A multicenter prospective analysis of pediatric trauma activation criteria routinely used in addition to the six criteria of the American College of Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons has defined six minimum activation criteria (ACS-6) for the highest level of trauma activations at trauma centers. The verification criteria also allow for the inclusion of additional criteria at the institution's discretion. The purpose of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate the ACS-6 as well as commonly used activation criteria to evaluate overtriage and undertriage rates for pediatric trauma team activation. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected at nine pediatric trauma centers to examine 29 commonly used activation criteria. Patients meeting any of these criteria were evaluated for the use of high-level trauma resuscitation resources according to an expert consensus list. Patients requiring a resource but not meeting any activation criteria were included to evaluate undertriage rates. RESULTS: During the 1-year study, a total of 656 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 8 years, a median Injury Severity Score of 14, and mortality of 11%. Using all criteria, 55% of patients would have been overtriaged and 9% would have been undertriaged. If only the ACS-6 were used, 24% of patients would have been overtriaged and 16% would have been undertriaged. Among activation criteria with more than 10 patients, those most predictive of using a high-level resource were a gunshot wound to the abdomen (92%), blood given before arrival (83%), traumatic arrest (83%), tachycardia/poor perfusion (83%), and age-appropriate hypotension (77%). The addition of tachycardia/poor perfusion and pretrauma center resuscitation with greater than 40 mL/kg results in eight criteria with an overtriage of 39% and an undertriage of 10.5%. CONCLUSION: The ACS-6 provides a reliable overtriage or undertriage rate for pediatric patients. The inclusion of two additional criteria can further improve these rates while maintianing a simplified triage list for children.

Upgrading the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' evidence-leveling hierarchy.

In August 2008, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' (AACN's) Evidence-Based Practice Resource Work Group met to review current AACN Practice Alerts and to identify new Practice Alerts to be created. The work group was also tasked with reassessment of the grading system used by AACN that evaluates evidence associated with the Practice Alerts and other AACN resources. This article details the effort of this national volunteer work group, specifically highlighting the development of the new AACN evidence-leveling hierarchy system.

Symptom clusters of heart failure.

Patients with heart failure (HF) report multiple symptoms. Change in symptoms is an indicator of HF decompensation. Patients have difficulty differentiating HF symptoms from comorbid illness or aging. The study purpose was to identify the number, type, and combination of symptoms in hospitalized HF patients and test relationships with comorbid illness and age. A secondary analysis from a HF registry (N = 687) was conducted. The sample was 51.7% female, mean age 71 +/- 12.5 years. The theory of unpleasant symptoms informed the study regarding the multidimensional nature of symptoms. Factor analysis of nine items from the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire resulted in three factors, acute and chronic volume overload and emotional distress. Clusters occurred more frequently in older patients, but caused less impact.

Ethnic differences in quality of life in persons with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic illness burdens some groups more than others. In studies of ethnic/racial groups with chronic illness, some investigators have found differences in health-related quality of life (HRQL), whereas others have not. Few such comparisons have been performed in persons with heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare HRQL in non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic adults with heart failure. METHODS: Data for this longitudinal comparative study were obtained from eight sites in the Southwest, Southeast, Northwest, Northeast, and Midwest United States. Enrollment and 3- and 6-month data on 1212 patients were used in this analysis. Propensity scores were used to adjust for sociodemographic and clinical differences among the ethnic/racial groups. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. RESULTS: Significant ethnic/racial effects were demonstrated, with more favorable Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire total scores post-baseline for Hispanic patients compared with both black and white patients, even after adjusting for baseline scores, age, gender, education, severity of illness, and care setting (acute vs. chronic), and estimating the treatment effect (intervention vs. usual care). The models based on the physical and emotional subscale scores were similar, with post hoc comparisons indicating more positive outcomes for Hispanic patients than non-Hispanic white patients. CONCLUSION: Cultural differences in the interpretation of and response to chronic illness may explain why HRQL improves more over time in Hispanic patients with heart failure compared with white and black patients.

Gender differences in quality of life are minimal in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Prior investigators have suggested that quality of life differs in men and women with heart failure, especially in the physical functioning domain. The purpose of this study was to compare quality of life in men and women with heart failure to determine if differences exist after controlling for functional status, age, and ejection fraction. METHODS: Data from a sample of 640 men and women (50% each) matched on New York Heart Association functional classification and age were used for this secondary analysis. Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire were compared at baseline and 3 months after enrollment using multivariate techniques with ejection fraction controlled. Treatment group (intervention versus control) was controlled statistically at 3 months because the original data were drawn from experimental and quasi-experimental studies in which an improvement in quality of life had been a goal of the intervention. The sexes differed on marital status, so this variable was controlled in analyses as well. RESULTS: In all analyses, quality of life was minimally worse in women compared with men (1-3 points at most). None of the differences reached statistical significance except for emotional quality of life at baseline (P =.03). By 3 months, both men and women reported significantly improved and comparable quality of life and there were no significant differences between them. CONCLUSION: Quality of life is similar in men and women with heart failure when functional status, age, ejection fraction, and marital status differences are controlled.

The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire: sensitivity to differences and responsiveness to intervention intensity in a clinical population.

BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) is a commonly used measure of health-related quality of life in persons with heart failure. Researchers have questioned whether LHFQ is sensitive to subtle differences and sufficiently responsive to clinical interventions because the instrument has demonstrated variable performance in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the LHFQ for sensitivity to different clinical states and responsiveness to varying intensities of clinical intervention. METHODS: A convenience sample of nine experimental or quasi-experimental studies from eight clinical sites in the United States yielded data from 1,136 patients with heart failure. Data in the studies had been collected at enrollment and one, three, and/or six months later. Data were analyzed using descriptive, univariate, and multivariate techniques. RESULTS: Total and subscale scores on LHFQ were poorer in those with worse New York Heart Association functional class, although there was no difference in LHFQ scores between classes III and IV. No difference in LHFQ scores was found when patients were classified by ejection fraction. Scores improved significantly following hospital discharge, even in those in the control group. Changes in LHFQ scores were greatest in those receiving high intensity interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The LHFQ is sensitive to major differences in symptom severity but may not be sensitive to subtle differences. It is responsive to high intensity interventions. Investigators are cautioned against using this instrument without first maximizing intervention power or without a control group for comparison.