Nontrauma Centers Research Articles

Trauma Nursing: From Resuscitation Through Rehabilitation, Fifth Edition

We live in a time when natural disasters and mass casualties occur with greater frequency than ever before. In many of these situations, patients have been taken to both trauma and nontrauma centers for treatment. Trauma Nursing is a book for both trauma nurses and nontrauma nurses who care for injured patients. This book is a comprehensive text about care of the trauma-injured patient, from prevention and prehospital care to initial evaluation, resuscitation, operative care, and critical and progressive care nursing applications. The authors complete the cycle of care by reviewing considerations for rehabilitation.Trauma Nursing is divided into 4 sections. The first half of part 1 tackles general issues related to trauma nursing, such as the evolution and development of the trauma system and the economic and administrative factors affecting trauma care, including quality, safety, and legal/ethical issues. The second half of part 1 delves into injury prevention and pre-hospital care of trauma victims. This section also contains a comprehensive look at disaster preparedness and mass casualty response.Section 2 covers trauma basics, including the most important of the foundational tools a nurse needs when caring for victims of trauma, that is, knowledge of the pathophysiology of trauma, also known as the mechanism of injury. Other topics in this section include management of traumatic shock; infection and infection prevention; wound healing; nutritional management; and management of pain, anxiety, and delirium. This section is the most important one for non-trauma nurses caring for a trauma victim.The authors cover single-system injuries in section 3. Topics include traumatic brain injury, facial trauma, spinal cord trauma, and thoracic and abdominal trauma. Each system injury is discussed in detail, from pathophysiology to the latest evidence-based care.Section 4 examines special populations and their unique response to traumatic injury. These populations include pregnant patients, pediatric and geriatric patients, and bariatric patients. In addition, Trauma Nursing discusses the impact of substance abuse on trauma care, which is an important aspect of trauma care. Other special care issues include care of burn patients and organ and tissue donors.Lastly, Trauma Nursing provides a comprehensive look at the knowledge needed to obtain the TCRN certification examination and includes certification review questions. This evidence-based book is a handy resource for both non-trauma nurses and nurses working in a trauma setting.

Accounting for matching structure in post-matching analysis of observational studies

Matching design is commonly used in social science and health research with observational data, as it is robust to outcome model misspecification and has the intuitive interpretation similar to blocked randomization design. Estimate the population average treatment effect with propensity score adjustment is very popular. From a practical perspective, however, it is not clear whether the post-matching analysis should adjust for the matching structure. Analytical strategies with and without accounting for matching design have appeared in literature. For continuous outcomes, the implication is more on the variance estimation. But for binary outcomes, the non-collapsibility problem for the odds ratio adds another layer of complexity in choosing between estimation strategies. We have conducted extensive simulation studies to compare several matching estimators and the propensity score weighting estimator for both continuous and binary outcomes. Especially, we consider three measures for binary outcomes, risk difference, relative risk and odds ratio. Our simulation results suggest that statistical methods accounting for matching structure are more advantageous and among binary effect measures, odds ratio tends to have higher power than other measures. We also apply different estimation strategies to a U.S. trauma care database to examine mortality difference between trauma centers and non-trauma centers.

Association Between Trauma Center Designation and Spinal Cord Injury Admission in the USA

