Trauma facilities in Denmark - a nationwide cross-sectional benchmark study of facilities and trauma care organisation.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of death among adults aged < 44 years, and optimal care is a challenge. Evidence supports the centralization of trauma facilities and the use multidisciplinary trauma teams. Because knowledge is sparse on the existing distribution of trauma facilities and the organisation of trauma care in Denmark, the aim of this study was to identify all Danish facilities that care for traumatized patients and to investigate the diversity in organization of trauma management. METHODS: We conducted a systematic observational cross-sectional study. First, all hospitals in Denmark were identified via online services and clarifying phone calls to each facility. Second, all trauma care manuals on all facilities that receive traumatized patients were gathered. Third, anesthesiologists and orthopedic surgeons on call at all trauma facilities were contacted via telephone for structured interviews. RESULTS: A total of 22 facilities in Denmark were found to receive traumatized patients. All facilities used a trauma care manual and all had a multidisciplinary trauma team. The study found three different trauma team activation criteria and nine different compositions of teams who participate in trauma care. Training was heterogeneous and, beyond the major trauma centers, databases were only maintained in a few facilities. CONCLUSION: The study established an inventory of the existing Danish facilities that receive traumatized patients. The trauma team activation criteria and the trauma teams were heterogeneous in both size and composition. A national database for traumatized patients, research on nationwide trauma team activation criteria, and team composition guidelines are all called for.

Validation of the Peripheral Ultrasound-guided Vascular Access Rating Scale.

Evidence-based standards in proficiency are needed for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access. In this study, we explored the validity of the Peripheral Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access (P-UGVA) Rating Scale.We recruited 3 groups of physicians (5 novices, 5 intermediates, and 5 experts) of increasing proficiency in peripheral ultrasound-guided intravenous access. All participants performed 3 peripheral ultrasound-guided intravenous accesses on three different patients. Performance was video-recorded by 3 cameras and the ultrasound image. Synchronized and anonymized split-screen film clips were rated using the P-UGVA rating scale by 2 assessors, which also assessed overall performance on a 1-5 Likert-scale. Evidence of validity was explored using the contemporary validity framework by Messick (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences).Content and response process was ensured in the development of the rating scale and validity study. Internal consistency of the P-UGVA rating scale was excellent and sufficient high for certification purposes (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91). Proficiency groups were successfully discriminated by the UPGIVA rating scale (P = .029, one-way ANOVA), and the P-UGVA rating scale scores also correlated strongly with the overall performance evaluations (rho = 0.87, P < .001, Pearson correlation). We calculated a pass/fail score of 29, which lead to a theoretical false positive rate of 26.5% and false negative rate of 8.5%.We present validity evidence for the P-UGVA rating scale and an evidence-based standard in proficiency for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access.

Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.

BACKGROUND: The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark. METHODS: We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. RESULTS: Guidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader's discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients' charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.

Rating scale for the assessment of competence in ultrasound-guided peripheral vascular access - a Delphi Consensus Study.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral vascular access is vital for treatment and diagnostics of hospitalized patients. Ultrasound-guided vascular access (UGVA) is superior to the landmark technique. To ensure competence-based education, an assessment tool of UGVA competence is needed. We aimed to develop a global rating scale (RS) for assessment of UGVA competence based on opinions on the content from ultrasound experts in a modified Delphi consensus study. METHODS: We included experts from anesthesiology, emergency medicine and radiology across university hospitals in Denmark. Nine elements were drafted based on existing literature and recommendations from international societies. In a multi-round survey, the experts rated the elements on a five-point Likert scale according to importance, and suggested missing elements. The final Delphi round occurred when >80% of the experts rated all elements ≥4 on the Likert scale. RESULTS: Sixteen experts consented to participate in the study, one withdrew consent prior to the first Delphi round, and 14 completed all three Delphi rounds. In the first Delphi round the experts excluded one element from the scale and changed the content of two elements. In the second Delphi round, the experts excluded one element from the scale. In the third Delphi round, consensus was obtained on the eight elements: preparation of utensils, ergonomics, preparation of the ultrasound device, identification of blood vessels, anatomy, hygiene, coordination of the needle, and completion of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an RS for assessment of UGVA competence based on opinions of ultrasound experts through a modified Delphi consensus study.