Trauma Injury Severity Score Methodology Research Articles

A Retrospective Review of the Timing of Glasgow Coma Scale Documentation in a Trauma Database: Implications for Patient Care, Research, and Performance Metrics

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is intended to be an objective, reliable measure of a patient's mental status. It is included as a metric for trauma registries, having implications for performance metrics and research. Our study compared the GCS recorded in the trauma registry (GCS-1) with that recorded in the neurosurgery consultation (GCS-2). This retrospective review compared GCS-1 with GCS-2. The Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method was used to calculate probability of survival (POS) for patients using both GCS-1 and GCS-2. GCS-1 score significantly differed from GCS-2 score (6.69 vs. 7.84, ± 2.553; P < 0.001). There were 172 patients (37.55%) with a GCS-1 score of 3 and 87 (19.00%) with a GCS-2 score of 3 (χ2P < 0.001). The POS calculated using TRISS methodology with GCS-1 (POS-1) was 74.7% ± 26.6% compared with GCS-2 (POS-2), which was 79.3% ± 24.4%. There was a statistically significant difference in the means of POS-2 and POS-2 (P < 0.001). The actual observed survival for the cohort was 71.0% (325/458). The immediate GCS score recorded on patient arrival after trauma differs significantly from the GCS score recorded at later times. This finding significantly altered the probability of survival as calculated by the TRISS methodology. This situation could have profound effects on risk-adjusted benchmarking, assessments of quality of care, and injury severity stratification for research. More studies into the optimal timing of GCS score recording or changes in GCS score and their impact on survival are warranted.

The impact of teaching status on trauma center clinical outcomes in the United States.

Teaching status/academic ranking may play a role in the variations in trauma center (TC) outcomes. Our study aimed to determine the relationship between TC teaching status and injury-adjusted, all-cause mortality in a national sampling.Retrospective review of the National Sample Program (NSP) from the National Trauma Data bank (NTDB). TCs were categorized based on teaching status. Adjusted mortality was determined by observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios, derived using TRauma Injury Severity Score methodology from the Injury Severity Score and Revised Trauma Score. Chi-square and t test analyses were utilized with a statistical significance defined as P <.05.Of the 94 TCs in the NSP, 46 were university, 38 were community teaching, and 10 were community nonteaching. For the University TCs, 62.8% were American College of Surgeons (ACS) level 1 and 81.2% state level 1. Of the community teaching TCs, 39.0% was ACS level 1 and 35.1% was state level 1. Of the community nonteaching TCs, 0% was ACS level 1 and 11.1% was state level 1. University TCs had a significantly higher O/E mortality rate than community teaching (0.75 vs 0.71; P = .04). There were no differences in O/E between community teaching and nonteaching TCs (0.71 vs 0.70; P = .70).Community teaching and nonteaching TCs have lower injury-adjusted, all-cause mortality rates than University Centers. Future studies should further investigate key differences between University TCs and community teaching TC to evaluate possible quality and performance improvement measures.

Direct to operating room trauma resuscitation decreases mortality among severely injured children.

Expediting evaluation and intervention for severely injured patients has remained a mainstay of advanced trauma care. One technique, direct to operating room (DOR) resuscitation, for selective adult patients has demonstrated decreased mortality. We sought to investigate the application of this protocol in children. All DOR pediatric patients from 2009 to 2016 at a pediatric Level I trauma center were identified. Direct to OR criteria included penetrating injury, chest injuries, amputations, significant blood loss, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and surgeon discretion. Demographics, injury patterns, interventions, and outcomes were analyzed. Observed mortality was compared with expected mortality, calculated using Trauma Injury Severity Score methodology, with two-tailed t tests, and a p value less than 0.5 was considered significant. Of 2,956 total pediatric trauma activations, 82 (2.8%) patients (age range, 1 month to 17 years) received DOR resuscitation during the study period. The most common indications for DOR were penetrating injuries (62%) and chest injuries (32%). Forty-four percent had Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, 33% had Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 8 or less, and 9% were hypotensive. The most commonly injured body regions were external (66%), head (34%), chest (30%), and abdomen (27%). Sixty-seven (82%) patients required emergent procedural intervention, most commonly wound exploration/repair (35%), central venous access (22%), tube thoracostomy (19%), and laparotomy (18%). Predictors of intervention were ISS greater than 15 (odds ratio, 14; p = 0.013) and GCS < 9 (odds ratio = 8.5, p = 0.044). The survival rate to discharge for DOR patients was 84% compared with an expected survival of 79% (Trauma Injury Severity Score) (p = 0.4). The greatest improvement relative to expected mortality was seen in the subgroup with penetrating trauma (84.5% vs 74.4%; p = 0.002). A selective policy of resuscitating the most severely injured children in the OR can decrease mortality. Patients suffering penetrating trauma with the highest ISS, and diminished GCS scores have the greatest benefit. Trauma centers with appropriate resources should evaluate implementing similar policies. Diagnostic tests or criteria, level II.

Identifying preventable trauma death: does autopsy serve a role in the peer review process?

