trauma patients admitted to hospitals in the central region of The Netherlands. Patients treated during 1996 to 1998 (control group), before implementation of the inclusive trauma system were compared with patients treated during 2003 to 2005 (index group) after the trauma system was installed. Risk adjusted odds-ratios of death and admission to a trauma center were determined. A total of 33,201 patients were included in the control group and compared with 34,840 patients in the index group. After implementation of the trauma system, in-hospital mortality for all injured patients decreased from 2.6% to 2.3% (OR: 0.89 with 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). After adjustment for differences in gender, age, injury severity, comorbidity, injured body region, mechanism and intent of injury between both groups, the odds-ratio was 0.84 with 95% CI (0.76-0.94). Multitrauma patients were the subgroup admitted more frequently to a trauma center (OR: 1.19 with 95% CI: 1.01-1.39). Implementation of an inclusive trauma system in The Netherlands results in a more efficient triage system of trauma patients among hospitals and is associated with a substantial and statistically significant risk reduction (16%) of death.

Do designated trauma systems improve outcome?

Trauma systems are introduced world wide with the goal to improve survival and outcome of the injured patient. This review is focused on the influence of trauma systems on the survival and outcome of injured patients. Large population-based studies have been published over the last 2 years strengthening the hypothesis that trauma systems indeed improve survival rates in injured patients. Mortality was reduced by 15-25% when severely injured patients were treated at a trauma center. Although 'inclusive' trauma systems have been advocated since 1991 only recently did the first population-based study prove that 'inclusive' trauma systems do better than 'exclusive' trauma systems. Because further improvements in survival in mature trauma systems are likely to be small, more focus should be given to quality of life studies, rather than to survival in trauma system evaluation. Trauma systems indeed improve survival rates in injured patients. Inclusive trauma systems do better than exclusive trauma systems. More attention should be given to quality of outcome.

Inclusive Trauma Systems: Do They Improve Triage or Outcomes of the Severely Injured?

Trauma systems decrease injury-related mortality, but not all systems have the same configuration. In some systems, nearly all acute care hospitals participate to the extent that their resources allow (inclusive systems), whereas in others, relatively few high-level centers participate (exclusive systems). We postulate that inclusive systems assure that severely injured patients are more likely to be triaged to a level I or II regional trauma center, and this greater degree of participation would lead to lower mortality. We used administrative discharge data for 2001 in 24 states with formal systems, and we included all urgently hospitalized adults with an Injury Severity Score>or=16. We categorized states by trauma system configuration ("exclusive", "more inclusive", "most inclusive") based on the proportion of all hospitals designated as a Level I through V trauma center (0-13%, 14-37%, 38-100%, respectively). We compared the rates of triage to a regional trauma center and inpatient death in inclusive states relative to exclusive states, while adjusting for patient- and state-level factors. Out of 61,496 patients, 40,706 (66.2%) were hospitalized at regional trauma centers. Inpatient mortality was 14.7%. After adjusting for patient age, primary payer status, and system maturity, the odds of triage to a regional trauma center were similar in inclusive and exclusive systems. After adjusting for primary payer status, mechanism of injury, and system maturity, the odds of death were similar in more inclusive and exclusive systems (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.08) but were significantly lower in the most inclusive systems (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99). Severely injured trauma patients have greater inpatient survival in inclusive trauma systems even though they are no more likely to be hospitalized at a regional trauma center. Consideration should be given to continuing implementation of systems with an inclusive configuration, especially in light of other theoretical benefits of these systems, such as better dispersing of trauma care resources in the event of natural disasters or terrorist events.