Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “TRAUMA”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

Trauma faculty and trauma team activation: impact on trauma system function and patient outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the presence of an attending trauma surgeon during trauma team activation on system function and patient outcome. METHODS: After a retrospective review of medical records and trauma registry, a comparative study between two American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Level I trauma centers was performed. One center (Hennepin County Medical Center) required a chief surgical resident, two junior residents, and a board-certified emergency medicine faculty to be present in the emergency department for all trauma team activations. The attending trauma surgeon was notified at the time of trauma team activation and was neither required to be present in the emergency department at time of patient arrival nor in the hospital 24 h/day. The other center (St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center) required a chief surgical resident, two junior residents, a board-certified emergency medicine faculty member, and an attending trauma surgeon to be present in the emergency department for all trauma activations and in hospital 24 hours/day. Over a 21-month period, all major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score > 15 or emergent operation within 4 hours of admission and any Injury Severity Score) that triggered trauma team activation were examined. Resuscitation time, time to incision, probability of survival, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Resuscitation time was shorter at St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center when compared with Hennepin County Medical Center. Analysis by mechanism of injury demonstrates that this was true for blunt trauma (39+/-13 vs. 27+/-12 minutes, p = 0.001) and for penetrating trauma (28+/-14 vs. 24+/-17 minutes, p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis of penetrating trauma victims demonstrated that there was a significant difference in resuscitation times for gunshot wounds but not for stabs. There was no difference in how quickly operations could be initiated for blunt trauma patients. However, in penetrating cases, time to incision was significantly shorter at St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center (50+/-29 vs. 66+/-43 minutes, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in mortality for any category of Trauma and Injury Severity Score probability of survival in blunt or penetrating trauma. Analysis of "in-house" and "out-house" time intervals demonstrated no difference in survival in any mechanism of injury, nor was there a difference in overall mortality. CONCLUSION: The presence of a trauma surgeon on the trauma team reduced resuscitation time and reduced time to incision for emergent operations, particularly in penetrating trauma. However, it had no measurable impact on mortality based on Trauma and Injury Severity Score probability of survival. Attending trauma surgeon presence on the trauma team improves in-hospital trauma system function without affecting patient outcome.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Impact on process of trauma care delivery 1 year after the introduction of a trauma program in a provincial trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Trauma care delivery in Canada, even in major trauma centers, usually devolves to the most involved service. For patients with multisystem injuries, this is not always optimal and aspects of care outside the domain of the primary service are apt to be overlooked. Trauma care is necessarily multidisciplinary, and to be optimal, appropriate integration of the care process and prioritization are required. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact on care in a busy provincial trauma center, after the introduction of a trauma program with a clinical trauma service, revised trauma protocols, and a dedicated trauma unit. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively before and during the introduction of the program. Aspects of care studied included trauma patient volume, compliance with trauma team activation and trauma consultation protocols, delays to the operating room for hypotension or open fractures, delays in disposition to the unit, average length of stay, and mortality based on Trauma and Injury Severity Score analysis. Data are presented summarized by quarter, one before and four after the introduction of the program. Variance tracking was introduced before the last quarter. Differences between preprogram and postprogram performance were assessed by using analysis of variance (asterisks indicates p < 0.05 compared with preprogram performance). RESULTS: Trauma unit average length of stay decreased from 10.15 days initially to 9.66 and 9.14* days at 6 and 12 months, reducing costs. Improved survival was demonstrated by Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology with z score achieving significance compared with Major Trauma Outcome Study outcomes after program implementation. CONCLUSION: Trauma care improvement can be achieved by a multidisciplinary team focusing on the process of care, developing a dedicated trauma service to manage the more seriously injured patients, collecting them onto a single unit, and initiating program management.

