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.

BackgroundFinland has the fourth highest injury mortality rate in the European Union. To better understand the causes of the high injury rate, and prevent these fatal injuries, studies are needed. Therefore, we set out to complete an analysis of the epidemiology of fatal trauma, and any contributory role for alcohol, long suspected to promote fatal injuries. As a study area, we chose the four northernmost counties of Finland; their mix of remote rural areas and urban centres allowed us to correlate mortality rates with ‘rurality’.MethodsThe Causes of Death Register was consulted to identify deaths from external causes over a 5‐year time period. Data were retrieved from death certificates, autopsy reports and medical records. The municipalities studied were classified as either rural or urban.ResultsOf 2915 deaths categorized as occurring from external causes during our study period, 1959 were eligible for inclusion in our study. The annual crude mortality rate was 54 per 100,000 inhabitants; this rate was higher in rural vs. urban municipalities (65 vs. 45 per 100,000 inhabitants/year). Additionally, a greater number of pre‐hospital deaths from accidental high‐energy trauma occurred in rural areas (78 vs. 69%). 42% of all pre‐hospital deaths occurred under the influence of alcohol.ConclusionThe crude mortality rate for fatal injuries was high overall as compared to other studies, and elevated in rural areas, where pre‐hospital deaths were more common. Almost half of pre‐hospital deaths occurred under the influence of alcohol.

The efficacy of anal injections and biofeedback in treating anal incontinence did not differ in this randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial.

BackgroundCorrect triage based on prehospital information contributes to a better outcome for potentially seriously injured patients. In 2011 we changed the trauma team activation (TTA) criteria in our center in order to improve the high over- and undertriage properties of the protocol. Five criteria that were unable to predict severe injury were removed. In the present study, we evaluated the protocol revision by comparing over- and undertriage in the former and present set of criteria.MethodsAll severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15) and all patients admitted with TTA in the period of 01.01.2013 – 31.12.2014 were included in the study. We defined overtriage as the fraction of patients with TTA when ISS ≤15 and undertriage as the fraction of patients without TTA when ISS > 15. We also evaluated triage with the occurrence of emergency procedures immediately after admission.Results324 patients were included, 164 patients had ISS>15, 287 were admitted with TTA. Over- and undertriage were 74 % and 28 % respectively. When we used emergency procedure as reference, the figures were 83 % and 15 % respectively. Undertriaged patients had significantly more neurosurgical injuries and were significantly more often transferred from an acute care hospital.DiscussionOver- and undertriage are almost the same as before the criteria were revised, and higher thanrecommended levels.ConclusionsRevision of the TTA criteria has not improved triage, and further measures are necessary to achieveacceptable levels.