Rethinking the tiered trauma team response: A case‐series study in a regional trauma centre

Abstract

ObjectiveTo reduce perceived unnecessary resource use, we modified our tiered trauma response. If a patient was not physiologically compromised, surgical registrar attendance was not mandated. We investigated the effect of this change on missed injury, unplanned representation to ED, diagnostic imaging rates and staff satisfaction.MethodsA retrospective case series study assessing the 3‐month period before and after the intervention was conducted. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between ordering of computerised tomography (CT) and ED length of stay (LOS), injury severity (ISS), age, surgical review and admission. A staff survey was conducted to investigate staff perceptions of the practice change. Free text data were analysed using inductive content analysis.ResultsThere were 105 patients in the control and 166 in the intervention group and their mean (SD) ISS was the same (ISS [SD] = 4 [±4] [P = 0.608]). A higher proportion of the control group were admitted (56.3% vs 42.2% [P = 0.032]) and they had a shorter ED LOS (274 min [202–456] vs 326 min [225–560], P = 0.044). The rate of missed injury was unchanged. A surgical review resulted in a 26‐fold increase in receipt of a whole‐body CT scan (odds ratio = 26.89, 95% confidence interval = 3.31–218.17). Just over half of survey respondents felt the change was safe (54.4%), and more surgical (90%) than ED staff (69%) reported the change as positive.ConclusionThe removal of the surgical registrar from the initial trauma standby response did not result in any adverse events, reduced admissions, pathology and imaging, but resulted in an increased ED LOS and time to surgical review.