Background: After spinal cord injury (SCI), patients are seen in either trauma center emergency departments (EDs) or non-trauma center EDs, and then selectively admitted for hospitalization. The association between SCI and admission to designated trauma centers is currently unknown. In this study, we assess the trends in admission between designated trauma centers after SCI from a large multi-center nationwide registry. Methods: In this retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), we identified visits with SCI from 2006 to 2014. Z-test analyses were used to compare patients diagnosed with SCI at EDs with an associated trauma center designated hospital (TC-visits) against patients diagnosed with SCI at EDs without an associated trauma center designated hospital (NTC-visits). Results: A total of 516,716 reported visits were identified with SCI. The annual total ED visits with admission to the same hospital for patients diagnosed with SCI increased significantly from 39,129 to 50,127 from 2006 to 2014 (P < 0.001). From 2006 to 2014, the annual ED visits and admissions from TC-visits increased significantly from 27,781 to 43,926 and 23,445 to 35,635, respectively (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001). However, the annual ED visits and admissions from NTC-visits did not change significantly from 23,938 to 22,107 and 15,683 to 14,493, respectively (P = 0.09 and P = 0.1). Throughout the entire study period, the annual total ED visits with admissions to the same hospital was significantly higher for TC-visits than NTC-visits diagnosed with SCI (P < 0.0001). The mean length of stay (14.1 days vs. 8.1 days), annual total in-hospital mortality (6.8% vs. 6.0%), and annual total discharges to another institution (53.8% vs. 46.8%) were significantly higher in TC-visits throughout the study period (P < 0.001). However, the annual total routine discharges (27.2% vs. 26.4%), annual total discharges to short-term hospital (12.4% vs. 7.2%), and annual total discharges to home health care (7.7% vs. 4.4%) were significantly higher in NTC-visits throughout the study period (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Of the population of patients with SCI who visit EDs, those seen at trauma centers have a significant parallel association with incidence and patient outcome compared against those seen at non-trauma centers. Prospective research is warranted to make recommendations for required healthcare infrastructures based on an institution’s trauma center designation. J Neurol Res. 2020;10(5):193-198 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr609

Hospital resources do not predict accuracy of secondary trauma triage: A population-based analysis.

The identification of patients who require transfer from non-trauma centers to trauma centers (secondary triage) is complicated by high rates of undertriage and overtriage. The objective of this study was to evaluate variations in secondary triage accuracy across non-trauma centers and identify factors associated with highly accurate secondary triage. We performed a population-based study of injured patients who presented to non-trauma centers in a large regional trauma system. Patients were categorized as undertriaged, overtriaged, or appropriately triaged based on transfer status and presence of a severe injury (Injury Severity Score >15, death within 24 hours, or critical injury as defined by the American College of Surgeons). Mixed-effect models, adjusted for case mix and hospital resource, were used to compare triage accuracy across hospitals and identify factors associated with high-performing centers. Among 118,973 patients identified at 182 non-trauma centers, 37,528 (31.5%) had severe injuries. The majority (76.9%) of severely injured patients were not transferred to a trauma center (undertriaged), while 9.6% of nonseverely injured patients were transferred to a trauma center (overtriaged). Mixed-effect models demonstrated that at the average hospital severely injured patients were 3.76 times more likely to be transferred than nonseverely injured patients (diagnostic odds ratio, 3.76; 95% confidence interval, 3.20-4.31). Despite significant variation in triage accuracy across hospitals, adjusted analyses suggested that local resources bore no relationship to triage accuracy. Triage accuracy varies significantly across non-trauma centers, after adjusting for hospital resources. These findings suggest that other potentially modifiable factors play a key role in transfer decisions. Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

National Study of Triage and Access to Trauma Centers for Older Adults

To identify predictors of undertriage among older injured Medicare beneficiaries, identify any regions in which undertriage is more likely to occur, and examine additional factors associated with undertriage at a national level. Using 2009 to 2014 Medicare claims data, we identified older adults (≥65 years) receiving a diagnosis of traumatic injury, and linked claims with trauma center designation records from the American Trauma Society. Undertriage was defined as nontrauma centers treatment with an Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16, consistent with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma benchmark. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds of undertriage by census region, adjusting for sex, race, age, Injury Severity Score, trauma center proximity, and mode of transportation. Forty-six percent of severely injured patients (n=125,731) were treated at a nontrauma center. Compared with that for patients in the Midwest, adjusted odds of undertriage were 100% higher for patients in Southern states (odds ratio [OR] 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00 to 2.04) and 78% higher in Western states (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.73 to 1.82). Compared with that for patients aged 65 to 69 years, odds of undertriage gradually increased in all age groups, reaching 57% for patients older than 80 years (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.61). Distance to a trauma center was associated with increasing odds of undertriage, with 37% higher odds (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40) for older adults living more than 30 miles from a trauma center compared with patients living within 15 miles. Nearly half of older adult trauma patients are undertriaged; it increases with age and distance to care and is most common in Southern and Western states. Improvements to field triage and trauma center access for older patients are urgently needed.

