Effect of urban vs. remote settings on prehospital time and mortality in trauma patients in Norway: a national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Norway has a diverse population pattern and often long transport distances from injury sites to hospitals. Also, previous studies have found an increased risk of trauma-related mortality in remote areas in Norway. Studies on urban vs. remote differences on trauma outcomes from other countries are sparse and they report conflicting results.The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in prehospital time intervals in urban and remote areas in Norway and assess how prehospital time and urban vs. remote settings were associated with mortality in the Norwegian trauma population. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of trauma cases included in the Norwegian Trauma Registry from 2015 to 2020. 28,988 patients met the inclusion criteria. Differences in study population characteristics and prehospital time intervals (response time, on-scene time and transport time) were analyzed. The Norwegian Centrality Index score was used for urban vs. remote classification. Descriptive statistics and relevant non-parametric tests with effect size measurements were used. A binary logistic regression model, adjusted for confounding factors, was performed. RESULTS: The prehospital time intervals increased significantly from urban to remote areas.Adjusted for control variables we found a significant relationship between prolonged on-scene time and higher odds of mortality. Also, suburban areas compared with remote areas were associated with higher odds of mortality. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study comparing prehospital time intervals in urban and remote areas, we found that prehospital time intervals in remote areas exceeded those in urban areas. Prolonged on-scene time was found to be associated with higher odds of mortality, but remoteness itself was not.

Care pathways and factors associated with interhospital transfer to neurotrauma centers for patients with isolated moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: a population-based study from the Norwegian trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: Systems ensuring continuity of care through the treatment chain improve outcomes for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Non-neurosurgical acute care trauma hospitals are central in providing care continuity in current trauma systems, however, their role in TBI management is understudied. This study aimed to investigate characteristics and care pathways and identify factors associated with interhospital transfer to neurotrauma centers for patients with isolated moderate-to-severe TBI primarily admitted to acute care trauma hospitals. METHODS: A population-based cohort study from the national Norwegian Trauma Registry (2015-2020) of adult patients (≥ 16 years) with isolated moderate-to-severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] Head ≥ 3, AIS Body < 3 and maximum 1 AIS Body = 2). Patient characteristics and care pathways were compared across transfer status strata. A generalized additive model was developed using purposeful selection to identify factors associated with transfer and how they affected transfer probability. RESULTS: The study included 1735 patients admitted to acute care trauma hospitals, of whom 692 (40%) were transferred to neurotrauma centers. Transferred patients were younger (median 60 vs. 72 years, P < 0.001), more severely injured (median New Injury Severity Score [NISS]: 29 vs. 17, P < 0.001), and had lower admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores (≤ 13: 55% vs. 27, P < 0.001). Increased transfer probability was significantly associated with reduced GCS scores, comorbidity in patients < 77 years, and increasing NISSs until the effect was inverted at higher scores. Decreased transfer probability was significantly associated with increasing age and comorbidity, and distance between the acute care trauma hospital and the nearest neurotrauma center, except for extreme NISSs. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trauma hospitals managed a substantial burden of isolated moderate-to-severe TBI patients primarily and definitively, highlighting the importance of high-quality neurotrauma care in non-neurosurgical hospitals. The transfer probability declined with increasing age and comorbidity, suggesting that older patients were carefully selected for transfer to specialized care.

Differences in time-critical interventions and radiological examinations between adult and older trauma patients: A national register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Older trauma patients are reported to receive lower levels of care than younger adults. Differences in clinical management between adult and older trauma patients hold important information about potential trauma system improvement targets. The aim of this study was to compare prehospital and early in-hospital management of adult and older trauma patients, focusing on time-critical interventions and radiological examinations. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the Norwegian Trauma Registry for 2015 through 2018. Trauma patients 16 years or older met by a trauma team and with New Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater were included, dichotomized into age groups 16 years to 64 years and 65 years or older. Prehospital and emergency department clinical management, advanced airway management, chest decompression, and admission radiological examinations was compared between groups applying descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: There were 9543 patients included, of which 28% (n = 2711) were 65 years or older. Older patients, irrespective of injury severity, were less likely attended by a prehospital doctor/paramedic team (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.71), conveyed by air ambulance (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73), and transported directly to a trauma center (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94). Time-critical intervention and primary survey radiological examination rates only differed between age groups among patients with New Injury Severity Score of 25 or greater, showing lower rates for older adults (advanced airway management: OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.76; chest decompression: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85; x-ray chest: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.75; x-ray pelvis: OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84). However, for the patients attended by a doctor/paramedic team, there were no management differences between age groups. CONCLUSION: Older trauma patients were less likely to receive advanced prehospital care compared with younger adults. Older patients with very severe injuries received fewer time-critical interventions and radiological examinations. Improved dispatch of doctor/paramedic teams to older adults and assessment of the impact the observed differences have on outcome are future research priorities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Epidemiology of geriatric trauma patients in Norway: A nationwide analysis of Norwegian Trauma Registry data, 2015-2018. A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric patients have a high risk of poor outcomes after trauma and is a rapid-increasing group within the trauma population. Given the need to ensure that the trauma system is targeted, efficient, accessible, safe and responsive to all age groups the aim of the present study was to explore the epidemiology and characteristics of the Norwegian geriatric trauma population and assess differences between age groups within a national trauma system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis is based on data from the Norwegian Trauma Registry (2015-2018). Injury severity was scaled using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Trauma patients 16 years or older with NISS ≥9 were included, dichotomized into age groups 16-64 years (Group 1, G1) and ≥65 years (Group 2, G2). The groups were compared with respect to differences in demographics, injury characteristics, management and outcome. Descriptive statistics and relevant parametric and non-parametric tests were used. RESULTS: Geriatric patients proved to be at risk of sustaining severe injuries. Low-energy falls predominated in G2, and the AIS body regions 'Head' and 'Pelvis and lower extremities' were most frequently injured. Crude 30-day mortality was higher in G2 compared to G1 (G1: 2.9 vs. G2: 13.6%, P<0.01) and the trauma team activation (TTA) rate was lower (G1: 90 vs. G2: 73%, P<0.01). A lower proportion of geriatric patients were treated by a physician prehospitally (G1: 30 vs. G2: 18%, [NISS 15-24], P<0.01) and transported by air-ambulance (G1: 24 vs. G2: 14%, [NISS 15-24], P<0.01). Median time from alarm to hospital admission was longer for geriatric patients (G1: 71 vs. G2: 78 min [NISS 15-24], P<0.01), except for the most severely injured patients (NISS≥25). CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study comparing adult and geriatric trauma patients, geriatric patients were found to have a higher mortality, receive less frequently advanced prehospital treatment and transportation, and a lower TTA rate. This is surprising in the setting of a Nordic country with free access to publicly funded emergency services, a nationally implemented trauma system with requirements to pre- and in-hospital services and a national trauma registry with high individual level coverage from all trauma-receiving hospitals. Further exploration and a deeper understanding of these differences is warranted.

