Moving the needle on time to resuscitation: An EAST prospective multicenter study of vascular access in hypotensive injured patients using trauma video review.

BACKGROUND: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients. METHODS: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs. PIV vs. CVC). RESULTS: There were 1,410 access attempts that occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40 years (27-59 years) and an Injury Severity Score of 22 [10-34]. Nine hundred thirty-two PIV, 204 IO, and 249 CVC were attempted. Seventy percent of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0 minutes (3.2-8.0 minutes). Intraosseous had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt, 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt, 100% vs. 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO, 36 [23-60] seconds; PIV, 44 [31-61] seconds; CVC 171 [105-298]seconds) and was significantly different between IO versus CVC ( p < 0.001) and PIV versus CVC ( p < 0.001) but not PIV versus IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes versus 6.7 minutes ( p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraosseous is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. Intraosseous access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

The involvement of trauma survivors in hospital-based injury prevention, violence intervention and peer support programs: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades-long involvement of trauma survivors in hospital-based program delivery, their roles and impact on trauma care have not been previously described. We aimed to characterize the literature on trauma survivor involvement in hospital-based injury prevention, violence intervention and peer support programs to map what is currently known and identify future research opportunities. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Articles were identified through electronic databases and gray literature. Included articles described hospital-based injury prevention programs, violence intervention programs and peer support programs that involved trauma survivors leveraging their injury experiences to counsel others. Studies were screened and data were abstracted in duplicate. Data were synthesized generally and by program type. RESULTS: Thirty-six published articles and four program reports were included. Peer support programs were described in 21 articles, mainly involving trauma survivors as mentors or peer supporters. Peer support programs' most commonly reported outcome was participant satisfaction (n = 6), followed by participant self-efficacy (n = 5), depression (n = 4), and community integration (n = 3). Eleven injury prevention studies were included, all involving trauma survivors as speakers in youth targeted programs. Injury prevention studies commonly reported outcomes of participants' risk behaviors and awareness (n = 9). Violence intervention programs were included in four articles involving trauma survivors as intervention counsellors. Recidivism rate was the most commonly reported outcome (n = 3). Variability exists across and within program types when reporting on involved trauma survivors' gender, age, selection and training, duration of involvement and number of survivors involved. Outcomes related to trauma survivors' own experiences and the impacts to them of program involvement were under-studied. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunity exists to fill current knowledge gaps in trauma survivors' involvement in trauma program delivery. There is a need to describe more fully who involved trauma survivors are to inform the development of effective future interventions.

Clinical handover from emergency medical services to the trauma team: A gap analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited evaluation of handover from emergency medical services (EMS) to the trauma team. We sought to characterize these handover practices to identify areas of improvement and determine if handover standardization might be beneficial for trauma team performance. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected over a nine-week period by a trained observer at a Canadian level one trauma centre. A randomized scheduled was used to capture a representative breadth of handovers. Data collected included outcome measures such as duration of handover, structure of the handover, and information shared, process measures such as questions and interruptions from the trauma team, and perceptions of the handover from nurses, trauma team leaders and EMS according to a bidirectional Likert scale. RESULTS: 79 formal verbal handovers were observed. Information was often missing regarding airway (present 22%), breathing (54%), medications (59%), and allergies (54%). Handover structure lacked consistency beyond the order of identification and mechanism of injury. Of all questions asked, 35% were questioning previously given information. The majority of handovers (61%) involved parallel conversations between team members while EMS was speaking. There was a statistically significant disparity between the self-evaluation of EMS handovers and the perceived quality determined by nurses and trauma team leaders. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified the need to standardize handover due to poor information content, a lack of structure and active listening, information repetition, and discordant expectations between team members. These data will guide the development of a co-constructed framework integrating the perspectives of all team members.