British Columbia↗
PubMed1996

Validation of trauma and injury severity score in blunt trauma patients by using a Canadian trauma registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in blunt trauma by using Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) models derived from the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) and the Ontario Trauma Registry (OTR) as well as to evaluate the role of the Revised Trauma Score within the TRISS model. METHODS: Consecutive blunt trauma cases from 11 Level I trauma centers over a 4-year period were identified from the OTR. Coefficients of the Revised Trauma Score were modified using the Ontario data and this score was tested by using the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test. Two Ontario-specific TRISS models were developed with revised coefficients. The first used the standard Revised Trauma Score and the second used the Revised Trauma Score with regenerated coefficients. The accuracy of mortality predictions for all models were compared by using a Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit procedure. Additionally, each TRISS models performance characteristics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate their discriminative capabilities. RESULTS: A total of 5,436 cases were incorporated in the analysis. Patients with all component TRISS variables had a significantly lower mortality compared to all blunt trauma patients (7.0% vs. 15.5%,p < 0.01). Use of the Revised Trauma Score led to the exclusion of 40% of cases because of absent data necessary to compute the score. The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit statistic for the Revised Trauma Score was 79.45 (p = 0.0001). The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Statistic ranged from 11.42, p = 0.175 and 13.1, p = 0.125 for the Ontario TRISS models compared to 25.62, p < 0.005 for the MTOS TRISS model. Sensitivity of all three TRISS models ranged from 98% to 99% with specificity ranging from 24% to 35%. ROC curves were identical for all three TRISS models. CONCLUSIONS: TRISS demonstrated satisfactory performance in a Canadian blunt trauma population. Although revision of coefficients led to a better fit on the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, ROC curves demonstrated virtually identical performance of the MTOS and Ontario-based TRISS models. The poor performance of the Revised Trauma Score and the observation that its use led to the exclusion of 40% of cases with a higher mortality raises concerns regarding its use in the TRISS model.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Predictors of mortality in adult trauma patients: the physiologic trauma score is equivalent to the Trauma and Injury Severity Score.

BACKGROUND: Several statistical models (Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS], New Injury Severity Score [NISS], and the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision-based Injury Severity Score [ICISS]) have been developed over the recent decades in an attempt to accurately predict outcomes in trauma patients. The anatomic portion of these models makes them difficult to use when performing a rapid initial trauma assessment. We sought to determine if a Physiologic Trauma Score, using the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score in combination with other commonly used indices, could accurately predict mortality in trauma. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective data were analyzed in 9,539 trauma patients evaluated at a Level I Trauma Center over a 30-month period (January 1997 to July 1999). A SIRS score (1 to 4) was calculated on admission (1 point for each: temperature > 38 degrees C or < 36 degrees C, heart rate > 90 beats per minute, respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute, neutrophil count > 12,000 or < 4,000. SIRS score, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), TRISS, Glasgow Coma Score, age, gender, and race were used in logistic regression models to predict trauma patients' risk of death. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves of sensitivity versus 1-specificity was used to assess the predictive ability of the models. RESULTS: The study cohort of 9,539 trauma patients (of which 7,602 patients had complete data for trauma score calculations) had a mean ISS of 9 +/- 9 (SD) and mean age of 37 +/- 17 years. SIRS (SIRS score > or = 2) was present in 2,165 of 7,602 patients (28.5%). In single-variable models, TRISS and ISS were most predictive of outcomes. A multiple-variable model, Physiologic Trauma Score combining SIRS score with Glasgow Coma Score and age (Hosmer-Lemenshow chi-square = 4.74) was similar to TRISS and superior to ISS in predicting mortality. The addition of ISS to this model did not significantly improve its predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: A new statistical model (Physiologic Trauma Score), including only physiologic variables (admission SIRS score combined with Glasgow Coma Score and age) and easily calculated at the patient bedside, accurately predicts mortality in trauma patients. The predictive ability of this model is comparable to other complex models that use both anatomic and physiologic data (TRISS, ISS, and ICISS).

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Do trauma centers improve outcome over non-trauma centers: the evaluation of regional trauma care using discharge abstract data and patient management categories.

