The value of psychometric analysis of the advanced trauma life support cognitive test: Outcome of an ACS-Accredited educational institute multisite study.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Trauma Life Support® (ATLS®) course provides a standard approach to trauma. Participants must pass the ATLS® post-test. We deployed the test online to allow ongoing psychometric item analysis and potential objective refinement. METHODS: A two-phase study was undertaken with the ACS COT permission. In the first phase, ATLS® post-test #2 was computerized and deployed using Qualtrics©. Data were collected from fourteen courses conducted between 2014 and 2015 (n = 306) at one ACS AEI site. In the second phase, the same post-test was administered to 238 trainees in 10 courses via secured computers at four ACS AEI sites in 2016. RESULTS: Phase 1 item analyses showed two items with very low percentages correct, and one of these also showed a low discrimination index. Phase 2 item analyses suggested four items as candidates for review and possible revision. We also found differences by learner background and by instructional site. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates computerized delivery of the ATLS post-test is feasible, promotes psychometric analysis, and could improve the quality of the test. Further collaboration between the ACS COT and ACS AEI would be beneficial.

Advanced Trauma Life Support certified physicians in a non trauma system setting: is it enough?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of ATLS(®) on trauma mortality in a non-trauma system setting. ATLS represents a fundamental element of trauma training in every trauma curriculum. Nevertheless, there are limited studies in the literature as for the impact of ATLS training in trauma mortality, especially outside the US. DESIGN: This is a prospective observational study. The primary end point was to investigate factors that affect mortality of trauma patients in our health care system. We performed a multivariate analysis for this purpose and we identified ATLS certification as a predictor of overall mortality. Following this finding we stratified patients according to the severity of injury as expressed by the ISS score and we compared outcome between those treated by an ATLS certified physician and those treated by non-certified ones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trauma volume and demographics of trauma patients, factors that affect mortality of traumatized patients and mortality between patients treated by ATLS(®) certified and non-certified physicians. RESULTS: In total, 8862 trauma patients were included in the analysis. The majority of trauma patients (5988, 67.6%) were treated by a general surgeon, followed by those treated by an orthopedic surgeon (2194, 24.8%). There were 446 deaths in the registry but, 260 arrived dead in the Emergency Department and were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate analysis of the 186 deaths that occurred in the hospital revealed age, high ISS score, low GCS score, urban location of injury, neck injury and ATLS(®) certification as factors predisposing to mortality. Cross tabulation of ATLS(®) certification and ISS of the trauma patients shows that those treated by certified physicians died more often in all subcategories of ISS score (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Greece, with no formal trauma system implementation, ATLS(®) certified physicians achieve worse outcomes than their non-certified colleagues when managing trauma patients. We believe that these findings must be interpreted in the context of the National health care system. There is considerable room for improvement in our country, and further analysis is required.

The implementation of a national trauma registry in Greece. Methodology and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of death worldwide and a major health problem of the modern society. Trauma systems are considered the gold standard of managing patients with trauma. An integral part of any trauma system is a trauma registry. In Europe, and particularly in Greece, trauma registries and systems are in an embryonic stage. In this study, we present an attempt to record trauma in Greece. METHODS: The Hellenic Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery invited all the official representatives of the society throughout the country to participate in the study. In succeeding meetings of the representatives, the reporting form was developed and the inclusion criteria were defined meticulously. Inclusion criteria were defined as patients with trauma requiring admission, transfer to a higher level center, or arrived dead or died in the emergency department of the reporting hospital. All reports were accumulated by the Hellenic Trauma society, imported in an electronic database, and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-two hospitals receiving patients with trauma participated in the country, representing 40% of the country's healthcare facilities and serving 40% of the country's population. In 12 months time, (October 2005 to September 2006), 8,862 patients were included in the study. Of them, 66.9% were men and 31.3% were women. The compilation rate of the reporting forms was surprisingly high, considering that the final reporting form included 150 data points and that there were no independent personnel in charge of filling the forms. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma registries are feasible even in health care systems where funding of medical research is sparse.

Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care unit patients with brain injuries: a randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN50308308].

INTRODUCTION: This randomised, open-label, observational, multicentre, parallel group study assessed the safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil in the neuro-intensive care unit. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years admitted to the intensive care unit within the previous 24 hours, with acute brain injury or after neurosurgery, intubated, expected to require mechanical ventilation for 1-5 days and requiring daily downward titration of sedation for assessment of neurological function were studied. Patients received one of two treatment regimens. Regimen one consisted of analgesia-based sedation, in which remifentanil (initial rate 9 microg kg(-1) h(-1)) was titrated before the addition of a hypnotic agent (propofol [0.5 mg kg(-1) h(-1)] during days 1-3, midazolam [0.03 mg kg(-1) h(-1)] during days 4 and 5) (n = 84). Regimen two consisted of hypnotic-based sedation: hypnotic agent (propofol days 1-3; midazolam days 4 and 5) and fentanyl (n = 37) or morphine (n = 40) according to routine clinical practice. For each regimen, agents were titrated to achieve optimal sedation (Sedation-Agitation Scale score 1-3) and analgesia (Pain Intensity score 1-2). RESULTS: Overall, between-patient variability around the time of neurological assessment was statistically significantly smaller when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.44 versus fentanyl 0.86 [P = 0.024] versus morphine 0.98 [P = 0.006]. Overall, mean neurological assessment times were significantly shorter when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.41 hour versus fentanyl 0.71 hour [P = 0.001] versus morphine 0.82 hour [P < 0.001]). Patients receiving the remifentanil-based regimen were extubated significantly faster than those treated with morphine (1.0 hour versus 1.93 hour, P = 0.001) but there was no difference between remifentanil and fentanyl. Remifentanil was effective, well tolerated and provided comparable haemodynamic stability to that of the hypnotic-based regimen. Over three times as many users rated analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil as very good or excellent in facilitating assessment of neurological function compared with the hypnotic-based regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil permitted significantly faster and more predictable awakening for neurological assessment. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was very effective, well tolerated and had a similar adverse event and haemodynamic profile to those of hypnotic-based regimens when used in critically ill neuro-intensive care unit patients for up to 5 days.