BackgroundFrom the perspective of nurses, trauma patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) demand a high degree of nursing workload due to hemodynamic instability and the severity of trauma injuries. This study aims to identify the factors related to the high nursing workload required for trauma victims admitted to the ICU.MethodsThis is a prospective, cross-sectional study using descriptive and correlation analyses, conducted with 200 trauma patients admitted to an ICU in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. The nursing workload was measured using the Nursing Activities Score (NAS). The distribution of the NAS values into tertiles led to the identification of two research groups: medium/low workload and high workload. The Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney and multiple logistic regression tests were utilized for the analyses.FindingsThe majority of patients were male (82.0%) and suffered blunt trauma (94.5%), with traffic accidents (57.5%) and falls (31.0%) being prevalent. The mean age was 40.7 years (±18.6) and the mean NAS was 71.3% (±16.9). Patient gender, the presence of pulmonary failure, the number of injured body regions and the risk of death according to the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II were factors associated with a high degree of nursing workload in the first 24 hours following admission to the ICU.ConclusionWorkload demand was higher in male patients with physiological instability and multiple severe trauma injuries who developed pulmonary failure.
BackgroundThe objective of this study is to propose three new adjustments to the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) equation and compare their performances with the original TRISS as well as this index with coefficients adjusted for the study population.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective study evaluated trauma victims admitted to two hospitals in São Paulo-Brazil and San Diego-EUA between January 1st, 2006, and December 31st, 2010. The proposed models included a New Trauma and Injury Severity Score (NTRISS)-like model that included Best Motor Response (BMR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and age variables; a TRISS peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) model that included Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), SBP, SpO2, Injury Severity Score, and age variables; and a NTRISS-like SpO2 model that included BMR, SBP, SpO2, NISS, and age variables. All equations were adjusted for blunt and penetrating trauma coefficients. The model coefficients were established by logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the models.ResultsThe original TRISS (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.90), TRISS with adjusted coefficients (AUC = 0.89), and the new proposals (NTRISS-like, TRISS SpO2, and NTRISS-like SpO2) showed no difference in performance (AUC = 0.89, 0.89, and 0.90, respectively).ConclusionsThe new models demonstrated good accuracy and similar performance to the original TRISS and TRISS adjusted for coefficients in the study population; therefore, the new proposals may be useful for the assessments of quality of care in trauma patients using variables that are routinely measured and recorded.
The objective of this study was to verify if replacing the Injury Severity Score (ISS) by the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) in the original Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) form would improve the survival rate estimation. This retrospective study was performed in a level I trauma center during one year. ROC curve was used to identify the best indicator (TRISS or NTRISS) for survival probability prediction. Participants were 533 victims, with a mean age of 38±16 years. There was predominance of motor vehicle accidents (61.9%). External injuries were more frequent (63.0%), followed by head/neck injuries (55.5%). Survival rate was 76.9%. There is predominance of ISS scores ranging from 9-15 (40.0%), and NISS scores ranging from 16-24 (25.5%). Survival probability equal to or greater than 75.0% was obtained for 83.4% of the victims according to TRISS, and for 78.4% according to NTRISS. The new version (NTRISS) is better than TRISS for survival prediction in trauma patients.
RESUMO Objetivo identificar estudos que realizaram ajustes na equação do Trauma and InjurySeverity Score (TRISS) e compararam a capacidade discriminatória da equação modificada com a original. Método Revisão integrativa de pesquisas publicadas entre 1990 e 2014 nas bases de dados LILACS, MEDLINE, PubMed e SciELO utilizando-se a palavra TRISS. Resultados foram incluídos 32 estudos na revisão. Dos 67 ajustes de equações do TRISS identificados, 35 (52,2%) resultaram em melhora na acurácia do índice para predizer a probabilidade de sobrevida de vítimas de trauma. Ajustes dos coeficientes do TRISS à população de estudo foram frequentes, mas nem sempre melhoraram a capacidade preditiva dos modelos analisados. A substituição de variáveis fisiológicas do Revised Trauma Score (RTS) e modificações do Injury Severity Score (ISS) na equação original tiveram desempenho variado. A mudança na forma de inclusão da idade na equação, assim como a inserção do gênero, comorbidades e mecanismo do trauma apresentaram tendência de melhora do desempenho do TRISS. Conclusão Diferentes propostas de ajustes no TRISS foram identificadas nesta revisão e indicaram, principalmente, fragilidades do RTS no modelo original e necessidade de alteração da forma de inclusão da idade na equação para melhora da capacidade preditiva do índice.
The article is a bibliographic review which intends to present the actual range of researches comparing the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS
OBJETIVO: Descrever métodos e estimativas de mortalidade proporcional por mortes evitáveis e tipos de não conformidades do atendimento relacionadas a esses eventos. MÉTODOS: Revisão sistemática de publicações sobre mortes evitáveis em vítimas com traumatismos entre 2000 e 2009. Foi realizada pesquisa nas bases de dados Lilacs, SciELO e Medline utilizando-se a estratégia de busca com as palavras-chave "trauma", "avoidable", "preventable", "interventions" e "complications", e os descritores em ciências da saúde "death", "cause of death" e "hospitals". RESULTADOS: Identificaram-se 29 artigos publicados no período, com predomínio de estudos retrospectivos (96,5%). Os métodos mais comumente utilizados para definir a evitabilidade do óbito foram painel de especialistas ou pontuação de índices de gravidade, tendo sido empregadas as seguintes categorias: evitável, potencialmente evitável e não evitável. A média da mortalidade proporcional por mortes evitáveis dos estudos foi de 10,7% (dp 11,5%). As não conformidades mais comumente relatadas nas publicações foram sistema inadequado de atendimento ao traumatizado e erro na avaliação e tratamento. CONCLUSÕES: Observaram-se falhas na uniformização dos termos empregados para categorizar as mortes e as não conformidadades encontradas. Portanto, sugere-se a padronização da taxonomia da classificação das mortes e dos tipos de não conformidades observadas.
This study compared the performance of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) with the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and also the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) with the Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) in trauma victims, in order to predict mortality and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU), besides identifying which indexes have been the most effective to estimate these results. A retrospective analysis was done in the records of 185 victims admitted in ICU between June and December 2006. None of the four indexes properly discriminated the patients according to length of stay at the ICU. The ISS and the NISS did not show a good discriminating capacity in case of death, but the SAPS II and the LODS presented good performance to estimate mortality at the ICU. Results pointed towards the use of SAPS II and LODS when trauma victims are admitted in an ICU.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.