H. Gill Cryer

Positive serum ethanol level and mortality in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

HYPOTHESIS Ethanol exposure is associated with decreased mortality in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. DESIGN Retrospective database review. SETTING Trauma centers contributing to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). PATIENTS Version 6.2 of the NTDB (2000-2005) was queried for all patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (head Abbreviated Injury Score > or =3) and ethanol levels measured on admission. Demographics and outcomes were compared between patients with traumatic brain injuries with and without ethanol in their blood. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between mortality and ethanol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mortality and complications. RESULTS A total of 38 019 patients with severe traumatic brain injuries were evaluated. Thirty-eight percent tested positive for ethanol. Ethanol-positive patients were younger (mean [SD], 37.7 [15.1] vs 44.1 [22.0] years, P < .001), had a lower Injury Severity Score (22.3 [10.0] vs 23.0 [10.3], P < .001), and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score (10.0 [5.1] vs 11.0 [4.9], P < .001) compared with their ethanol-negative counterparts. After logistic regression analysis, ethanol was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96; P = .005) and higher complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Serum ethanol is independently associated with decreased mortality in patients with moderate to severe head injuries. Additional research is warranted to investigate the potential therapeutic implications of this association.

Patient volume per surgeon does not predict survival in adult level I trauma centers.

BACKGROUND The 1999 American College of Surgeons resources for optimal care document added the requirement that Level I trauma centers admit over 240 patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 per year or that trauma surgeons care for at least 35 patients per year. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that high volume of patients with ISS > 15 per individual trauma surgeon is associated with improved outcome. METHODS Data were obtained from the trauma registry of the five American College of Surgeons-verified adult Level I trauma centers in our mature trauma system between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999. Data abstracted included age, sex, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, probability of survival (Ps), mechanism of injury, number of patients per each trauma surgeon and institution, and mortality. Multiple logistic regression was performed to select independent variables for modeling of survival. RESULTS From the five Level I centers there were 11,932 trauma patients in this time interval; of these, 1,754 patients (14.7%) with ISS > 15 were identified and used for analysis. Patients with ISS > 15 varied from 173 to 625 per institution; trauma surgeons varied from 8 to 25 per institution; per-surgeon patient volume varied from 0.8 to 96 per year. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best independent predictors of survival were Ps, GCS score, age, mechanism of injury, and institutional volume (p < 0.01). Age and institutional volume correlated negatively with survival. Analysis of per-surgeon patient caseload added no additional predictive value (p = 0.44). CONCLUSION The significant independent predictors of survival in severely injured trauma patients are Ps, GCS score, age, mechanism of injury, and institutional volume. We found no statistically meaningful contribution to the prediction of survival on the basis of per-surgeon patient volume. Since this volume criterion for surgeon enpanelment and trauma center designation would not be expected to improve outcome, such a requirement should be justified by other measures or abandoned.

Evaluation of Hospital Readmissions in Surgical Patients: Do Administrative Data Tell the Real Story?

IMPORTANCE The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has developed an all-cause readmission measure that uses administrative data to measure readmission rates and financially penalize hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates. OBJECTIVES To examine the accuracy of administrative codes in determining the cause of readmission as determined by medical record review, to evaluate the readmission measures ability to accurately identify a readmission as planned, and to document the frequency of readmissions for reasons clinically unrelated to the original hospital stay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective review of all consecutive patients discharged from general surgery services at a tertiary care, university-affiliated teaching hospital during 8 consecutive quarters (quarter 4 [October through December] of 2009 through quarter 3 [July through September] of 2011). Clinical readmission diagnosis determined from direct medical record review was compared with the administrative diagnosis recorded in a claims database. The number of planned hospital readmissions defined by the readmission measure was compared with the number identified using clinical data. Readmissions unrelated to the original hospital stay were identified using clinical data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Discordance rate between administrative and clinical diagnoses for all hospital readmissions, discrepancy between planned readmissions defined by the readmission measure and identified by clinical medical record review, and fraction of hospital readmissions unrelated to the original hospital stay. RESULTS Of the 315 hospital readmissions, the readmission diagnosis listed in the administrative claims data differed from the clinical diagnosis in 97 readmissions (30.8%). The readmission measure identified 15 readmissions (4.8%) as planned, whereas clinical data identified 43 readmissions (13.7%) as planned. Unrelated readmissions comprised 70 of the 258 unplanned readmissions (27.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Administrative billing data, as used by the readmission measure, do not reliably describe the reason for readmission. The readmission measure accounts for less than half of the planned readmissions and does not account for the nearly one-third of readmissions unrelated to the original hospital stay. Implementation of this readmission measure may result in unwarranted financial penalties for hospitals.

