No abstract

BackgroundAdmission with a multidisciplinary trauma team may be vital for the severely injured patient, as this facilitates rapid diagnosis and treatment. On the other hand, patients with minor injuries do not need the trauma team for adequate care. Correct triage is important for optimal resource utilization. The aim of the study was to evaluate our criteria for activating the trauma team, and identify suboptimal criteria that might be changed in the interest of precision.MethodsThe study is an observational, retrospective cohort-study. All patients admitted with the trauma team (n = 382), all severely injured (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) (n = 161), and all undergoing an emergency procedure aimed at counteracting compromised airways, respiration or circulation at our hospital (n = 142) during 2006-2007 were included. Data were recorded from the admission records and the electronic patient records. The trauma team activation protocol was evaluated against the occurrence of severe injury and the occurrence of emergency procedures.ResultsA total of 441 patients were included. The overtriage was 71% and undertriage 32% when evaluating against ISS >15 as the standard of reference. When occurrence of emergency procedures was held as the standard of standard of reference, the over- and undertriage was 71% and 21%, respectively. Mechanism of injury-criteria for trauma team activation contributed the most to overtriage. The emergency procedures performed were mostly endotracheal intubation and external fixation of fractures. Less than 3% needed haemostatic laparotomy or thoracotomy. Approximately 2/3 of the overtriage represented isolated head or cervical spine injuries, and/or interhospital transfers.ConclusionsThe over- and undertriage of our protocol are both too high. To decrease overtriage we suggest omissions and modifications of some of the criteria. To decrease undertriage, transferred patients and patients with head injuries should be more thoroughly assessed against the trauma team activation criteria.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 emerged in December 2019 and is now pandemic. Initial analysis suggests that 5% of infected patients will require critical care, and that respiratory failure requiring intubation is associated with high mortality.Sick patients are geographically dispersed: most patients will remain in situ until they are in need of critical care. Additionally, there are likely to be patients who require retrieval for other reasons but who are co-incidentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 or shedding virus.The COVID-19 pandemic therefore poses a challenge to critical care retrieval systems, which often depend on small teams of specialists who live and work together closely. The infection or quarantining of a small absolute number of these staff could catastrophically compromise service delivery.Avoiding occupational exposure to COVID-19, and thereby ensuring service continuity, is the primary objective of aeromedical retrieval services during the pandemic. In this discussion paper we collaborated with helicopter emergency medical services(HEMS) worldwide to identify risks in retrieving COVID-19 patients, and develop strategies to mitigate these.Simulation involving the whole aeromedical retrieval team ensures that safety concerns can be addressed during the development of a standard operating procedure. Some services tested personal protective equipment and protocols in the aeromedical environment with simulation. We also incorporated experiences, standard operating procedures and approaches across several HEMS services internationally.As a result of this collaboration, we outline an approach to the safe aeromedical retrieval of a COVID-19 patient, and describe how this framework can be used to develop a local standard operating procedure.

Aim: To compare the outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) fulfilling the criteria for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) before and after implementation of an ECPR protocol, whether the patient received ECPR or not. Methods:We compared cardiac arrest registry data before (2014À2015) and after (2016À2019) implementation of the ECPR protocol. The ECPR criteria were presumed cardiac origin, witnessed arrest with ventricular fibrillation, bystander CPR, age 18À65, advanced life support (ALS) within 15 min and ALS > 10 min without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The primary outcome was 30-day survival; the secondary outcomes were sustained ROSC, neurological outcome and the proportion of patients transported with ongoing ALS.Results: There were 1086 and 3135 patients in the pre-and post-implementation sample; 48 (4%) and 100 (3%) met the ECPR criteria, respectively. Of these, 21 (44%) vs. 37 (37%) were alive after 30 days, p = 0.4, and 30 (63%) vs. 50 (50%) achieved sustained ROSC, p = 0.2. All survivors in the preimplementation sample had cerebral performance category 1À2 vs. 30 (81%) in the post-implementation sample, p = 0.03. Of the patients fulfilling the ECPR criteria, 7 (15%) and 26 (26%), p = 0.1, were transported with ongoing ALS in the pre-and post-implementation sample, respectively.Conclusions: There were no differences in 30-day survival or prehospital ROSC in patients with refractory OHCA before and after initiation of an ECPR protocol.