BackgroundMissing life-threatening injuries is a persistent concern in any trauma program. Autopsy is a tool routinely utilized to determine an otherwise occult cause of death in many fields of medicine. It has been adopted as a required component of the trauma peer review (PR) process by both the American College of Surgeons and the Pennsylvania Trauma Foundation. We hypothesized that autopsy would not identify preventable deaths for augmentation of the PR process. Materials and methodsA retrospective chart review using our institutional trauma registry of all trauma deaths between January 2012 and December 2015 was performed. Per the protocol of our level 1 center, all trauma deaths are referred to the medical examiner (ME) and reviewed as part of the trauma PR process. All autopsy results are evaluated with relation to injury severity score (ISS), trauma injury severity score (TRISS), nature of death, and injuries added by autopsy. ME reports are reviewed by the trauma medical director and referred back to the trauma PR committee if warranted. Trauma injury severity score methodology determines the probability of survival (Ps) given injuries identified. A patient with Ps of ≥0.5 is expected to survive their injuries. Cohorts were created based on when in the hospitalization death occurred: <24 h, or immediate death; 24 to 48 h, or early death; and death >48 h, or late death. A comparison was conducted between the ISS and Ps calculated during trauma workup and on autopsy using chi-square and Fischer's exact tests. ResultsA total of 173 patient deaths were referred to the ME with 123 responses received. Average length of stay was 2.61 d. Twenty-six patients had autopsy declined by the ME, 25 received an external examination only, and 72 received a full autopsy. Autopsy identified one case that was reconsidered in PR (P = 0.603) and added diagnoses, but not injuries, to one patient in the early death group (P = 1) and two in the late death group (P = 0.4921). No preventable cause of death was uncovered, and educational use was minimal. Autopsy did identify injuries in seven cases that were initially not consistent with expected mortality, but postmortem Ps was consistent with expected mortality (P = 0.254). Mean ISS was 34.48, and mean Ps was 0.275 among all patients. The most commonly identified injuries added by autopsy were rib injuries, lung injuries, and intracranial hemorrhage. ConclusionsAutopsy does not identify causes of preventable in an otherwise highly functioning trauma program and may be a poor use of institutional resources. In fact, it adds few diagnoses when death occurs after a full trauma assessment has had time to take place. Autopsy may be of use to identify protocol failure in maturing trauma programs, to give answers to grieving families and in select situations where death was unanticipated even after a full evaluation took place.

Trauma Survival Margin Analysis: A Dissection of Trauma Center Performance through Initial Lactate

Measurement of trauma center performance presently relies on W-score calculation and comparison to national data sets. A limitation to this practice is a skewing of the W score, as it determines overall performance of a trauma population that is often heavily weighted by patients of low acuity. The University of Virginia relative mortality metric (RMM) was formulated to provide higher resolution in identifying areas of performance improvement within subpopulations of a trauma center using traditional Trauma Injury Severity Score methodology. Lactic acidosis has been established as a risk factor for mortality in the setting of trauma. This study aims to compare survival margin, defined as the area between actual and predicted mortality curves, in patients with either normal or elevated initial lactate. W score and RMM were calculated and compared in these cohorts. Whereas the W score suggested increased survival within the high initial lactate group, the RMM demonstrated the expected finding of increased survival margin in the normal lactate cohort. The RMM is a potentially valuable tool for trauma centers to monitor and improve performance. In addition, these findings validate the use of lactate as a triage and risk adjustment tool in the trauma setting.

Influence of routine computed tomography on predicted survival from blunt thoracoabdominal trauma

IntroductionMany scoring systems have been proposed to predict the survival of trauma patients. This study was performed to evaluate the influence of routine thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT) on the predicted survival according to the trauma injury severity score (TRISS).Patients and methods1,047 patients who had sustained a high-energy blunt trauma over a 3-year period were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent physical examination, conventional radiography of the chest, thoracolumbar spine and pelvis, abdominal sonography, and routine thoracoabdominal CT. From this group with routine CT, we prospectively defined a selective CT (sub)group for cases with abnormal physical examination and/or conventional radiography and/or sonography. Type and extent of injuries were recorded for both the selective and the routine CT groups. Based on the injuries found by the two different CT algorithms, we calculated the injury severity scores (ISS) and predicted survivals according to the TRISS methodology for the routine and the selective CT algorithms.ResultsBased on injuries detected by the selective CT algorithm, the mean ISS was 14.6, resulting in a predicted mortality of 12.5%. Because additional injuries were found by the routine CT algorithm, the mean ISS increased to 16.9, resulting in a predicted mortality of 13.7%. The actual observed mortality was 5.4%.ConclusionRoutine thoracoabdominal CT in high-energy blunt trauma patients reveals more injuries than a selective CT algorithm, resulting in a higher ISS. According to the TRISS, this results in higher predicted mortalities. Observed mortality, however, was significantly lower than predicted. The predicted survival according to MTOS seems to underestimate the actual survival when routine CT is used.