Development of regional medical care systems to treat patients who sustain major accidental injuries (trauma victims) has been based on autopsy studies which demonstrate that hospitals that meet certain accepted criteria of readiness (trauma centers) can prevent needless deaths of trauma victims. However, since only autopsy data have been available from non-trauma centers, it has not previously been possible to compare morbidity data between trauma centers and non-trauma hospitals. This study examines discharge abstract data and a new patient classification system called patient management categories (PMC) which are generated from this abstract data to evaluate length of stay (LOS), complications, and death to compare morbidity and mortality data from trauma centers and non-trauma centers. Discharge abstracts for 1,332 patients with the PMC of femoral shaft fracture with operation were obtained from all hospitals in Western Pennsylvania and Maryland for 1 year. Data from trauma centers were identified and compared to non-trauma centers using the following criteria: time to OR (less than or equal to 2 days vs. greater than 2 days), age (0-12, 13-55, greater than 55 years), associated injuries, and development of complications and death. Patients treated in trauma centers had significantly fewer complications (21% vs. 33%; p less than 0.001) and lower mortality rates (p less than 0.05) than those treated in non-trauma centers. Associated injuries, age, complications, and/or delay in time to OR significantly increased intensity and length of stay in both trauma and non-trauma centers. This significantly increased the cost of care provided to these patients in both types of centers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

An evaluation of patient outcomes comparing trauma team activated versus trauma team not activated using TRISS analysis. Trauma and Injury Severity Score.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 12 who had the trauma team involved (TTA) in their resuscitative care to those that did not (TTNA). SETTING: Level I regional trauma center teaching hospital with university affiliation. METHODS: All trauma patients admitted between July 1, 1991 and August 31, 1994 with an ISS > 12 were identified through the trauma registry. Burn patients, those who suffered their injury > 24 hours before admission, and deaths in the emergency room were excluded from analysis. The TRISS methodology, which offers a standard approval for evaluating outcomes for different populations of trauma patients, was used to determine whether there was a difference in outcomes between the two groups. To include patients who arrived at the trauma center intubated, a Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-like analysis was also conducted on this patient population. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 640 patients were identified; 174 (65.2%) in the TTA group and 223 (34.8%) in the TTNA group. A total of 448 (70%) were eligible for TRISS analysis and 574 (89.7%) were eligible for TRISS-like analysis. Using the TRISS analysis, the TTA group had a Z statistic of 3.36 yielding a W score of 4.27. This compared to the TTNA group whose Z statistic was 0.30. Using the TRISS-like logistic regression equation, the TTA group had a Z statistic of 6.50, yielding a W score of 8.60 compared with the TTNA group whose Z statistic was 0.88. After controlling for differences in the demographics of the two groups, the TTA still had consistently higher Z scores. CONCLUSION: In a Level I trauma center, the outcomes of trauma patients with an ISS > 12 are statistically significantly better if the trauma team is activated than if the patients are managed on an individual service-by-service basis.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Using Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based analysis in the development of regional risk adjustment tools to trend quality in a voluntary trauma system: the experience of the Trauma Foundation of Northeast Ohio.

BACKGROUND: Presently, no trauma system exists in Ohio. Since 1993, all hospitals in Cuyahoga County (CUY), northeast Ohio (n = 22) provide data to a trauma registry. In return, each received hospital-specific data, comparison data by trauma care level and a county-wide aggregate summary. This report describes the results of this approach in our region. METHODS: All cases were entered by paper abstract or electronic download. Interrater reliability audits and z score analysis was performed by using the Major Trauma Outcome Study and the CUY 1994 baseline groups. Risk adjustment of mortality data was performed using statistical modeling and logistic regression (Trauma and Injury Severity Score, Major Trauma Outcome Study, CUY). Trauma severity measures were defined. RESULTS: In 1995, 3,375 patients were entered. Two hundred ninety-one died (8.6%). Severity measures differed by level of trauma care, indicating differences in case mix. Probability of survival was lowest in the Level I centers, highest in the acute care hospitals. Outcomes z scores demonstrated survival differences for all levels. CONCLUSIONS: In a functioning trauma system, the most severely injured patients should be cared for at the trauma centers. A low volume at acute care hospitals is desirable. By using Trauma and Injury Severity Score with community-specific constants, NE Ohio is accomplishing these goals. The Level I performance data are an interesting finding compared with the data from the Level II centers in the region

