Evaluating the ability of a trauma team activation tool to identify severe injury: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sensitive decision making tools should assist prehospital personnel in the triage of injured patients, identifying those who require immediate lifesaving interventions and safely reducing unnecessary under- and overtriage. In 2014 a new trauma team activation (TTA) tool was implemented in Central Norway. The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of the new TTA tool to identify severe injury. METHODS: This was a multi-center observational cohort study with retrospective data analysis. All patients received by trauma teams at seven hospitals in Central Norway between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 were included. Severe injury was defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Overtriage was defined as the rate of patients with TTA and ISS < 15, whilst patients with TTA and ISS > 15 were defined as correctly triaged. RESULTS: A total of 1141 patients were identified, of which 998 were eligible for triage criteria analysis. Median age was 35 years (IQR 20-58) and the male proportion was 67%. Mechanism of injury was predominantly blunt trauma (96%) with transport related accidents (62%) followed by falls (22%) the most common. Overall, median injury severity score (ISS) was low and severely injured patients (ISS > 15) comprised 13% of the cohort. Utility of specific TTA criteria were: physiology 20%, anatomical injury 21%, mechanism of injury (MOI) 53% and special causes 6%. Overtriage among all patients was 87%, and for those with physiologic criteria 66%, anatomical injury 82%, mechanism of injury 97% and special causes criteria 92%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Severe injury was infrequent and there was a substantial rate of overtriage. The ability of the TTA tool was relatively insensitive in identifying severe injury, but showed increased performance when utilizing physiologic and anatomical injury criteria. Many of the TTA mechanism of injury criteria might be considered for removal from the triage tool due to substantial rates of overtriage. This has relevance for the proposed development of national Norwegian TTA criteria.

Treatment of splenic trauma in Norway: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative management of splenic injuries has become the treatment of choice in hemodynamically stable patients over the last decades. The aim of the study is to describe the incidence, initial treatment and early outcome of patients with splenic injuries on a national level. METHODS: All hospitals in Norway admitting trauma patients were invited to participate in the study. The study period was January through December 2013. The hospitals delivered anonymous data on primarily admitted patients with splenic injury. RESULTS: Three of the four regional trauma centers and 26 of the remaining 33 acute care hospitals delivered data on a total of 151 patients with splenic injury indicating an incidence of 4 splenic injuries per 100,000 inhabitants/year, and a median of 4 splenic injuries per hospital per year. A total of 128 (85%) patients were successfully treated non-operatively including 20 patients who underwent an angiographic procedure. The remaining 23 (15%) patients underwent open splenectomy or spleen-preserving surgery. CONCLUSION: Most patients with splenic injuries are managed non-operatively. Despite the low number of splenic injuries per hospital, the results indicate satisfactory outcome on a national level.

Norwegian trauma care: a national cross-sectional survey of all hospitals involved in the management of major trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the Norwegian population is injured every year, with injuries ranging from minor injuries treated by general practitioners to major and complex injuries requiring specialist in-hospital care. There is a lack of knowledge concerning the caseload of potentially severely injured patients in Norwegian hospitals. Aim of the study was to describe the current status of the Norwegian trauma system by identifying the number and the distribution of contributing hospitals and the caseload of potentially severely injured trauma patients within these hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with a structured questionnaire was sent in the summer of 2012 to all Norwegian hospitals that receive trauma patients. These were defined by number of trauma team activations in the included hospitals. A literature review was performed to assess over time the development of hospitals receiving trauma patients. RESULTS: Forty-one hospitals responded and were included in the study. In 2011, four trauma centres and 37 acute care hospitals received a total of 6,570 trauma patients. Trauma centres received 2,175 (33%) patients and other hospitals received 4,395 (67%) patients. There were significant regional differences between health care regions in the distribution of trauma patients between trauma centres and acute care hospitals. More than half (52.5%) of the hospitals received fewer than 100 patients annually. The national rate of hospital admission via trauma teams was 13 per 10,000 inhabitants. There was a 37% (from 65 to 41) reduction in the number of hospitals receiving trauma patients between 1988 and 2011. CONCLUSIONS: In 2011, hospital acute trauma care in Norway was delivered by four trauma centres and 37 acute care hospitals. Many hospitals still receive a small number of potentially severely injured patients and only a few hospitals have an electronic trauma registry. Future development of the Norwegian trauma system needs to address the challenge posed by a scattered population and long geographical distances. The implementation of a trauma system, carefully balanced between centres with adequate caseloads against time from injury to hospital care, is needed and has been shown to have a beneficial effect in countries with comparable challenges.

What is optimal timing for trauma team alerts? A retrospective observational study of alert timing effects on the initial management of trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma teams improve the initial management of trauma patients. Optimal timing of trauma alerts could improve team preparedness and performance while also limiting adverse ripple effects throughout the hospital. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how timing of trauma team activation and notification affects initial in-hospital management of trauma patients. METHODS: Data from a single hospital trauma care quality registry were matched with data from a trauma team alert log. The time from patient arrival to chest X-ray, and the emergency department length of stay were compared with the timing of trauma team activations and whether or not trauma team members received a preactivation notification. RESULTS: In 2009, the trauma team was activated 352 times; 269 times met the inclusion criteria. There were statistically significant differences in time to chest X-ray for differently timed trauma team activations (P = 0.003). Median time to chest X-ray for teams activated 15-20 minutes prearrival was 5 minutes, and 8 minutes for teams activated <5 minutes before patient arrival. Timing had no effect on length of stay in the emergency department (P = 0.694). We found no effect of preactivation notification on time to chest X-ray (P = 0.474) or length of stay (P = 0.684). CONCLUSION: Proactive trauma team activation improved the initial management of trauma patients. Trauma teams should be activated prior to patient arrival.