Nontrauma Hospitals Research Articles

U‐STITCHING SPLENORRAPHY TECHNIQUE: EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL STUDY

The aim of the present study was to describe the laboratory development and the subsequent clinical utility of the U-stitching technique for splenorraphy over the recent years in a general non-trauma hospital. Patients with splenectomies and patients treated conservatively during the same time period, are also presented. In the 15-year period from September 1988 until September 2003, 65 patients were diagnosed with splenic injury following admission to 2nd Department of Surgery, Democritus University Hospital, after blunt abdominal trauma. During the first 3 years, 14 patients were admitted; one of them was treated conservatively and 13 had splenectomies. Because computed tomography (CT) was not available at that time, these 14 patients form a control group. During the remaining 12-year period, 51 patients (39 male and 12 female; age, 4-82 years; mean, 31.1 years; SD, 19.7 years) were treated conservatively or surgically, either with splenectomy or with splenorraphy. Splenorraphy was performed using the U-stitching technique. This alternative splenorraphy technique was first tested on experimental models at 2nd Department of Surgery, Democritus University Hospital, then followed by successful clinical application. The medical records for these patients were reviewed to extract the data for the present study. Thirty-six patients (70.6% of 51 patients) were treated surgically; of these, 21 (41.2% of 51 patients) had splenectomy and 15 (29.4% of 51 patients) had splenorraphy. Non-operative treatment was initially given to 15 patients (29.4% of 51 patients). Two of them had delayed rupture of the spleen and underwent splenectomy (at 8 and 40 days). The total number of preserved spleens was 28 of 51 (54.9%). None of the patients with conservative treatment or splenorraphy died. One patient with splenectomy died later from overwhelming sepsis. Splenic salvage is now a treatment goal. If the patient is haemodynamically unstable and splenorraphy is possible, the U-stitching technique is a promising approach.

Trends in Operative Management of Pediatric Splenic Injury in a Regional Trauma System

Selective nonoperative management of pediatric blunt splenic injury became the standard of care in the late 1980s. The extent to which this practice has been adopted in both trauma centers and nontrauma hospitals has been investigated sporadically. Several studies have demonstrated significant variations in practice patterns; however, most published studies capture only a selective population over a relatively short time interval, often without simultaneous adjustment for confounding variables. The objective of this study was to characterize the variation in operative versus nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury in children in nontrauma hospitals and in trauma centers with varying resources for pediatric care within a regionalized trauma system in the past decade. The study population included all children who were younger than 19 years and had a diagnosis of blunt injury to the spleen (International Classification of Diseases code 865.00-865.09) and were admitted to each of the 175 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania between 1991 and 2000. The proportion of patients who were treated operatively was stratified by trauma-level certification and adjusted for age and splenic injury severity. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to generate probabilities of splenectomy by age, injury severity, and hospital type. From 1991 through 2000 in Pennsylvania, 3245 children sustained blunt splenic injury that required hospitalization; 752 (23.2%) were treated operatively. Generally, as age and splenic injury severity increased, the proportion of patients who were treated operatively increased. Compared with pediatric trauma centers, the relative risk (with associated 95% confidence interval) of splenectomy was 4.4 (3.0-6.3) for level 1 trauma centers with additional qualifications in pediatrics; 6.2 (4.4-8.7) for level 1 trauma centers, 6.3 (5.3-7.4) for level 2 trauma centers, and 5.0 (4.2-5.9) for nontrauma centers. Significant variation in practice pattern was seen among hospital types and over time even after adjustment for age and injury severity. The operative management of splenic injury in children varied significantly by hospital trauma status and over time during the past decade in Pennsylvania. Given the relative benefits of nonoperative treatment for children with blunt splenic injury, these results highlight the need for more widespread and standardized adoption of this treatment, particularly in hospitals without a large volume of pediatric trauma patients.