Causes of Delay During Interfacility Transports of Injured Patients Transported by Air Ambulance

Background: Many severely injured patients are initially brought to a non-trauma centers for initial assessment and stabilization. Air ambulance services are commonly used to expedite interfacility transport of injured patients to trauma centers. Little is known of the types of delays experienced during interfacility transports. The purpose of this study was to identify specific causes of modifiable delays and estimate the attributable time associated with each of these delays.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured patients undergoing interfacility transfer to a trauma center who were transported by a provincial air ambulance service between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. Electronic patient care records were screened and then manually reviewed to identify causes of delay during the interfacility transport process. The attributable time for each of these delays was also estimated.Results: There were 932 injured patients emergently transported by air ambulance from a community hospital to a trauma center over the 3-year study period from which 458 unique causes of delay that were identified. The most frequent cause of delays to sending facility were refueling (38%), waiting for land emergency medical services escort (25%) and weather (12%). The most common in-hospital delays included waiting for documentation (32%), delay to intubate (15%), medically unstable patient (13%) and waiting for diagnostic imaging (12%). The most frequent delays to receiving/handover included waiting for land EMS escort (31%), trauma team not assembled (24%) and weather (17%). In-hospital delays with the longest average length of delay included chest tube insertion (53 minutes), intubation (49 minutes) and delays for diagnostic imaging (46 minutes).Conclusions: In conclusion, we identified numerous modifiable causes of delay during interfacility transport. Efforts to reduce these delays can be made at both the air ambulance and hospital levels.

A comparison of major trauma patient transport destination in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia

BackgroundDespite evidence of a lower risk of death, major trauma patients are not always transported to Trauma Centres. This study examines the characteristics and outcomes of major trauma patients between transport destinations. MethodsA retrospective cohort study of major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score >15) transported by ambulance was undertaken. Cases were divided into transport destination groups: (1) Direct, those transported to the Trauma Centre directly from the scene; (2) Indirect, those transported to another hospital prior to Trauma Centre transfer and (3) Non-transfers, those transported to a non-Trauma Centre and never subsequently transferred. Median and interquartile range (IQR) were used to describe the groups and differences were assessed using the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square for categorical. ResultsA total of 1625 patients were included. The median age was oldest in the non-transfers cohort (72 years IQR 46–84). This group had the highest proportion of falls from standing and head injuries (n = 298/400, 75%, p < 0.001). The non-transfers had the highest proportion of 30-day mortality (n = 134/400, 34%). ConclusionsThere were significant differences between the groups with older adults, falls and head injuries over-represented in the non-transfer group. Considering the ageing population, trauma systems will need to adapt.

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance

Despite evidence that treatment of severely injured patients at trauma centers is associated with reduced mortality, nearly half of all such patients are treated at nontrauma centers (undertriaged). Little is known about whether interfacility undertriage occurs because of practitioner decision-making or institutional and regional factors. To assess the associations between variation in triage practitioners at nontrauma centers and between practitioner-level variation and patient outcomes after injury. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from severely injured patients presenting to nontrauma centers and the practitioners who evaluated them in the emergency department from January 1, 2010, to October 15, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 15, 2018, to March 21, 2019. Proportion of variation in undertriage associated with practitioners, practitioner rates of undertriage, practitioner characteristics associated with undertriage, and 30-day case-fatality rate. A total of 124 008 severely injured patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.4] years; 67 253 [54.2%] female) and the 25 376 practitioners (5564 [21.9%] female) who evaluated the patients in the emergency department of nontrauma centers were included in the study. Undertriage occurred among 85 403 patients (68.9%), with 40.6% of total variation associated with practitioners, 37.8% with hospitals, and 6.7% with regions. Compared with physicians with National Provider Identification (NPI) enumeration before 2007, those with an NPI enumerated between 2007 and 2010 had an undertriage risk ratio (RR) of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), and those with an NPI enumerated after 2010 had an undertriage RR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99). Hospitals with neurosurgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.45-1.57) compared with those that did not; hospitals with spine surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06-1.13); hospitals with general surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.17). Compared with practitioners who undertriaged 25% or less of patients, a statistically significant increase was found in the odds of death for patients treated by practitioners with a triage rate of less than 25% to 50% (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) and less than 50% to 75% undertriage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) but not undertriage at greater than 75% (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18). In sensitivity analyses to adjust for unmeasured confounding, the association between triage practices and the case fatality rate became monotonic; compared with patients treated by practitioners with an undertriage rate of 25% or less, the odds of case fatality were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.21; P = .001) among patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 25% to 50%, 1.22 (95% CI, 1.13-1.32; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 50% to 75%, and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10-1.30; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates greater than 75%. The findings suggest that individual practitioner practices are an important source of variation in triage and represent a potential locus of intervention to reduce preventable deaths after injury.