Evaluation of Trauma Care Applying TRISS Methodology in a Caribbean Developing Country

There have been conflicting reports regarding the applicability of Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology to evaluate trauma care in a developing country setting. The objective of this study was to apply TRISS methodology to evaluate trauma care in the public hospitals of a Caribbean developing country. A prospective, observational study was conducted in the three major general hospitals in Trinidad. Major trauma patients were included. Demographic data, waiting time in the Emergency Department, and nature of injury (blunt or penetrating) were noted. Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale were applied to all patients on admission. Hospital outcomes were noted. Predicted outcomes were calculated for adult patients using TRISS methodology. M, Z statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were done. There were 326 trauma patients studied, of whom 279 adults were evaluated by the TRISS methodology. Men were more frequently involved in trauma than women; there was more blunt trauma than penetrating trauma. The M statistic was 0.98 and the overall Z statistic was 5.81. The ROC curve analysis showed TRISS to be a fair discriminator in the study case-mix with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.69–0.96). There is a considerable disparity between predicted and observed outcomes when trauma patients are evaluated by the TRISS methodology in a developing country setting.

Trauma epidemiology and outcome in a developing country: perspectives from a university teaching hospital in Beirut

This study aims at evaluating trauma care at the American University of Beirut Medical Centre (AUB-MC) and comparing it to the norms established by the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS). From January 2001 until January 2003, data necessary to calculate probability of survival using the Trauma Injury Severity Score methodology were collected. M, W, Z, Ws and Zs statistics were calculated to compare outcome at AUB-MC to the MTOS dataset. A total of 873 patients were included in the study. W statistics was calculated at 0.35 with Z score for the overall sample of 0.081 indicating that there was no statistically significant difference in survival between this group and the MTOS group. In a developing country a hospital achieves trauma outcomes similar to the MTOS dataset. Further studies looking at trauma care in Lebanon as a whole are needed.

The Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) score and Injury Severity Score (ISS) for predicting resource utilization and outcome of intensive care in pediatric trauma

Mortality prediction in trauma is assessed using the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Revised Trauma Score using Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology. The Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) score assesses mortality risk in critically ill children. We compared the ability of PRISM and ISS (using TRISS methodology) to predict resource utilization and outcome in pediatric trauma. Retrospective chart and database review. Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Consecutive admissions to a PICU over a 2-yr period. Demographic data including PICU resource utilization and outcome were recorded. Data were recorded on 1,052 admissions (31 deaths), including 125 pediatric trauma patients (11 deaths). Patients were stratified into low- and high-risk categories based on PRISM and ISS scores. Patients with PRISM scores <6 and ISS scores <10 were classified as low risk. While both low-risk PRISM and ISS scores readily identified survivors, PRISM was the more sensitive indicator of resource utilization. PRISM, however, performed less well in determining risk-adjusted mortality as compared with ISS. PRISM readily stratifies pediatric trauma patients for resource utilization. PRISM appears to underestimate mortality in pediatric trauma as compared with ISS using TRISS methodology.

Effect of a pediatric trauma response team on emergency department treatment time and mortality of pediatric trauma victims.

Delay in the provision of definitive care for critically injured children may adversely effect outcome. We sought to speed care in the emergency department (ED) for trauma victims by organizing a formal trauma response system. A case-control study of severely injured children, comparing those who received treatment before and after the creation of a formal trauma response team. A tertiary pediatric referral hospital that is a locally designated pediatric trauma center, and also receives trauma victims from a geographically large area of the Western United States. Pediatric trauma victims identified as critically injured (designated as "trauma one") and treated by a hospital trauma response team during the first year of its existence. Control patients were matched with subjects by probability of survival scores, and were chosen from pediatric trauma victims treated at the same hospital during the year preceding the creation of the trauma team. A trauma response team was organized to respond to pediatric trauma victims seen in the ED. The decision to activate the trauma team (designation of patient as "trauma one") is made by the pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physician before patient arrival in the ED, based on data received from prehospital care providers. Activation results in the notification and immediate travel to the ED of a pediatric surgeon, neurosurgeon, emergency physician, intensivist, pharmacist, radiology technician, phlebotomist, and intensive care unit nurse, and mobilization of an operating room team. Most trauma one patients arrived by helicopter directly from accident scenes. Data recorded included identifying information, diagnosis, time to head computerized tomography, time required for ED treatment, admission Revised Trauma Score, discharge Injury Severity Score, surgical procedures performed, and mortality outcome. Trauma Injury Severity Score methodology was used to calculate the probability of survival and mortality compared with the reference patients of the Major Trauma Outcome Study, by calculation of z score. Patients treated in the ED after trauma team initiation had statistically shorter times from arrival to computerized tomography scanning (27 +/- 2 vs 21 +/- 4 minutes), operating room (63 +/- 16 vs 623 +/- 27 minutes) and total time in the ED (85 +/- 8 vs 821 +/- 9 minutes). Calculation of z score showed that survival for the control group was not different from the reference population (z = -0.8068), although survival for trauma-one patients was significantly better than the reference population (z = 2.102). Before creation of the trauma team, relevant specialists were individually called to the ED for patient evaluation. When a formal trauma response team was organized, time required for ED treatment of severe trauma was decreased, and survival was better than predicted compared with the reference Major Trauma Outcome Study population.