Prehospital accuracy of (H)EMS pelvic ring injury assessment and the application of non-invasive pelvic binder devices.

BACKGROUND: Pre-hospital application of a non-invasive pelvic binder device (NIPBD) is essential to increase chances of survival by limiting blood loss in patients with an unstable pelvic ring injury. However, unstable pelvic ring injuries are often not recognized during prehospital assessment. We investigated the prehospital (helicopter) emergency medical services ((H)EMS)' accuracy of the assessment of unstable pelvic ring injuries and NIPBD application rate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients with a pelvic injury transported by (H)EMS to our level one trauma centre between 2012 and 2020. Pelvic ring injuries were included and radiographically categorized using the Young & Burgess classification system. Lateral Compression (LC) type II/III -, Anterior-Posterior (AP) type II/III - and Vertical Shear (VS) injuries were considered as unstable pelvic ring injuries. (H)EMS charts and in-hospital patient records were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the prehospital assessment of unstable pelvic ring injuries and prehospital NIPBD application. RESULTS: A total of 634 patients with pelvic injuries were identified, of whom 392 (61.8%) had pelvic ring injuries and 143 (22.6%) had unstable pelvic ring injuries. (H)EMS personnel suspected a pelvic injury in 30.6% of the pelvic ring injuries and in 46.9% of the unstable pelvic ring injuries. An NIPBD was applied in 108 (27.6%) of the patients with a pelvic ring injury and in 63 (44.1%) of the patients with an unstable pelvic ring injury. (H)EMS prehospital diagnostic accuracy measured in pelvic ring injuries alone was 67.1% for identifying unstable pelvic ring injuries from stable pelvic ring injuries and 68.1% for NIPBD application. CONCLUSION: The (H)EMS prehospital sensitivity of unstable pelvic ring injury assessment and NIPBD application rate is low. (H)EMS did not suspect an unstable pelvic injury nor applied an NIPBD in roughly half of all unstable pelvic ring injuries. We advise future research on decision tools to aid the routine use of an NIPBD in any patient with a relevant mechanism of injury.

Epidemiology of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in the Netherlands: Emergency Medical Service, Hospital, and Functional Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating treatment of traumatic spinal cord injuries (TSCIs) from the prehospital phase until postrehabilitation is crucial to improve outcomes of future TSCI patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the flow of patients with TSCI through the prehospital, hospital, and rehabilitation settings and to relate treatment outcomes to emergency medical services (EMS) transport locations and surgery timing. METHOD: Consecutive TSCI admissions to a level I trauma center (L1TC) in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Corresponding EMS, hospital, and rehabilitation records were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were included. Their median age was 58 (IQR 37-72) years, with the majority being male (68%) and suffering from cervical spine injuries (75%). In total, 66.2% of the patients with TSCI symptoms were transported directly to an L1TC, and 30.5% were secondarily transferred in from a lower level trauma center. Most injuries were due to falls (63.0%) and traffic accidents (31.1%), mainly bicycle-related. Most patients showed stable vital signs in the ambulance and the emergency department. After hospital discharge, 71 (47.0%) patients were admitted to a rehabilitation hospital, and 34 (22.5%) patients went home. The 30-day mortality rate was 13%. Patients receiving acute surgery (<12 hours) compared to subacute surgery (>12h, <2 weeks) showed no significance in functional independence scores after rehabilitation treatment. CONCLUSION: A surge in age and bicycle-injuries in TSCI patients was observed. A substantial number of patients with TSCI were undertriaged. Acute surgery (<12 hours) showed comparable outcomes results in subacute surgery (>12h, <2 weeks) patients.

Diagnostic value of emergency medical services provider judgement in the identification of head injuries among trauma patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies have reported that many patients with a severe head injury are not transported to a higher-level trauma centre where the necessary round-the-clock neurosurgical care is available. The aim of this study was to analyse the diagnostic value of emergency medical services (EMS) provider judgement in the identification of a head injury. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study, all trauma patients aged 16 years and over who were transported with highest priority to a trauma centre were evaluated. The diagnostic value of EMS provider judgement was determined using an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of ≥1 in the head region as reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 980 (35.4%) of the 2766 patients who were included had a head injury. EMS provider judgement (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥1) had a sensitivity of 67.9% and a specificity of 87.7%. In the cohort, 208 (7.5%) patients had a severe head injury. Of these, 68% were transported to a level I trauma centre. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of a head injury on-scene is challenging. EMS providers could not identify 32% of the patients with a head injury and 21% of the patients with a severe head injury. Additional education, training and a supplementary protocol with predictors of a severe head injury could help EMS providers in the identification of these patients.