Derivation of a preliminary clinical decision rule to guide the interhospital transfer of patients with traumatic brain injury using a resource utilization outcome

Study objectives: We derive a preliminary clinical decision rule for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to identify the group of patients requiring specialized tertiary care resources within 72 hours of presentation, using variables readily available to the clinician. Trained medical record abstractors collected data on a retrospective cohort of consecutive persons with blunt head injury using a structured data collection instrument from 1999 through 2003. Patients aged 18 to 65 years, transported directly from the scene of injury, evaluated in the emergency department (ED) of a Level I trauma center, and retrospectively identified as having a serious head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score ≥3) were included in the analysis. Resource-based high therapeutic intensity (HTI) measures warranting specialized trauma care were identified a priori (all within 72 hours after ED arrival), including neurosurgical intervention, exploratory laparotomy, intensive care (ventilator support >48 hours, transfusion ≥6 units of packed RBC, vasopressor support), or death. We used classification and regression tree analysis to derive a preliminary decision rule using 19 covariates (patient demographics, comorbid disease, vital signs, laboratory values, and radiographic findings) and cross-validation techniques to estimate rule sensitivity and specificity. Binomial 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are provided for the derivation sample. Results: Five hundred four consecutive trauma patients were identified as having a head injury, of whom 258 patients (51%) required at least 1 of the HTI measures. Five variables (emergency medical services [EMS] Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score, ED GCS, serum bicarbonate level, EMS respiratory rate, and ED respiratory rate) had a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 42% for identifying patients requiring 1 of the HTI measures (derivation sample: sensitivity 95% [95% CI 92% to 98%] and specificity 52% [95% CI 46% to 58%]). Conclusion: This preliminary decision rule identified most patients with TBI in the derivation sample requiring urgent tertiary trauma care resources and was much more specific than using a standard injury-based criterion for transfer (eg, head AIS score ≥3). The generalizability of this rule for head-injured patients presenting to nontrauma hospitals will need to be evaluated.

Fractures in access to and assessment of trauma systems.

Trauma is a major public health problem and organized systems of trauma care have been shown to substantially reduce trauma-related mortality. Currently California and many other states have incompletely developed systems of trauma care delivery. This study was undertaken to determine how frequently patients incurring serious trauma in California receive treatment at a trauma center. Hospital discharge records for 360,743 acute trauma patients for 1995 to 1997 were analyzed. Abbreviated Injury Scale scores were calculated from discharge diagnosis codes. Severity of trauma and the need for trauma center treatment was defined by eight Abbreviated Injury Scale criteria combined with patient age and type of injury. According to study criteria, 67,718 patients needed trauma center care and 56% were treated at a trauma center. Among patients less than 55 years of age, 62% were treated at a trauma center compared with 40% of those aged 55 years or more (p < 0.0001). For patients less than 55 years old with brain injuries, 66% were treated at a trauma center compared with 44% for patients aged 55 years or more (p < 0.0001). Of the 29,849 patients who met Abbreviated Injury Scale criteria but were not treated at trauma centers, 59% were in counties with designated trauma centers and 41% were in counties without trauma centers. Only 56% of seriously injured patients in California were treated at trauma centers, despite most of the injuries occurring in the catchment areas of designated trauma care systems. Substantial undertriage of serious trauma patients to trauma centers appears to be occurring, especially in older persons and in persons with brain injuries. Efforts to understand why undertriage is occurring so frequently are hampered by fragmentation of the systems of care, inadequate data management systems, and lack of trauma care performance reporting by non-trauma center hospitals.