Humans↗
PubMed1997

Treatment of liver injuries at level I and level II centers in a multi-institutional metropolitan trauma system. The Midwest Trauma Society Liver Trauma Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The development of trauma systems and trauma centers has had a major impact on the fate of the critically injured patient. However, some have suggested that care may be compromised if too many trauma centers are designated for a given area. As of 1987, the state of Missouri had designated six adult trauma centers, two Level I and four Level II, for the metropolitan Kansas City, Mo, area, serving a population of approximately 1 million people. To determine whether care was comparable between the Level I and II centers, we conducted a concurrent evaluation of the fate of patients with a sentinel injury, hepatic trauma, over a 6-year period (1987-1992) who were treated at these six trauma centers. METHODS: All patients during the 6-year study period who suffered liver trauma and who survived long enough to be evaluated by computerized tomography or celiotomy were entered into the study. Patients with central nervous system trauma were excluded from analysis. Information concerning mechanism of injury, RTS, Injury Severity Score (ISS), presence of shock, liver injury scoring, mode of treatment, mortality, and length of stay were recorded on abstract forms for analysis. Care was evaluated by mortality, time to the operating room (OR), and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Over the 6-year period 300 patients with non-central nervous system liver trauma were seen. Level I centers cared for 195 patients and Level II centers cared for 105. There was no difference in mean ISS or ISS > 25 between Level I and II centers. Fifty-five (28%) patients arrived in shock at Level I centers and 24 (23%) at Level II centers. Forty-eight patients (16%) died. Thirty-two (16%) died at Level I centers, and 16 (15%) died at Level II centers. Twenty of 55 patients (36%) in shock died at Level I centers, and 11 of 24 (46%) died at Level II centers (p = 0.428). Forty-three patients (22%) had liver scaling scores of IV-VI at Level I centers, and 10 (10%) had similar scores at Level II centers (p < 0.01). With liver scores IV-VI, 22 of 43 (51%) died at Level I centers and 10 of 14 (71%) died at Level II centers (p = 0.184). There was no difference in mean time or in delays beyond 1 hour to the OR for those patients in shock between Level I and II centers. There was a longer ICU stay at Level II centers (5.0 +/- 8.3 vs. 2.8 +/- 8.4 days, p = 0.04). This difference was confined to penetrating injuries. There was no difference in hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In a metropolitan trauma system, when Level I and II centers were compared for their ability to care for victims of hepatic trauma, there was no discernible difference in care rendered with respect to severity of injury, mortality, delays to the OR, or hospital length of stay. It was observed that more severe liver injuries were seen at Level I centers, but this did not seem to significantly affect care at Level II centers. There was a longer ICU stay observed at Level II centers owing to penetrating injuries, possibly because there were fewer penetrating injuries treated at these facilities. Although the bulk of patients were seen at Level I centers, care throughout the system was equivalent.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Previous exposure to trauma and PTSD effects of subsequent trauma: results from the Detroit Area Survey of Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: With the exception of a few reports of higher rates of childhood trauma in Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), little is known about the influence of previous exposure to trauma on the PTSD effects of subsequent trauma. The authors examine interrelated questions about the effects of previous exposure to trauma. METHOD: A representative sample of 2,181 individuals in southeast Michigan were interviewed by telephone to record lifetime history of traumatic events specified in DSM-IV as potentially leading to PTSD. PTSD was assessed with respect to a randomly selected index trauma from the list of events reported by each respondent. RESULTS: History of any previous exposure to traumatic events was associated with a greater risk of PTSD from the index trauma. Multiple previous events had a stronger effect than a single previous event. The effect of previous assaultive violence persisted over time with little change. When they examined several features of the previous exposure to trauma, the authors found that subjects who experienced multiple events involving assaultive violence in childhood were more likely to experience PTSD from trauma in adulthood. Furthermore, previous events involving assaultive violence--single or multiple, in childhood or later on--were associated with a higher risk of PTSD in adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: Previous exposure to trauma signals a greater risk of PTSD from subsequent trauma. Although these results are consistent with a sensitization hypothesis, like the results from previous research on PTSD, they do not address the mechanism of increased responsivity to trauma. Long-term observational studies can further elucidate these observations.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

[Trauma score systems as instruments in quality control. A prospective study on validation of 7 trauma score systems with 612 trauma patients].

