Frequency and Predictors of Trauma Transfer Futility to a Rural Level I Trauma Center.

INTRODUCTION: Transfer of trauma patients whose injuries are deemed unsurvivable, often results in early death or transition to comfort care and could be considered misuse of health care resources. This is particularly true where tertiary care resources are limited. Identifying riskfactors for and predicting futile transfers could reduce this impact and help to optimize triage and management. METHODS: A retrospective study of interfacility trauma transfers to a single rural Level I rauma center from 2014 to 2019. Futility was defined as death, hospice, or declaration of comfort measures within 48 h of transfer without procedural or radiographic intervention at the accepting center. Multiple logistic regressions identified independent predictors of futile transfers. The predictive power of Mechanism,Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial pressure (MGAP), an injury severity score based on Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and systolic blood Pressure, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 3368 trauma transfers, 37 (1.1%) met criteria as futile. Futile transfers occurred among patients who were significantly older with falls as the most common mechanism. Age, Glasgow coma scale, systolic blood Pressure and Injury Severity Score were significant (P < 0.05) independent predictors of futile transfer. MGAP had a high predictive power area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC 0.864, 95% confidence interval 0.803-0.925) for futility. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion (1.1%) of transfers to a rural Level I trauma center met criteria for futility. Predictive tools, such as MGAP scoring, can provide objective criteria for evaluation of transfer necessity and prompt care pathways that involve pre-transfer communications, telemedicine, and/or patient centered goals of care discussions. Such tools could be used in conjunction with a more granular assessment regarding potential operational barriers to reduce futile transfers and to enhance optimization of resource utilization in low-resource service areas.

Measuring Quality in Ethics Consultation.

For all of the emphasis on quality improvement-as well as the acknowledged overlap between assessment of the quality of healthcare services and clinical ethics-the quality of clinical ethics consultation has received scant attention, especially in terms of empirical measurement. Recognizing this need, the second edition of Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation1 identified four domains of ethics quality: (1) ethicality, (2) stakeholders' satisfaction, (3) resolution of the presenting conflict/dilemma, and (4) education that translates into knowledge. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to directly measure all of these domains. Here we describe the quality improvement process undertaken at a tertiary care academic medical center, as well as the tools developed to measure the quality of ethics consultation, which include post-consultation satisfaction surveys and weekly case conferences. The information gained through these tools helps to improve not only the process of ethics consultation, but also the measurement and assurance of quality.

The Least Bad Option: Unilateral Extubation after Declaration of Death by Neurological Criteria.

Typically, the determination of death by neurological criteria follows a very specific protocol. An apnea test is performed with further confirmation as necessary, and then mechanical ventilation is withdrawn with the consent of the family after they have had an opportunity to "say goodbye," and at such a time to permit organ retrieval (with authorization of the patient or consent of the next of kin). Such a process maximizes transparency and ensures generalizability. In exceptional circumstances, however, it may be necessary to deviate from this protocol in order to spare family members unnecessary suffering and to reduce moral distress felt by clinical staff. It may also be appropriate, we argue, to refrain from even inquiring about organ donation when the next-of-kin is not only certain to refuse, but lacks the decision-making capacity to potentially consent. The case described in this article calls into question generally reliable assumptions about determination of death by neurological criteria, where the best the clinical team could do for the patient and his family was "the least bad option."