Effectiveness of prehospital trauma triage guidelines for the identification of major trauma in elderly motor vehicle crash victims

Introduction: Undertriage of older trauma victims has been a persistent and serious problem. Because of physiologic changes and pre-existing disease, blunt trauma in older persons is often covert. Prehospital trauma triage guidelines developed for use with a general adult population may not be sensitive enough to detect covert injuries in elderly trauma patients. This study examined the sensitivity and specificity of one state's prehospital trauma triage guidelines for adults, with a particular focus on the triage of elderly persons. Methods: This retrospective study used patient discharge data to examine the sensitivity (a measure of undertriage) and specificity (a measure of overtriage) of the adult prehospital trauma triage guidelines in 3 counties with level I trauma centers. Sensitivity and specificity of young and middle-aged adults was compared with that of older adults. Results: Undertriage was 8% for young and middle-aged men, 12% for young and middle-aged women, 18% for older men, and 15% for older women. Overtriage was present in all age groups, indicating that many motor vehicle crash victims who were admitted to trauma centers could have been admitted to nontrauma center hospitals. Discussion: Low sensitivity and specificity of trauma triage guidelines results in undertriage and overtriage. These guidelines should include age as a decision point to avoid placing older persons at risk for undertriage. Although some degree of overtriage is unavoidable without increasing undertriage, efforts should be made to minimize this costly occurrence.

National inventory of hospital trauma centers.

Trauma centers benefit thousands of injured individuals every day and play a critical role in responding to disasters. The last full accounting of the number and distribution of trauma centers identified 471 trauma centers in the United States in 1991. To determine the number and configuration of trauma centers and identify gaps in coverage. Interviews with trauma center directors (September 2001 to April 2002), data from the American Hospital Association's Annual Survey of Hospitals (2000), and the US Health Resources Administration's Area Resource File (2001) were used to determine characteristics of trauma center hospitals and the geographic areas they serve in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia. Characteristics of trauma centers were examined by level of care and compared with nontrauma centers. Hospitals are designated or certified as trauma centers by a state or regional authority or verified as trauma centers by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Trauma centers that treat only children (n = 31) were excluded. Total number of trauma centers and number of trauma centers per million population. In 2002, there were 1154 trauma centers in the United States, including 190 level I centers and 263 level II centers. Several states have categorized every hospital with an emergency department at some level of trauma care while others have designated a limited number of level I and level II centers only. The number of level I and II centers per million population ranges from 0.19 to 7.8 by state. When compared with nontrauma center hospitals, trauma centers are larger, more likely to be teaching hospitals, and more likely to offer specialized services. Although the availability of trauma centers has improved, challenges remain to ensure the optimal number, distribution, and configuration of trauma centers. These challenges must be addressed, especially in light of the recent emphasis on hospital preparedness and homeland security.

Practice management guidelines for geriatric trauma: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group.