241EMF Identifying Impacts of Undertriage Among Severe Pediatric Trauma Patients

The objective of this study was to detect factors associated with undertriage of pediatric trauma and establish the influence of undertriage on inter-facility transfer and mortality. This is a retrospective cohort study of all-payer administrative claims data of all emergency department (ED) and inpatient visits in a large, southeastern state between 2010 – 2015. Pediatric (<15 years) trauma patients were identified by ED diagnostic codes and restricted to severe injury using validated injury severity score (≥ 15). Undertriage was defined as initial care in a nontrauma (Level 3 or higher) center (pediatric or adult), as assigned by the state. Univariable and multivariable regression were used to identify risk factors for undertriage and the impact of undertriage on mortality and length of stay. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, expected primary payer, rurality, injury severity (ISS 15-25 or >25), admission timing (weekend versus weekday), and quartile of median household income (by zip code). Overall, 4,382 pediatric severe trauma subjects were included and 74.4% (n=3,260) were initially managed outside of an ED in a Level I or Level II trauma center. These subjects were more likely to be white, privately or non-insured, and reside in non-metro zip codes. Rural residence was the greatest risk factor for presenting at a nontrauma center (aOR: 4.10 [95% CI 2.62 to 6.43]). Eleven percent (n=482) of the subjects died during the initial hospital encounter, and initial assessment at a nontrauma center compared to trauma center was not associated with mortality (aOR: 0.81 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.09]). Length of stay, including ED and hospital stay, did not differ between subjects presenting to EDs at trauma or nontrauma centers (adjusted β: 1.05 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.15]). Additionally, 5.0% of subjects were transferred, but inter-hospital transfer was not associated with undertriage (aOR: 0.86 [95% CI 0.62 to 1.19]). Initial presentation at EDs that are not pediatric or adult trauma centers is common among severe pediatric trauma patients. Mortality, length of stay, and transfer patterns do not differ between trauma patients initially presenting to trauma versus nontrauma centers, even after adjusting for patient and facility characteristics. The high proportion of pediatric trauma patients seen outside of trauma centers is in line with previous reports in other state trauma systems. Absence of an observed impact of undertriage on mortality in this study may be due to differences in rural-urban disparities, a more mature trauma system and transfer protocols, or increased capability to manage trauma in nontrauma centers within the state. Future work will focus on incorporating emergency medical services availability and restricting the population to a more specific (ISS>25) definition of severe trauma.

Should Hypotensive Trauma Patients Ever be Transferred to a Trauma Center?

Many trauma patients present to nontrauma centers with emergency conditions. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act dictates that nontrauma centers attempt stabilization and provide appropriate transfer. Our goal was to determine whether there was a survival benefit in transferring hypotensive patients. The Tampa General Hospital trauma registry database was queried for adult trauma transfers from January 2012 to April 2018 including the first recorded systolic blood pressure (SBP) and other pertinent data. A manual chart review in hypotensive (SBP < 90) patients determined blood pressure at the time of transfer. Of the 3038 patients, 40 patients were hypotensive on arrival, with 40% (16) mortality. Eight of nine (88%) patients with SBP <70 on arrival, 3 of 11 (27%) with SBP 70 to 79, and 5 of 20 (25%) with SBP 80 to 89 died. The only survivor in the <70 group was normotensive at transport. Patients in these groups who were hypotensive at the time of transport died (4/4, 100%). Our data show no benefit in transferring patients with refractory hypotension at the time of transport; although the numbers are small, an SBP <70 should be considered prohibitive to transfer.

Concurrent Proximal Fractures Are Rare in Distal Forearm Fractures: A National Cross-sectional Study.