Undertriage in trauma: an ignored quality indicator?

BACKGROUND: Early identification of life-threatening injuries is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. Failure to detect severe injury may cause delayed diagnosis and therapeutic interventions and is associated with increased morbidity. A national trauma system will contribute to ensure the optimal care for seriously injured patients throughout the treatment chain by, among other things, defining a sensitive triage tool for identifying severe injury and contribute to correct treatment destination. In 2017, a National trauma plan was implemented in Norway and several quality indicators were recommended to ensure an evaluation of potential gaps between achieved and desired quality, and thereby highlighting areas with potential for quality improvement. With this commentary, we want to draw attention to, what we believe is, an ignoring of an important quality indicator: undertriage in trauma. MAIN BODY: Severely injured patients not met by a trauma team is commonly referred to as undertriage. An undertriage rate below 5 % is an internationally recognized quality indicator in trauma care and is emphasized in the Norwegian national trauma plan. However, whether hospitals measure and report data about undertriage, have received little attention. Therefore, a national survey was performed among Norwegian hospitals, where thirty-seven of forty trauma receiving hospitals contributed. The results of the survey showed that only half of Norwegian trauma hospitals were capable of providing these data. The results of this survey show that currently the national trauma system is not equipped to obtain important data on an important and specific quality indicator. An ongoing discussion at a national level is how to define severe injury, which may alter future definitions on undertriage. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of undertriage in trauma is important to enhance patient safety, increase the precision of the triage tool and provide valuable learning information to individual hospitals and prehospital services. Currently only half of Norwegian hospitals who receive trauma patients report undertriage rates and unfortunately, only few hospital administrators request these data.

Geriatric Trauma - A Rising Tide. Assessing Patient Safety Challenges in a Vulnerable Population Using Norwegian Trauma Registry Data and Focus Group Interviews: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients constitute a vulnerable group, with a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality even after low-energy falls. As the world's elderly population continues to increase, the number of elderly trauma patients is expected to increase. Limited data are available about the possible patient safety challenges that elderly trauma patients face. The outcomes and characteristics of the Norwegian geriatric trauma population are not described on a national level. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to investigate whether patient safety challenges exist for geriatric trauma patients in Norway. An important objective of the study is to identify risk areas that will facilitate further work to safeguard and promote quality and safety in the Norwegian trauma system. METHODS: This is a population-based mixed methods project divided into 4 parts: 3 quantitative retrospective cohort studies and 1 qualitative interview study. The quantitative studies will compare adult (aged 16-64 years) and elderly (aged ≥65 years) trauma patients captured in the Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) with a date of injury from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics and relevant statistical methods to compare groups will be applied. The qualitative study will comprise focus group interviews with doctors responsible for trauma care, and data will be analyzed using a thematic analysis to identify important themes. RESULTS: The project received funding in January 2019 and was approved by the Oslo University Hospital data protection officer (No. 19/16593). Registry data have been extracted for 33,344 patients, and the analysis of these data has begun. Focus group interviews will be conducted from spring 2020. Results from this project are expected to be ready for publication from fall 2020. CONCLUSIONS: By combining data from the NTR with interviews with doctors responsible for treatment and transfer of elderly trauma patients, we will provide increased knowledge about trauma in Norwegian geriatric patients on a national level that will form the basis for further research aiming at developing interventions that hopefully will make the trauma system better equipped to manage the rising tide of geriatric trauma. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/15722.