Advanced age is a well-recognized risk factor for adverse outcomes after trauma. A substantial body of literature, much of it cited within this article, demonstrates increased morbidity and mortality in geriatric trauma patients compared with their younger counterparts. Whether this outcome difference is because of the decreased physiologic reserve that accompanies aging, a higher incidence of preexisting medical conditions in the geriatric patient, or other factors yet to be identified remains unclear. It is clear, however, that good outcomes can be achieved in this patient population when appropriately aggressive trauma care is directed toward geriatric patients with survivable injuries. Implicit in the above statement is the need to identify, as soon as possible after injury, those patients who will benefit from aggressive resuscitation, timely injury management, and posttrauma rehabilitation. It is equally important, however, to limit these intensive and expensive treatment modalities to patients whose injuries are not only survivable but also compatible with an acceptable quality of life. Our purpose in developing this guideline was to provide the trauma practitioner with some evidence-based recommendations that could be used to guide decision-making in the care of the geriatric trauma patient. We began this process by first developing a series of questions, the answers to which we hoped could be supported by the existing scientific literature. The initial set of questions were as follows: 1. Is age itself a marker of increased morbidity/ mortality? If so, what age should be used? 2. Is age instead a surrogate for increased preexisting conditions (PECs)? If so, which premorbid conditions are particularly predictive of poor outcomes? 3. Should age itself be a criterion for triage from the field directly to a trauma center, regardless of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, Trauma Score (TS), and so forth? If so, what age should be used? 4. Do trauma centers have better outcomes with geriatric trauma than nontrauma centers? 5. Are there specific injuries, scores (e.g., Injury Severity Score [ISS], TS, GCS score), or PEC/age combinations in geriatric trauma patients that are so unlikely to be survivable that a nonaggressive approach from the outset could be justified? 6. What resuscitation end-points should be used for the geriatric trauma patient? 7. Should all geriatric trauma patients receive invasive hemodynamic monitoring? If so, what specific types of monitoring should be used? If not, which geriatric patients benefit from invasive monitoring? Unfortunately, after examining the available literature, it is clear that evidence-based responses to all of the questions raised above are not possible. As the evidentiary tables demonstrate, there are few, if any, prospective, randomized, controlled trials that definitively address any of the above issues. Second, there is a lack of uniformity as to a specific age criterion for geriatric trauma. As shown in the evidentiary tables, geriatric trauma is variously defined in the literature as age greater than or equal to 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, and even 80 years of age. There is even literature support for increased mortality from trauma beginning at age 45! Furthermore, because age is a continuous variable, and not a dichotomous one, adverse outcomes associated with geriatric trauma are likely to increase in a continuous fashion with age as opposed to a stepwise leap as a given patient reaches a specific age. Third, there is no concise definition of a geriatric trauma patient. In some studies, all patients over a given age are included, whereas in others, patients with penetrating injuries, burns, and minor injuries, such as slip-and-falls, are excluded. Some studies include all patients regardless of hemodynamic instability or injury severity, whereas others impose strict entrance criteria or exclude patients who do not survive for a predetermined period of time after admission. Such lack of uniformity regarding inclusion criteria makes it Submitted for publication October 3, 2001. Accepted for publication September 16, 2002. Copyright © 2003 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. From the Carolinas Medical Center (D.G.J.), Charlotte, North Carolina, Trauma Service, Bronson Hospital (B.R.P.), Kalamazoo, and Trauma Burn Center, University of Michigan Health System (W.W.), Ann Arbor, Michigan, New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center (P.S.B.), New York, New York, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (J.S.H.), New Brunswick, New Jersey, Mt. Sinai Hospital (M.R.H.), Chicago, Illinois, Morehouse School of Medicine (K.E.S.), Atlanta, Georgia, and R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center (T.M.S.), Baltimore, Maryland. Address for reprints: David G. Jacobs, MD, Carolinas Medical Center, P.O. Box 32861, Charlotte, NC 28232; email: djacobs@carolinas.org.

Adverse drug events in trauma patients.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are noxious and unintended results of drug therapy. ADEs have been shown to be a risk to hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and nature of ADEs in trauma patients and to characterize the population at risk. An electronic medical record, a hospital wide computerized surveillance program, and a clinical pharmacist prospectively investigated ADEs in 4,320 trauma patients from 1996 through 1999. The rate of ADEs in trauma patients (98/4320, 2.3%) was twice that of non-trauma hospital patients (1,111/96,218, 1.2%, p < 0.001). Traumatized females had ADEs 1.5 times more often than traumatized males (2.7% versus 1.8%, p = 0.052). The medication class most often associated with ADEs was analgesics with 54% involving morphine and 20% involving meperidine. The most common ADEs were nausea, vomiting, and itching. Only one ADE was directly attributed to a medical error. Trauma patients are at double the risk for ADEs. Analgesics are particularly associated with ADEs and use should be carefully monitored.

Factors influencing admission among children with a traumatic brain injury.

To describe the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) among children in Maryland and to examine factors that influence hospital admission. Statewide mortality, hospital discharge, and ambulatory care data were used to identify all TBI-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths that occurred in 1998 to children aged 0-19 years according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's standard case definition and protocol. Inpatient admission was modeled as a function of patient, injury, and hospital characteristics. The overall incidence of pediatric TBI (i.e., ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths) in 1998 was 670/100,000. After controlling for injury severity and other factors, uninsured children were 40% less likely to be hospitalized (95% CI = 0.43 to 0.82) and children with Medicaid were 90% more likely to be hospitalized (95% CI = 1.42 to 2.54) than were those with private insurance. The presence of a major associated injury significantly influenced the likelihood of hospitalization, especially among children with a minor (OR = 8.8) to moderate (OR = 11.6) TBI. Children who presented to a trauma center hospital were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than children treated at a non-trauma center hospital, although this varied depending on income (OR = 1.8 for high versus low) and hospital volume (OR = 2.6 for a small hospital and OR = 29.0 for a large hospital). After adjusting for TBI severity and the presence of associated injuries, significant differences in hospitalization rates may exist among different patient subgroups and hospitals for children who sustain TBIs.