Quality control in the treatment of trauma patients often consists in comparisons of survival rates. The trauma population under study is seldom defined with regard to severity of injury. Therefore crude survival rates are of little help when the quality of care is discussed. Trauma scores attempt to summarize the severity of injury of trauma patients in a single number. They attempt to translate differences in the severity of injury into a common language. This study tested the validity of seven common trauma score systems in the setting of Cologne in 1987. Six hundred and twelve trauma patients treated by physicians at the scene of the accident were prospectively followed up in 32 hospitals. Final diagnosis, treatment, complications, and survival were evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity in predicting survival were calculated for the following systems: Glasgow Coma Scale, Trauma Score, Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, TRISS, Prehospital Index, Polytraumaschlüssel. The average time from emergency call to arrival of the emergency physician at the scene of the accident was 6.5 min. Four hundred and one patients (65.5%) were male. One hundred and thirty-seven patients (22.4%) suffered from apnoea, 61 (10.0%) had a systolic blood pressure lower than 90 mmHg, 117 (19.1%) had had a cardiac arrest and 174 (28.4%) were unconscious. Four hundred and twenty-three patients (69.1%) left hospital alive. All trauma score systems tested showed sensitivities and specificities greater than 83%. They all proved their ability to classify trauma patients according to severity of injury. The TRISS performed best of all, with sensitivity of 93.1% and specificity of 93.7% at a cut-off point of 0.85.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Female↗
PubMed1997

[Can diagnosis and subsequent trauma management of the multiple trauma patient with blunt thoracic trauma be improved by early computerized tomography of the thorax?].

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate, whether early thoracic computed tomography (TCT) is superior to routine chest x-ray (CXR) in the diagnostic work up of blunt thoracic trauma and whether these additional informations influence subsequent therapeutical decisions in the early management of severely injured patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study of 103 consecutive patients with clinical or radiological signs of chest trauma (94 multiple injured patients with chest trauma, 9 patients with isolated chest trauma) with an average ISS of 30 and an average AIS thorax of 3 initial CXR and TCT were compared after first assessment in our emergency department of a level I trauma center. RESULTS: In 67 patients (65%) TCT detected major complications of chest trauma, that have been missed on CXR [lung contusion (n = 33), pneumothorax (n = 27), residual pneumothorax after chest tube placement (n = 7), hemothorax (n = 21), displaced chest tube (n = 5), diaphragmatic rupture (n = 2), myocardial rupture (n = 1)], in 11 patients only minor additional pathologic findings (dystelectasis, small pleural effusion) were visualized on TCT and in 14 patients CXR and TCT showed the same pathological results. 11 patients had both CXR and TCT without pathological findings. The TCT scan was significantly more effective than routine CXR in detecting lung contusions (p < 0.001), pneumothorax (p < 0.005) and hemothorax (p < 0.05). In 42 patients (41%) the additional TCT findings resulted in a change of therapy: chest tube placement or chest tube correction of pneumothoraces or large hemothoraces (n = 31), change in mode of ventilation and respiratory care (n = 14), influence on the management of fracture stabilization (n = 12), laparotomy in cases of diaphragmatic lacerations (n = 2), bronchoscopy for atelectasis (n = 2), exclusion of aortic rupture (n = 2), endotracheal intubation (n = 1), pericardiocentesis (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: TCT is highly sensitive in detecting thoracic injuries after blunt chest trauma and is superior to routine CXR in visualizing lung contusions, pneumo- and hemothorax. Early TCT influences therapeutic management in a considerable subset of patients. We therefore recommend TCT in the primary diagnostic work up of multiple injured patients with suspected chest trauma, because early and exact diagnosis of all thoracic injuries along with sufficient therapeutic consequences may reduce complications and improve outcome of severely injured patients with blunt chest trauma.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

[Trauma register of the German Society of Trauma Surgery. "Scoring" study committee of the German Society of Trauma Surgery].