IntroductionDistal forearm fractures (DFF) account for 1.5% of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Clinicians frequently obtain imaging above/below the location of injury to rule out additional injuries. We sought to determine the incidence of associated proximal fractures (APF) in the setting of DFF and to evaluate the imaging practices in a nationally representative sample of EDs.MethodsWe queried the 2013 National Emergency Department Sample using International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnostic codes for DFF and APF. Current Procedural Technology codes identified associated imaging studies. We calculated national estimates using a weighted analysis of patient and hospital-level characteristics associated with APF and imaging practices. An analysis of costs estimated the financial impact of additional imaging in patients with DFF using Medicare reimbursement to approximate costs according to the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.ResultsIn 2013, an estimated 297,755 ED visits (weighted) were associated with a DFF, of which 1.6% (4836 cases) had an APF. The incidence of APF was lower among females (odds ratio [OR] (0.76); 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.91) but higher in metropolitan teaching hospitals compared to metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (OR [2.39]; 95% CI, 1.43–3.99) and Level 1 trauma centers (OR [3.9]; 95%, 1.91–7.96) compared to non-trauma centers. Approximately 40% (n = 117,948) of those with only DFF received non-wrist radiographs and 19% (n = 55,236) underwent non-wrist/non-forearm imaging. Factors independently associated with additional imaging included gender, payer, patient and hospital rurality, hospital region, teaching status, ownership, and trauma center level. Nearly $3.6 million (2018 U.S. dollars) was spent on the aforementioned additional imaging.ConclusionDespite the frequency of proximal imaging in patients with DFF, the incidence of APF was low. Further study to identify risk factors for APF based on mechanism and physical examination factors may result in reduced imaging and decreased avoidable healthcare spending.

Comparison of Injured Older Adults Included in vs Excluded From Trauma Registries With 1-Year Follow-up

Trauma registries are the primary data mechanism in trauma systems to evaluate and improve the care of injured patients. Research has suggested that trauma registries may miss high-risk older adults, who commonly experience morbidity and mortality after injury. To compare injured older adults who were included in with those excluded from trauma registries, with a focus on patients with serious injuries, requiring major surgery, or dying after injury. This cohort study included all injured adults 65 years and older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma centers in 7 counties in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, with follow-up through December 31, 2012. Record linkage was used to match emergency medical services records with state trauma registries, state discharge databases, state death registries, and Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August to November 2018. Inclusion in vs exclusion from a trauma registry. Mortality up to 12 months, including time to death and causes of death. Of 8161 included patients, 5579 (68.4%) were women, and the mean (SE) age was 82.2 (0.10) years. A total of 1720 older adults (21.1%) were matched to a trauma registry record. Seriously injured patients not captured by trauma registries ranged from 18% (7 of 38 patients with abdominal-pelvic Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater) to 80.0% (1792 of 2241 patients with extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater), while 68 of 186 patients requiring major nonorthopedic surgery (36.6%) and 1809 of 2325 patients requiring orthopedic surgery (77.8%) were not included in trauma registries. Of patients with serious injuries or undergoing major surgery missed by trauma registries (range by injury and procedure type, 36.0% to 57.1%), 36.4% (39.3% when excluding serious extremity injuries and orthopedic procedures) were treated at trauma centers, particularly level III through V hospitals. When registry and nonregistry groups were tracked over 12 months, 93 of 188 in-hospital deaths (49.5%) and 1531 of 1887 total deaths (81.1%) occurred in the nonregistry cohort. In their current form, trauma registries are ineffective in capturing, tracking, and evaluating injured older adults, although mortality following injury is frequently due to noninjury causes. High-risk injured older adults are not included in registries because of care in nontrauma hospitals, restrictive registry inclusion criteria, and being missed by registries in trauma centers.

P103: Factors associated with non-optimal resource utilization of air ambulance for interfacility transfer of injured patients

