Optimizing the management of blunt splenic injury in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for splenic injury is evolving to an increased use of nonoperative management. We studied patients with blunt injury to the spleen to determine the overall success with splenic salvage and the reason that adults and children have different outcomes. METHODS: Patient records were reviewed retrospectively for information and parameters that may influence outcome. Patients were categorized by age and type of management. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven patients (222 adults; 45 children < 16 years old) with blunt splenic trauma were treated over a 7.5-year period. Adults had a significantly higher injury severity score (ISS; 27.2 +/- 0.9 vs 19.9 +/- 2.0; P < .05), splenic injury score (SIS; 2.8 +/- 0.1 vs 2.3 +/- 0.1; P < .01), and mortality rate (11.7% vs 2.2%; P < .05) compared with children. Eighty-six adults and 3 children had emergent operation; 23 patients had splenorrhaphy. Nonoperative management was selected initially in 178 patients; 83% (105 adults and 42 children) were treated successfully. The ISS and SIS of patients in whom nonoperative management failed were different from those patients in whom treatment was successful (ISS, 27.5 +/- 2.1 vs 20.6 +/- 1.0; SIS, 3.6 +/- 0.2 vs 2.1 +/- 0.1; P < .05) but were similar to those patients who needed initial emergent operation. Adults and children who had successful nonoperative management had similar ISSs (21.4 +/- 1.1 vs 18.4 +/- 2.0) and SISs (2.0 +/- 0.1 vs 2.3 +/- 0.1). Overall splenic salvage was achieved in 64% of patients (57% of adults and 96 % of children). Salvage increased from 50% to 85% during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Splenic preservation is possible in most adults and children with blunt injury with the appropriate use of both operative salvage and nonoperative treatment. The higher salvage rate and decreased need for operation in children is due to their lower severity of overall injury and splenic injury. Operative salvage has become less common in adults because more patients are selected for nonoperative management.

Effectiveness of a 2-specialty, 2-tiered triage and trauma team activation protocol.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness, safety, and resource allocation of a 2-specialty, 2-tiered triage and trauma team activation protocol. METHODS: We conducted a 6-month retrospective analysis of a 2-specialty, 2-tiered trauma team activation system at an urban Level I trauma center. Based on prehospital data, patients with a high likelihood of serious injury were assigned to triage category 1 and patients with a low likelihood of serious injury were assigned to category 2. Category 1 patients were immediately evaluated by both emergency medicine and trauma services. Category 2 patients were evaluated initially by emergency medicine staff with a mandatory trauma service consultation. Main outcomes measured included mortality, need for emergency procedures, need for emergency surgery, complications, and discharge disposition. Potential physician-hours saved were calculated for category 2 cases. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-one patients were assigned a triage classification (272 to category 1 and 289 to category 2). Category 1 patients had a higher mortality rate (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 15.9%, 11.1% to 20.7%, P < .0001), need for emergency surgery (10.7% versus 1.4%, 95% CI for difference of 9.3%, 5.2% to 13.4%; P < .0001), need for emergency procedures (89% of total procedures, 95% CI 83% to 95%; P < .0001), and discharges to rehabilitation facilities (95% CI for difference of 15.1%, 9.3% to 21.0%; P < .0001). The 2-tiered response system saved an estimated 578 physician-hours of time for the trauma service over the study period. CONCLUSION: This evaluation tool effectively predicts likelihood of serious injury, mortality, need for emergency surgery, and need for rehabilitation. Patients with a low likelihood of serious injury may be initially evaluated by the emergency medicine service effectively and safely, thus allowing more efficient use of surgical personnel.

Benchmarking the quality-monitoring process: a comparison of outcomes analysis by trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) methodology with the peer-review process.

BACKGROUND: One measure of optimal function within a trauma center is the ability to critically examine outcomes from the process of care within the institution, yet guidelines for evaluation of the peer-review process are lacking. This study was conducted to determine the correlation between mortality analysis performed by the peer-review process (PR) within a trauma division and outcome analysis as determined by Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology. METHODS: The mortality peer-review data for an entire year at our level I trauma center served as the study population. Information was obtained on probability of survival, and a determination of preventability was made using standard, preexisting criteria. Peer review involves assigning each outcome to a specific category through the process of multidisciplinary assessment. Probability of survival data was not used for this purpose. Kappa analysis was performed to determine the degree of agreement in each category and then tested for significance. RESULTS: One hundred four deaths in 1,868 trauma patients (5.5%) were reviewed at our multidisciplinary conference. Outcomes were judged as preventable, potentially preventable, or nonpreventable. Death directly related to exsanguination was typically categorized as potentially preventable. Kappa analysis demonstrated the greatest agreement between PR and TRISS in the nonpreventable category (kappa = 0.213) and the least agreement in the potentially preventable category (kappa = -0.197). Overall, the kappa Z statistic was nonsignificant (Z = 1.24). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary peer-review outcomes analysis is at least as effective as the computer-generated TRISS probability of survival data for evaluating quality of care in a trauma center and may be more effective for analysis of potentially preventable outcomes.