In January 1992 the German Society of Trauma Surgery founded the working group "Scoring" with the aim of developing guidelines for a standardized use of scoring systems in severely injured patients. The study group developed the "Trauma Register" for prospective data collection in severely injured patients, from the scene of the accident up to discharge from hospital. The register contains routinely available anatomical and physiological variables, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and any complications. Calculation of different scores is possible from the data collected. The completed registers will be collected and processed together. Statistical analyses are possible for the total population as well as for single trauma centres. The aim of the Trauma Register is the definition of standards on diagnostic and therapeutic concepts and the evaluation of trauma care. Trauma centres can compare their own performance against given standards (quality control). If there are deviations from the norms the reasons have to be identified and necessary countermeasures should be implemented (quality assurance). The register has been tested in a feasibility phase in six German trauma centres and will hopefully have an impact comparable to that of the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) in the USA.

Documentation↗
PubMed1993

Ocular trauma among major trauma victims in a regional trauma center.

The authors conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of patients entering an adult level I regional trauma unit to ascertain descriptive epidemiologic information about ocular trauma occurring in the midst of major trauma. Over a 6-year period 6313 patients entered our trauma unit with major trauma. Of these, 856 (13.5%) patients had concomitant ocular trauma. Six hundred twenty-eight (73.4%) patients were male and 228 (22.6%) were female. The average age was 37 years with 743 (86.6%) victims aged between 15 and 55 years, 111 (13.0%) over the age of 55 years. Blacks constituted 48.8% of the sample with whites and other races accounting for 45.4% and 5.5%, respectively. Among the specific causes of ocular injury in our survey, motor vehicle crashes accounted for over 52% of the injuries. Assault-related ocular trauma was responsible for approximately 8% of these injuries. Nearly one third of patients had blood alcohol levels exceeding 100 mg/dL. The mean Revised Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (based upon AIS-1985 severity coding) of the sample were 6.6 and 19.8, respectively.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed1991

Coalition on trauma--trauma prevention and trauma care: presidential address, Trauma Association of Canada.

Injury is the leading cause of death in persons under 40 years of age. The cost to society financially and in nonmonetary terms is enormous. For a successful assault on this major health epidemic, a cooperative effort between those involved in the development of prevention strategies and those involved in the care of the injured patient must develop. For our society to accept some of these prevention strategies, the rights of the community as a whole will have to be allowed to prevail over the rights of the individual. To facilitate this process, a National Advisory Committee on Injury in Canada needs to be formed. Its mandate will be to develop a set of national objectives on injury morbidity and mortality, to establish a national trauma registry, and to implement specific programs--a strategic plan. Only through a coalition of efforts between all groups involved with injury can we hope to lower the prevalence of injury in Canada.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed2001

Do pediatric trauma centers have better survival rates than adult trauma centers? An examination of the National Pediatric Trauma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) were developed to improve the survival of injured children, but it is currently unknown if children admitted to PTCs are more likely to survive than those admitted to adult trauma centers (ATCs). METHODS: Fifty-three thousand one hundred thirteen pediatric trauma cases from 22 PTCs and 31 ATCs included in the National Pediatric Trauma Registry were reviewed to evaluate survival rates at PTCs and ATCs. RESULTS: Overall, 1,259 children died. The raw mortality rate was lower at PTCs (1.81% of 32,554 children) than at ATCs (3.88% of 18,368 children). However, patients admitted to ATCs were more severely injured. When Injury Severity Score, Pediatric Trauma Score, mechanism (blunt or penetrating), gender, age, clustering, and American College of Surgeons (ACS) verification status were controlled for using a single logistic regression model, there was no statistically significant difference in survival between PTCs and ATCs (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.26; p = 0.587). A similar comparison of the 12 ACS-verified trauma centers with the 41 nonverified centers showed verification to be associated with improved survival (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.97; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Although PTCs have higher overall survival rates than ATCs, this difference disappears when the analysis controls for Injury Severity Score, Pediatric Trauma Score, age, mechanism, and ACS verification status. ACS-verified centers have significantly higher survival rates than do unverified centers.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Prehospital intubation in severe thoracic trauma without respiratory insufficiency: a matched-pair analysis based on the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society.

