Systematic review, level III.

Background: Mortality caused by Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) remains high, despite improvements in trauma and critical care. Polytrauma is naturally associated with high mortality. This study compared mortality rates between isolated TBI ( I TBI) patients and polytrauma patients with TBI ( P TBI) admitted to ICU to investigate if concomitant injuries lead to higher mortality amongst TBI patients.Methods: A 3-year cohort study compared polytrauma patients with TBI ( P TBI) with AIS head ≥3 (and AIS of other body regions ≥3) from a prospective collected database to isolated TBI ( I TBI) patients from a retrospective collected database with AIS head ≥3 (AIS of other body regions ≤2), both admitted to a single level-I trauma center ICU. Patients <16 years of age, injury caused by asphyxiation, drowning, burns and ICU transfers from and to other hospitals were excluded. Patient demographics, shock and resuscitation parameters, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and mortality data were collected and analyzed for group differences.Results: 259 patients were included; 111 P TBI and 148 I TBI patients. The median age was 54 years, 177 (68%) patients were male, median ISS was 26 [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Seventy-nine (31%) patients died. Patients with P TBI developed more ARDS (7% vs. 1%, p=0.041) but had similar MODS rates (18% vs. 10%, p=0.066). They also stayed longer on the ventilator (7 vs.3 days, p=<0.001), longer in ICU (9 vs. 4 days, p=<0.001) and longer in hospital (24 vs. 11 days, p=<0.001). TBI was the most prevalent cause of death in polytrauma patients. Patients with P TBI showed no higher in-hospital mortality rate. Moreover, mortality rates were skewed towards I TBI patients (24% vs. 35%, p=0.06).Discussion: There was no difference in mortality rates between P TBI and I TBI patients, suggesting TBI-severity as the predominant factor for ICU mortality in an era of ever improving acute trauma care.

No abstract

BackgroundAn important critique with respect to the utilization of intermediate care units (IMCU) is that they potentially admit patients who would otherwise be cared for on the regular ward. This would lead to an undesired waste of critical care resources. This article aims to (1) describe the caseload at the IMCU and (2) to assess the triage system at the IMCU to determine potentially unnecessary admissions.MethodsThis cohort study included all admissions at the mixed-surgical IMCU from 2001 to 2015. The Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 (TISS-28) was prospectively collected for all admissions to describe the caseload at the IMCU and to identify medical criteria for admission. These were combined with logistical criteria to assess the IMCU triage system.ResultsA total of 8816 admissions were included in the study. The average TISS-28 was 20.19 (95% CI 18.05 to 22.33), corresponding with 3.57 (95% CI 3.19 to 3.94) hours of direct patient-related work per patient per nursing shift. Over time, this increased by an average of 0.27 points/year (p<0.001). Of all admissions, 6539 (74.2%) were medically considered to be justly admitted, and 7093 (80.4%) were logistically considered to be justly admitted. With these criteria combined, a total of 8324 (94.4%) were correctly admitted.DiscussionMost admissions to the IMCU are medically and/or logistically necessary, as the majority of admitted patients demand a higher level of nursing care than available on the general ward. Continuous triage is thereby essential. These findings support further utilization of the IMCU in our current healthcare system and has important implications for IMCU-related management decisions.Level of evidenceLevel VI.

BackgroundThe management format of the mixed-surgical intermediate care unit (IMCU) affects its performance. A format of combined supervision of surgeons with additional critical care certifications and admitting specialists, named the “joint format”, may herein be a promising new model of specialized critical care. This study aims to assess the performance of the joint management format.MethodsThis observational cohort study compared three IMCU management formats at the stand-alone, mixed-surgical IMCU of a tertiary referral hospital using interrupted time series analyses. All admissions from 2001 until 2015 were included. Predetermined criteria for performance (utilization, efficiency, and safety) were applied to three different management format periods: open (2001–2006), closed (2006–2011), and joint (2011–2015) formats.ResultsA total of 8894 admissions were analyzed. In terms of case load (utilization), there was an overall increase in the number of surgical patients (0.25%/year) (p<0.001), age (0.38/year) (p<0.001), and readmissions from the ward (0.16%/year) (p<0.001) and from the intensive care unit (ICU) (0.17%/year) (p=0.014). In terms of efficiency, the admission duration decreased (1.58 hours/year) (p<0.001). Transfer to the ICU within 24  hours, readmission within 24  hours from the ward, and unplanned mortality (eg, safety) did not change over time.DiscussionAt a time of increasingly complex case load, the joint format at the mixed-surgical IMCU is an efficient and safe management format in which the admitting specialist continues to provide specialized care. Specialty-specific supervision at IMCUs is a safe option which should be considered in healthcare policy decisions.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

BACKGROUND:A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon. METHODS:PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS:In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I 2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented. CONCLUSION:A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions.

ObjectiveThe postoperative care regimes of ankle fractures are studied for over 30 years and recommendations have shifted only slightly in the last decades. However, study methodology might have evolved. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in time in the design, quality and outcome measures of studies investigating the postoperative care of ankle fractures.MethodsThe MEDLINE and EMBASE database were searched for both RCTs and cohort studies. The original studies were divided into decades of publication over the last 30 years. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the ‘traditional’ risk of bias assessment tool provided by The Cochrane Collaboration and the ‘newer’ MINORS criteria.ResultsThe percentage of RCTs on this subject declined from 67 to 38 % in the last decades. According to the Cochrane tool, the reported quality of RCTs has improved in the last three decades whereas the reported quality of observational studies has remained unchanged. However, when quality was evaluated with the MINORS criteria, equal improvement was observed for both RCTs and observational studies. In the 80s, 67 % of all studies used the range of motion as the primary outcome measure, which decreased to 45 % in the 90s. In the 00s, none of the studies used the range of motion as the primary outcome.ConclusionFor postoperative care of ankle fractures, results of this study showed a relative decrease in the published number of RCTs. The overall quality of the published articles did not decline. In addition, a gradual shift from physician measured to patient-reported outcome variables was observed. However, it should be borne in mind that the findings are based on a small sample (n = 25).

ObjectiveTo assess how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported and to assess the quality of reporting PROs for elderly patients with a hip fracture in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched on 1 March 2013 to 25 May 2021.Eligibility criteriaRCTs and observational studies on geriatric (≥65 years of age) patients, with one or more PRO as outcome were included.Data extraction and synthesisPrimary outcome was type of PRO; secondary outcome and quality assessment was measured by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for patient-reported outcomes (CONSORT-PRO). Because of heterogeneity in study population and outcomes, data pooling was not possible.Results3659 studies were found in the initial search. Of those, 67 were included in the final analysis. 83.6% of studies did not adequately mention missing data, 52.3% did not correctly report how PROs were collected and 61.2% did not report adequate effect size. PRO limitations were adequately reported in 20.9% of studies and interpretation of PROs was adequately reported in 19.4% of studies. Most Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes were measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Levels, and pain as well as patient satisfaction by Visual Analogue Scale.ConclusionThis study found that a high variety of PRO measures are used to evaluate geriatric hip fracture care. In addition, 47.8% of studies examining PROs in elderly patients with hip fracture do not satisfy at least 50% of the CONSORT-PRO criteria. This enables poorly conducted research to be published and used in evidence-based medicine and, consequently, shared decision-making. More efforts should be undertaken to improve adequate reporting. We believe extending the CONSORT-PRO extension to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies would be a valuable addition to current guidelines.