Introduction: Timely access to definitive care has been associated with improved outcomes for injured patients. Air ambulance services have become an integral part of Canadian trauma systems to help provide earlier access to a lead trauma centre (LTC). Multiple factors can lead to non-optimal resource utilization resulting in potential transport delays. The goal of this study is to identify patient, institutional and paramedic risk factors for non-optimal resource utilization for interfacility transfers of injured adult patients transported by air ambulance to a LTC. Methods: Ornge is a paramedic-staffed organization that is the sole provider of air ambulance services from a non-trauma centre to a LTC for the province of Ontario, Canada. This is a retrospective cohort study of all Ornge adult emergent interfacility transports over a 5-year period. Data was collected on patient demographics and clinical status, sending facilities, transport details and paramedic qualifications. Optimal resource utilization was determined based on distance and historical times. A logistic regression model was used to explore patient, provider and institutional risk factors for non-optimal resource use. Results: Between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 a total of 1777 injured patients underwent interfacility transport with Ornge. Of these 805 were identified as having non-optimal resource utilization. Patients who had an optimal resource use were found to be older and mechanically ventilated. Risk factors increasing odds of non-optimal transport included patients transported from a nursing station (OR 1.94), transport with primary or advanced care paramedics (OR 6.57 and 1.44, respectively) and transport between both 0800-1700 and 1700-0000 (OR 1.40 and 1.54, respectively). The median delay to arrival to receiving facility if a patient had a non-optimal resource use was 40 minutes Conclusion: We were able to identify several factors resulting in non-optimal resource utilization. We believe that nursing stations as a sending facility and type of paramedics crew transporting patients resulted in non-optimal resource utilization mainly due to these patients being of lower acuity and this affecting their triage. However the timing of day is more likely to be a resource availability issue and something that can be further studied and potentially improved.

Computed tomography scans prior to transfer to a pediatric trauma center: Transfer time effects, neurosurgical interventions, and practice variability.

Many nontrauma centers perform computed tomography (CT) on injured children prior to transfer to a pediatric trauma center (PTC), but the institutional variability and clinical impact of this practice is unclear. This study evaluated the association of pretransfer CT with transfer delays, the likelihood of emergent neurosurgical intervention among patients who underwent pretransfer head CT, and the effects of transfer distance on prevalence and regional variability of pretransfer CT. All injured children transferred from outlying nontrauma centers to a single freestanding PTC from 2009 to 2017 were included. Patients were categorized by undergoing pretransfer CT head alone, CT of multiple/other areas, or no CT. Transfer time (referring hospital arrival to PTC arrival) was compared between CT groups, using multivariable modeling to adjust for covariates. Neurosurgical interventions were compared between patients with normal and abnormal Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. The prevalence of pretransfer CT among referring centers was compared, with stratification by transfer distance. Of 2,947 transfer patients, 1,225 (42%) underwent pretransfer CT (29%, head CT alone; 13%, other/multiple CT). Transfer times were significantly longer for patients who underwent pretransfer head CT or multiple CT (287 or 298 minutes vs. 260 minutes, p < 0.0001) after adjustment for baseline characteristics, injury severity, and transfer distance. Among patients with normal pretransfer GCS who received a pretransfer head CT, the likelihood of urgent neurosurgical intervention was 1.3%. Prevalence rates of pretransfer CT by referring center varied from 15% to 94%; prevalence increased with increasing transfer distance but demonstrated wide variability among centers of similar distance. Pretransfer CT, whether of the head alone or multiple areas, is associated with delays in transfer to definitive care. Among patients with pretransfer GCS 15, the risk of urgent neurosurgical intervention is very low. Wide variability in pretransfer CT use between referring centers suggests opportunity for development of standardized protocols. Economic/decision, level III.

Determination of mis-triage in trauma patients: a systematic review.

Mis-triage including undertriage and overtriage is associated with morbidity and mortality. It is not clear what the extent of mis-triage rates among traumatic patients is. The aim of this study is to determine of mis-triage (undertriage and overtriage) in traumatic patients. This study was a systematic review about mis-triage rate among trauma patients. The following electronic databases were searched (Web of Knowledge, Scoups, PubMed, Cochrane library) from conception through February 1, 2018. Search terms included trauma, undertriage, and over-triage. Inclusion criteria were studies which report overtriage or undertriage rate in regard to triage of trauma patients; patients older than 18years old, English-written papers. Irrelevant papers as well as conference abstract, letter, editorial, thesis and studies on special population were excluded. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Checklist was used to examine review process. Twenty-one papers were included in this study. Sample size ranged from 244 to 550683 trauma patients. Fourteen studies originated from USA. Definition of mis-triage was summarized into four categories: ISS used to define undertriage error, formula for mis-triage (1-sensitivity), need for life-saving emergency intervention and patients triaged to a non-trauma center. Undertriage rate ranged from 1 to 71.9% and overtriage rate ranged from 19 to 79%. The standardization of mis-triage definitions is vital to estimate true rate of mis-triage among different studies and clarify the role of triage scales. The trauma triage scales need to be further developed to provide more valid and reliable results.