OBJECTIVE: On the basis of the data of a multicenter study, the impact of prehospital intubation and ventilation in the therapy of severe thoracic trauma without manifest respiratory insufficiency was analyzed. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively in the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society. In a matched-pair analysis, patients with severe thoracic trauma (Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 4) with and without prehospital intubation were compared. Patients were paired with respect to age, injury severity, and prognosis (according to the TRISS method). RESULTS: From a total of 3,814 patients, two groups (with/without prehospital intubation) of 44 matched patients each with comparable average age (36 vs. 36 years), Injury Severity Score (29 vs. 29), and TRISS (95.2 vs. 95.3) were identified. No patient was unconscious at the scene (all Glasgow Coma Scale scores > or = 8) or presented with severe respiratory insufficiency (all > or = 10 breaths/min). Time between injury and hospital admission was significantly longer (73 minutes; p < 0.05) in the group with prehospital intubation compared with the nonintubated group (47 minutes). Furthermore, fluid requirements in the prehospital period were significantly higher in the intubated patients (3,000 mL vs. 1,000 mL). In the prehospital intubation group, the number of patients with mass transfusion (9 vs. 4) as well as with emergency operations (10 vs. 4) were not significantly different from the nonintubated group. The prehospital intubation group showed a similar incidence of lung failure (17 vs. 14), kidney failure (6 vs. 2), and circulation failure (13 vs. 5). Except for two of the primarily nonintubated patients, all were intubated during their stay in the emergency room or on the intensive care unit. Days of ventilation (median, 7 days) as well as the length of stay on the ICU (median, 11 days) were comparable in both groups. Mortality in the prehospital intubation group was not significantly different between groups (six vs. two deceased). CONCLUSION: Prognosis with respect to organ failure, treatment time, and mortality is not adversely affected in the German trauma system, if patients with severe thoracic trauma without manifest respiratory insufficiency and without other indications for intubation are not treated with prehospital intubation.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Trauma score versus revised trauma score in TRISS to predict outcome in children with blunt trauma.

We analyzed the accuracy of TRISS and a revised TRISS to predict survival outcome in a group of 1,562 consecutive children less than 15 years old admitted with blunt trauma to a pediatric trauma center. TRISS is an index that computes a probability of survival for each patient based on Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, and age. R-TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score instead of the Trauma Score. We used a statistical method based on TRISS and R-TRISS to compare patient outcomes from the pediatric study group with those of an adult baseline control group from the Major Trauma Outcome Study. Both TRISS and R-TRISS have the capability to accurately quantify survival outcome for children with blunt trauma; there was no statistical difference between the two methods to do so.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

Update on trauma care in Canada. 6. Update on trauma registries and trauma scoring.

Developments in microcomputer technology and user friendly software have resulted in rapidly expanding interest in trauma registries and injury scoring. The trauma registry, particularly when it is population based, is an empowering tool for epidemiologic research, planning of trauma systems, development of prevention programs, outcome evaluation and research. Injury coding performed in conjunction with trauma registry can also provide the basis for institutional quality assurance. The Major Trauma Outcome Study has played a major role in this, through the development of normative standards, permitting inter-institutional comparisons. These issues as well as some of the present Canadian and American initiatives in the trauma registry field are reviewed in this paper. Advances in injury scaling are addressed as are some of the limitations in existing coding methodologies.

Databases, Factual↗