Can we improve trauma mortality in a state with a voluntary trauma system

Background: Arizona has no organized statewide trauma system. We looked at the1997 and the 1998 Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) for the State of Arizona, and examined the trauma mortality data at both trauma hospitals and nontrauma hospitals. Methods: All qualifying mortalities based on hospital data from 1997 through 1998 were reviewed for the State of Arizona. Trauma deaths from 32 nontrauma hospitals were examined and compared with that of 7 level 1 trauma centers within the state. Results: In this time period, there were 375 qualified mortalities from nontrauma centers and 761 qualified mortalities from level 1 trauma facilities. Only 29 (8%) of nontrauma hospital deaths were found to be due to motor vehicle accidents. Only 8 (4%) mortalities at nontrauma centers were due to firearms. Conclusion: The data suggest that patients are arriving at the appropriate facility for definitive care despite the absence of a formal statewide trauma system.

Review of evidence regarding trauma system effectiveness resulting from panel studies.

The objectives this study are to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of the panel method for evaluating the quality of trauma care and to review the individual and collective evidence in support of regionalized trauma care derived from these studies. A review of the published literature was conducted and identified 10 panel studies that compared appropriateness of care and/or the preventability of deaths occurring either across hospitals in a trauma system versus non-trauma system, in a defined region before and after implementation of a trauma system, between trauma center and non-trauma center hospitals within a defined region, or across hospitals of varying levels of care presystem. Panel studies vary widely in the approaches used to elicit judgments; low rates of inter-rater reliability have been reported. The strength of the evidence derived from panel studies in support of trauma system effectiveness must be reviewed in this context. All panel studies are classified as providing weak, Class III evidence. Yet, collectively they provide some face validity in support of the hypothesis that treatment at a trauma versus non-trauma center may be associated with less inappropriate care and fewer preventable deaths among the seriously injured.

Prevalence of domestic violence in an inpatient female population.

Studies have evaluated the prevalence of domestic violence in populations of patients in emergency and primary care settings, but there are little data on patients admitted to hospitals. We undertook a study to evaluate the prevalence of domestic violence among female inpatients. Of 131 consecutive female patients between the ages of 18 and 60 admitted to a nontrauma urban teaching hospital asked to complete a self-administered survey about domestic violence, 101 completed the questionnaire. Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported being in an abusive relationship at one time. Two patients felt that domestic violence contributed to their current reason for admission. No respondents were asked about domestic violence by health care providers. Domestic violence is an uncommon but important precipitant to nontrauma hospital admissions. Physicians should query all female inpatients about domestic assault.

Defining the Major Trauma Patient and Trauma Severity

Criteria for defining the major trauma patient have been specified by physicians using Injury Patient Management Categories (PMCs), a computerized classification that can be used effectively with routinely collected discharge abstract data from non-trauma center hospitals as well as trauma centers. These criteria for major trauma not only include the more severe and complex single injuries, but also include criteria for identifying combinations of injuries that require tertiary level care. Major trauma patients identified as tertiary using PMCs are compared with existing and frequently used measures of injury severity such as AIS and ISS. Analyses suggest that the Injury PMCs identify major trauma patients accurately and more specifically than other indicators of severity that are commonly used. In addition, unlike other measures that are generally limited to registries, PMC tertiary patient criteria differentiate major trauma patients at both trauma centers and non-trauma centers without additional data collection. Using this method thus facilitates trauma systems evaluation and patient outcome assessment.