US Emergency Department Encounters for Firearm Injuries According to Presentation at Trauma vs Nontrauma Centers

This study uses the 2009-2014 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample to describe the volume and disposition of individuals with firearm injuries presenting to US emergency departments to determine opportunities to deliver interventions to prevent recurrent injury.

Evidence-based review of trauma center care and routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients; A collaboration from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Patient Assessment Committee, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric Trauma Committee, and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee.

Despite an aging population and increasing number of geriatric trauma patients annually, gaps in our understanding of best practices for geriatric trauma patients persist. We know that trauma center care improves outcomes for injured patients generally, and palliative care processes can improve outcomes for disease-specific conditions, and our goal was to determine effectiveness of these interventions on outcomes for geriatric trauma patients. A priori questions were created regarding outcomes for patients 65 years or older with respect to care at trauma centers versus nontrauma centers and use of routine palliative care processes. A query of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was performed. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to perform a systematic review and create recommendations. We reviewed seven articles relevant to trauma center care and nine articles reporting results on palliative care processes as they related to geriatric trauma patients. Given data quality and limitations, we conditionally recommend trauma center care for the severely injured geriatric trauma patients but are unable to make a recommendation on the question of routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients. As our older adult population increases, injured geriatric patients will continue to pose challenges for care, such as comorbidities or frailty. We found that trauma center care was associated with improved outcomes for geriatric trauma patients in most studies and that utilization of early palliative care consultations was generally associated with improved secondary outcomes, such as length of stay; however, inconsistency and imprecision prevented us from making a clear recommendation for this question. As caregivers, we should ensure adequate support for trauma systems and palliative care processes in our institutions and communities and continue to support robust research to study these and other aspects of geriatric trauma. Systematic review/guideline, level III.

Interfacility Transfer is Associated With Lower Mortality in Undertriaged Gunshot Wound Patients

BackgroundTreatment at a Level I trauma center yields better outcomes for patients with moderate-to-severe injury as compared with treatment in nontrauma centers. We examined the association between interfacility transfer to a level I or II trauma center and mortality for gunshot wound patients, among patients initially transported to a lower level or undesignated facility. Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients from the National Trauma Data Bank (2010-2015) with firearm as the external cause of injury, who met CDC criteria for emergency medical services triage to a higher level (American College of Surgeons [ACS] Level II or above) trauma center. We compared outcomes between patients (a) treated in an ACS level III or below facility and not transferred versus (b) transferred to an ACS level II or above facility, adjusting for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weights. ResultsOf the total 62,277 patients, 10,968 (17.6%) were transferred to a level II center or above, and 51,309 (82.4%) were treated at a level III or below or undesignated center. In adjusted analysis comparing transferred versus not transferred patients, risk was lower for mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.95 P = 0.011) but similar for any complication (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25 P = 0.87) and the five most common complications. Results were consistent when accounting for data missing at random, and when including state trauma center designations in the definition of Level II or greater versus III and below. ConclusionsOur study found lower mortality but similar complication risk associated with interfacility transfer for undertriaged gunshot wound patients. This suggests that transfer to a higher level center is warranted among these patients, with improved care potentially outweighing potential harms because of transfer.

Adherence to Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Guidelines Across a Spectrum of Fifty Emergency Departments: A Prospective, In Situ, Simulation-based Study.

Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival outcomes are dismal (<10%). Care that is provided in adherence to established guidelines has been associated with improved survival. Lower mortality rates have been reported in higher-volume hospitals, teaching hospitals, and trauma centers. The primary objective of this article was to explore the relationship of hospital characteristics, such as annual pediatric patient volume, to adherence to pediatric cardiac arrest guidelines during an insitu simulation. Secondary objectives included comparing adherence to other team, provider, and system factors. This prospective, multicenter, observational study evaluated interprofessional teams in their native emergency department (ED) resuscitation bays caring for a simulated 5-year-old child presenting in cardiac arrest. The primary outcome, adherence to the American Heart Association pediatric guidelines, was assessed using a 14-item tool including three component domains: basic life support (BLS), pulseless electrical activity (PEA), and ventricular fibrillation (VF). Provider, team, and hospital-level data were collected as independent data. EDs were evaluated in four pediatric volume groups (low<1,800/year; medium 1,800-4,999; medium-high 5,000-9,999; high>10,000). Cardiac arrest adherence and domains were evaluated by pediatric patient volume and other team and hospital-level characteristics, and path analyses were performed to evaluate the contribution of patient volume, systems readiness, and teamwork on BLS, PEA, and VF adherence. A total of 101 teams from a spectrum of 50 EDs participated including nine low pediatric volume (<1,800/year), 36 medium volume (1,800-4,999/year), 24 medium-high (5,000-9,999/year), and 32 high volume (≥10000/year). The median total adherence score was 57.1 (interquartile range= 50.0-78.6). This was not significantly different across the four volume groups. The highest level of adherence for BLS and PEA domains was noted in the medium-high-volume sites, while no difference was noted for the VF domain. The lowest level of BLS adherence was noted in the lowest-volume EDs. Improved adherence was not directly associated with higher pediatric readiness survey (PRS) score provider experience, simulation teamwork performance, or more providers with Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) training. EDs in teaching hospitals with a trauma center designation that served only children demonstrated higher adherence compared to nonteaching hospitals (64.3 vs 57.1), nontrauma centers (64.3 vs. 57.1), and mixed pediatric and adult departments (67.9 vs. 57.1), respectively. The overall effect sizes for total cardiac adherence score are ED type γ=0.47 and pediatric volume (low and medium vs. medium-high and high) γ=0.41. A series of path analyses models was conducted that indicated that overall pediatric ED volume predicted significantly better guideline adherence, but the effect of volume on performance was only mediated by the PRS for the VF domain. This study demonstrated variable adherence to pediatric cardiac arrest guidelines across a spectrum of EDs. Overall adherence was not associated with ED pediatric volume. Medium-high-volume EDs demonstrated the highest levels of adherence for BLS and PEA. Lower-volume EDs were noted to have lower adherence to BLS guidelines. Improved adherence was not directly associated with higher PRS score provider experience, simulation teamwork performance, or more providers with PALS training. This study demonstrates that current approaches optimizing the care of children in cardiac arrest in the ED (provider training, teamwork training, environmental preparation) are insufficient.

Insurance Status Biases Trauma-system Utilization and Appropriate Interfacility Transfer: National and Longitudinal Results of Adult, Pediatric, and Older Adult Patients.

To identify the association between insurance status and the probability of emergency department admission versus transfer for patients with major injuries (Injury Severity Score >15) and other complex trauma likely to require higher-level trauma center (TC) care across the spectrum of TC care. Trauma systems were developed to facilitate direct transport and transfer of patients with major/complex traumatic injuries to designated TCs. Emerging literature suggests that uninsured patients are more likely to be transferred. Nationally weighted Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (2010-2014) and longitudinal California State Inpatient Databases/State Emergency Department Databases (2009-2011) data identified adult (18-64 yr), pediatric (≤17 yr), and older adult (≥65 yr) trauma patients. Risk-adjusted multilevel (mixed-effects) logistic regression determined differences in the relative odds of direct admission versus transfer and outcome measures based on initial level of TC presentation. In all 3 age groups, insured patients were more likely to be admitted [eg, nontrauma center (NTC) private vs uninsured odds ratio (95% confidence interval): adult 1.54 (1.40-1.70), pediatric 1.95(1.45-2.61)]. The trend persisted within levels III and II TCs (eg, level II private vs uninsured adult 1.83 (1.30-2.57)] and among other forms of trauma likely to require transfer. At the state level, among transferred NTC patients, 28.5% (adult), 34.1% (pediatric), and 39.5% (older adult) of patients with major injuries were not transferred to level I/II TCs. An additional 44.3% (adult), 50.9% (pediatric), and 57.6% (older adult) of all NTC patients were never transferred. Directly admitted patients experienced higher morbidity [adult: 19.6% vs 8.2%, odds ratio (95% confidence interval):2.74 (2.17-3.46)] and mortality [3.3% vs 1.8%, 1.85 (1.13-3.04)]. Insured patients with significant injuries initially evaluated at NTCs and level III/II TCs were less likely to be transferred. Such a finding appears to result in less optimal trauma care for better-insured patients and questions the success of transfer-guideline implementation.