Electric Scooter Injury in Southern California Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: Electric scooters are popular in Southern California due to their ease of use, affordability, and availability. The objective of this study was to characterize how hospital admissions and outcomes varied due to electric scooter injury among Southern California trauma centers. STUDY DESIGN: Trauma registry data from 9 urban trauma centers were queried for patients sustaining injury while operating an electric scooter from January to December 2018. Data collection included patient demographics, diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. RESULTS: During the 1-year study period, 87 patients required trauma surgeon care due to scooter-related injury, with a mean age of 35.1 years; 71.3% were male with 20.7% and 17.2% of patients requiring ICU admission and a surgical intervention, respectively. One (1.1%) patient died. The head and face were most commonly injured, followed by the extremities. Helmet use was uncommon (71.3%). High variability in patient volume was noted, with 2 centers considered high-incidence and the remaining low-incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Injuries from electric scooter crashes are primarily to the head, face, and extremities, with approximately 1 in 5 patients requiring ICU admission and/or a surgical intervention. There is significant variation in patient volume among Southern California trauma centers that could affect the delivery of care with the abrupt introduction of this technology. Targeted public health interventions and policies might better address community use of the electric scooter.

Improved trauma system multicasualty incident response: comparison of two train crash disasters.

BACKGROUND: Two train crash multicasualty incidents (MCI) occurred in 2005 and 2008 in Los Angeles. A postcrash analysis of the first MCI determined that most victims went to local community hospitals (CHs) with underutilization of trauma centers (TCs), resulting in changes to our disaster plan. To determine whether our trauma system MCI response improved, we analyzed the distribution of patients from the scene to TCs and CHs in the two MCIs. METHODS: Data from the emergency medical services and TC records were interrogated to compare patients triage status, type of transport, and the destination in the 2008 MCI to the 2005 MCI. Clinical data from the 2008 MCI were tabulated to evaluate severity of injuries, need for immediate and delayed operation, need for intensive care unit, and need for specialty surgical services, and appropriate distribution of patients. RESULTS: In 2005, 14 (56%) of the 25 severely injured patients and 75 (71%) of the 106 total patients were transported to four CHs. In 2008, 53 (93%) of 57 of the severely injured patients were transported to TCs and only 34 (35%) of 98 of total patients were transported to nine CHs. In 2008, more TCs were used (8 vs. 5) and more patients were transported by air (34 vs. 2). In 2008, the most severely injured victims were transported to four level I TCs (median injury severity score, 16; range, 1-43; 10 emergent operations) and four level II TCs (median injury severity score, 10; range, 1-22; 4 emergent operations). Only 11 patients were admitted to CHs, and no operations were required. CONCLUSIONS: A trauma system performance improvement program allowed us to significantly improve our response to MCIs with improved utilization of TCs and improved distribution of victims according to injury severity and needs.