Purpose The importance of treating severely injured patients in higher-level trauma centers is undisputable. However, it is uncertain whether severely injured patients that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (i.e., undertriage) benefit from being transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Methods This observational study included all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center within eight ambulance regions. The exposure of interest was whether a patient was transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Primary outcomes were 24-h and 30-day mortality. Generalized linear models including inverse probability weights for several potential confounders were constructed to evaluate the association between transfer status and mortality. Results We included 165,404 trauma patients that were transported with high priority to a trauma center, of which 3932 patients were severely injured. 1065 (27.1%) patients were transported to a lower-level trauma center of which 322 (30.2%) were transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Transferring undertriaged patients to a higher-level trauma center was significantly associated with reduced 24-h (relative risk [RR] 0.26, 95%-CI 0.10–0.68) and 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, 0.46–0.92). Similar results were observed in patients with critical injuries (24-h: RR 0.35, 0.16–0.77; 30-day: RR 0.55, 0.37–0.80) and patients with traumatic brain injury (24-h: RR 0.31, 0.11–0.83; 30-day: RR 0.66, 0.46–0.96). Conclusions A minority of the undertriaged patients are transferred to a higher-level trauma center. An inter-hospital transfer appears to be safe and may improve the survival of severely injured patients initially transported to a lower-level trauma center.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:Modern trauma systems and emergency medical services aim to reduce prehospital time intervals to achieve optimal outcomes. However, current literature remains inconclusive on the relationship between time to definitive treatment and mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between prehospital time and mortality. METHODS:All moderately and severely injured trauma patients (i.e., patients with an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater) who were transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center by ground ambulances of the participating emergency medical services between 2015 and 2017 were included. Exposures of interest were total prehospital time, on-scene time, and transport time. Outcomes were 24-hour and 30-day mortality. Generalized linear models including inverse probability weights for several potential confounders were constructed. A generalized additive model was constructed to enable visual inspection of the association. RESULTS:We included 22,525 moderately and severely injured patients. Twenty-four-hour and 30-day mortality were 1.3% and 7.3%, respectively. On-scene time per minute was significantly associated with 24-hour (relative risk [RR], 1.029; 95% confidence interval, 1.018-1.040) and 30-day mortality (RR, 1.013; 1.008-1.017). We found that this association was also present in patients with severe injuries, traumatic brain injury, severe abdominal injury, and stab or gunshot wound. An on-scene time of 20 minutes or longer demonstrated a strong association with 24-hour (RR, 1.797; 1.406-2.296) and 30-day mortality (RR, 1.298;. Total prehospital (24-hour: RR, 0.998; 0.990-1.007; 30-day: RR, 1.000, 0.997-1.004) and transport (24-hour: RR, 0.996; 0.982-1.010; 30-day: RR, 0.995; 0.989-1.001) time were not associated with mortality. CONCLUSION:A prolonged on-scene time is associated with mortality in moderately and severely injured patients, which suggests that a reduced on-scene time may be favorable for these patients. In addition, transport time was found not to be associated with mortality.

Identification of a head injury on-scene is challenging. EMS providers could not identify 32% of the patients with a head injury and 21% of the patients with a severe head injury. Additional education, training and a supplementary protocol with predictors of a severe head injury could help EMS providers in the identification of these patients.

No abstract

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.

Background: Evaluating treatment of traumatic spinal cord injuries (TSCIs) from the prehospital phase until postrehabilitation is crucial to improve outcomes of future TSCI patients. Objective: To describe the flow of patients with TSCI through the prehospital, hospital, and rehabilitation settings and to relate treatment outcomes to emergency medical services (EMS) transport locations and surgery timing. Method: Consecutive TSCI admissions to a level I trauma center (L1TC) in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Corresponding EMS, hospital, and rehabilitation records were assessed. Results: A total of 151 patients were included. Their median age was 58 (IQR 37–72) years, with the majority being male (68%) and suffering from cervical spine injuries (75%). In total, 66.2% of the patients with TSCI symptoms were transported directly to an L1TC, and 30.5% were secondarily transferred in from a lower level trauma center. Most injuries were due to falls (63.0%) and traffic accidents (31.1%), mainly bicycle-related. Most patients showed stable vital signs in the ambulance and the emergency department. After hospital discharge, 71 (47.0%) patients were admitted to a rehabilitation hospital, and 34 (22.5%) patients went home. The 30-day mortality rate was 13%. Patients receiving acute surgery (<12 hours) compared to subacute surgery (>12h, <2 weeks) showed no significance in functional independence scores after rehabilitation treatment. Conclusion: A surge in age and bicycle-injuries in TSCI patients was observed. A substantial number of patients with TSCI were undertriaged. Acute surgery (<12 hours) showed comparable outcomes results in subacute surgery (>12h, <2 weeks) patients.

No abstract