Defining the Major Trauma Patient and Trauma Severity

Criteria for defining the major trauma patient have been specified by physicians using Injury Patient Management Categories (PMCs), a computerized classification that can be used effectively with routinely collected discharge abstract data from non-trauma center hospitals as well as trauma centers.

Do Trauma Centers Improve Outcome over Non-Trauma Centers

Development of regional medical care systems to treat patients who sustain major accidental injuries (trauma victims) has been based on autopsy studies which demonstrate that hospitals that meet certain accepted criteria of readiness (trauma centers) can prevent needless deaths of trauma victims. However, since only autopsy data have been available from non-trauma centers, it has not previously been possible to compare morbidity data between trauma centers and non-trauma hospitals. This study examines discharge abstract data and a new patient classification system called patient management categories (PMC) which are generated from this abstract data to evaluate length of stay (LOS), complications, and death to compare morbidity and mortality data from trauma centers and non-trauma centers. Discharge abstracts for 1,332 patients with the PMC of femoral shaft fracture with operation were obtained from all hospitals in Western Pennsylvania and Maryland for 1 year. Data from trauma centers were identified and compared to non-trauma centers using the following criteria: time to OR (less than or equal to 2 days vs. greater than 2 days), age (0-12, 13-55, greater than 55 years), associated injuries, and development of complications and death. Patients treated in trauma centers had significantly fewer complications (21% vs. 33%; p less than 0.001) and lower mortality rates (p less than 0.05) than those treated in non-trauma centers. Associated injuries, age, complications, and/or delay in time to OR significantly increased intensity and length of stay in both trauma and non-trauma centers. This significantly increased the cost of care provided to these patients in both types of centers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Evaluating Performance of Statewide Regionalized Systems of Trauma Care

A new methodology is presented for evaluating the extent to which patients within regionalized systems of trauma care are treated at the appropriate hospitals. Criteria are proposed for retrospectively classifying trauma patients as to whether they should have been treated at a trauma center. The criteria were developed by a panel of nationally recognized trauma experts and are based on the age of the patient and the type and AIS severity of injuries sustained. The criteria were then applied to uniformly collected data available for all trauma discharges in 1988 from acute care hospitals in a state with a well developed system of regionalized trauma care. According to the criteria, 19% of all trauma discharges in 1988 should have been treated at a trauma centers. Of those who should have been treated at a trauma center according to criteria, 66% actually received treatment at a center. Of those who were classified not to have required care at a trauma center, 62% actually were treated at non-trauma center hospitals. The congruence between where patients should have been treated and the actual level of hospital care received varied by the type and severity of the traumatic injuries sustained. The results of the analysis provide insights into the characteristics of trauma patients at higher risk of not getting the appropriate level of trauma care and should assist in improving guidelines for triage and transfer within a regionalized system of care.

Assuring Quality in a Trauma System—The Medical Audit Committee

A multidisciplinary concurrent audit of the quality of medical care within a trauma system was carried out by a committee of physicians, nurses, and health officials representing trauma centers, nontrauma hospitals, and the public agency administrating the trauma system. Care was audited with regard to timeliness and appropriateness of diagnosis and therapy. Complications were classified as being due to an error in diagnosis, judgment, or technique. Deaths were classified as nonpreventable, potentially salvageable, or frankly preventable. During the first 22 months of operation (1 August 1984-30 May 1986), 7,936 cases were audited. Of the 224 deaths occurring at nontrauma hospitals, 17 (7.6%) were felt to be frankly preventable. Of 541 deaths occurring at trauma centers, 11 (2.0%) were felt to be frankly preventable (p less than 0.001). The most common problem implicated in preventable deaths at nontrauma center hospitals was an error in diagnosis. Preventable deaths at trauma centers were most commonly due to an error in technique. Complications or protocol violations occurred in 595 of 6,564 surviving trauma patients (9.1%). During the first 12 months of system operation, 7,200 person-hours were required to perform the audit. Personnel costs alone for audit in the first year were $300,420.