Is trauma centre care helpful for less severely injured patients?

BACKGROUND: Trauma centres have been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths from serious injuries. This is due largely to the rapid response of surgeons and health care teams to resuscitate, evaluate, and operate if necessary. Less is known about the effectiveness of trauma centre care on those patients who have not incurred immediate life-threatening problems and may not be as critically injured. The purpose of this study was to review the use of physician and hospital resources for this patient population to determine whether trauma team and trauma centre care is helpful or even needed. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive trauma patients (n=1592) admitted from 1998 to 2002 to the trauma service of an urban level I trauma centre and recorded in the hospital trauma registry. Patients were triaged in a tiered response to more or less severely injured. All patients' care was directed by trauma surgeons. RESULTS: Of the 1592 patients, 398 (25%) received a full trauma team response (Class I), 1194 were less seriously injured (Class II). The ISS for the Class I patients was 19+/-18 and for Class II patients 10+/-10. Nineteen percent of Class II patients had an ISS>15. Overall mortality in Class II patients was 2% including 20 unexpected deaths. Four hundred and three Class II patients (34%) had multisystem injuries. Of the Class II patients 423 (35%) were sent to the ICU or OR from the ED, 106 of whom required an immediate operation and 345 required an operation prior to discharge. Complications developed in 129 patients (11%), the majority of which were pulmonary. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of those patients thought initially to be less severely injured required resources available in a trauma centre, including specialty care, intensive care, and operating room accessibility. Over one-third of these patients had multisystem injuries and almost 20% were considered major trauma, needing prioritisation of care and expertise ideally found in a trauma centre environment. Complications developed in a sizable number of patients. This patient population, because of its heterogeneity and propensity for critical illness, deserves the resources of a trauma centre.

The presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons does not improve management or outcome of critically injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The presence of a surgeon at the initial assessment and care of the trauma patient has been the focal point of trauma center designation. However, for Level I verification, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma currently does not require the presence of an attending trauma surgeon in the hospital (IH), provided senior surgical residents are immediately available. Likewise, the state of Missouri does not mandate an IH presence of the attending trauma surgeon but requires senior (postgraduate year 4 or 5) level surgical residents to immediately respond, with a 20-minute response time mandated for the attending surgeon if IH or out of the hospital (OH). Nevertheless, some claim that IH coverage by attending surgeons provides better care for seriously injured patients. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed patient care parameters over the past 10 years on critically injured patients to detect any difference in outcome whether the surgeon was IH or OH at the time of the trauma team activation (cardiopulmonary instability, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score < 9, penetrating truncal injury). Patients were subcategorized into blunt/penetrating, shock (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) on arrival, GCS score < 9, Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, or ISS > 25. Response was examined from 8 am to 6 pm weekdays (IH) or 6 pm to 8 am weekdays and all weekends (OH). Patient care parameters examined were mortality, complications, time in the emergency department, time to the operating room, time to computed tomographic scanning, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. RESULTS: For all patients (n = 766), there was no significant difference in any parameters except intensive care unit LOS (IH, 4.90 +/- 7.96 days; OH, 3.58 +/- 7.69 days; p < 0.05). For blunt trauma (n = 369), emergency department time was shorter (99.71 +/- 88.26 minutes vs. 126.51 +/- 96.68 minutes, p < 0.01) and hospital LOS was shorter (8.04 +/- 1.02 days vs. 11.08 +/- 1.15 days, p < 0.05) for OH response. For penetrating trauma (n = 377), shock (n = 187), GCS score < 9 (n = 248), ISS > 15 (n = 363), and ISS > 25 (n = 230), there were no statistically significant differences in any patient care parameter between IH and OH response. For those in most need of urgent operation-penetrating injuries and shock-there were no differences in time to operating room or mortality for OH or IH response. CONCLUSION: As long as initial assessment and care is provided by senior level IH surgical residents and as long as the attending surgeon responds in a defined period of time (if OH) to guide critical decision-making, the IH presence of an attending surgeon has not been shown in this retrospective study to improve care of the critically injured patient.