The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program

The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) is a recent addition to the many quality improvement collaboratives that have been established in surgery. On the background of a well-established trauma center and its performance improvement activities, ACS TQIP offers the potential to advance trauma care and offers participating centers the opportunity to better understand their strengths and areas for improvement. The rationale for ACS TQIPs development, implementation challenges, and potential for advancing the quality of trauma care are described.

Pelvic Fracture: The Last 50 Years

The past 50 years have been a time of rapid progress in the control of mortality and morbidity of pelvic fracture. Early understanding of the anatomic features of the fracture and the potential for major, life-threatening arterial hemorrhage in a small proportion of patients led to multidisciplinary approaches designed to control hemorrhage and temporarily stabilize the fracture. Progress in the diagnosis and management of lower urinary tract injuries has resulted in maintenance of urinary continence and sexual function in a large proportion of patients with pelvic fracture-associated urinary tract injury. Finally, definitive open reduction and fixation of the fracture has led to permanent pelvic stability and pain-free walking in most patients. With successful combination of these approaches, survival and return to a satisfactory level of function is now the rule rather than the exception for patients with severe pelvic fracture.

Alcohol abuse and illegal drug use among Los Angeles County trauma patients: Prevalence and evaluation of single item screener

BACKGROUND The misuse of alcohol and illicit drugs is implicated with injury and repeat injury. Admission to a trauma center provides an opportunity to identify patients with substance use problems and initiate intervention and prevention strategies. To facilitate the identification of trauma patients with substance use problems, we studied alcohol abuse and illegal substance use patterns in a large cohort of urban trauma patients, identified correlates of alcohol abuse, and assessed the utility of a single item binge-drinking screener for identifying patients with past 12-month substance use problems. METHODS Between February 2004 and August 2006, 677 patients from four large trauma centers in Los Angeles County were interviewed. The sample was broadly representative of the entire Los Angeles County trauma center patient population. RESULTS Twenty-four percent of patients met criteria for alcohol abuse and 15% reported using an illegal drug other than marijuana in the past 12 months. Male gender, assaultive injury, peritrauma substance use, and history of binge drinking were prominent risk factors. A single item binge drinking screen correctly identified alcohol abuse status in 76% of all patients; the screen also performed moderately well in discriminating between those who had or had not used illegal drugs in the past 12 months, with sensitivity estimates reaching 0.79 and specificity estimates reaching 0.74. CONCLUSIONS A large proportion of urban trauma patients abuse alcohol and use illegal drugs. Distinct sociodemographic and substance use history may indicate underlying risky behaviors. Interventions and injury prevention programs need to address these causal behaviors to reduce injury morbidity and recidivism. In the busy trauma care setting, a one-item screener could be helpful in identifying patients who would benefit from more thorough assessment and possible brief intervention.

Continuous use of standard process audit filters has limited value in an established trauma system.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the ability of five quality assurance/ quality improvement audit filters to identify opportunities for improvement in patient care in a mature trauma system. DESIGN Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Total patient population at risk and audit filter fallouts were evaluated for the following audit filters: patients with (1) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 14 who did not receive a CT scan within 2 hours of admission; (2) subdural/ epidural hematomas who did not undergo craniotomy within 4 hours; (3) open tibial fractures who did not undergo debridement within 8 hours; (4) abdominal gunshot wounds who did not undergo laparotomy within 4 hours; and (5) all deaths where a quality assurance action was taken. The filters were used for 1 year. Mortality was compared between fallouts and nonfallouts in each category and the frequency of corrective actions for each category were determined. RESULTS Corrective actions were taken in 97 of the 418 fallouts from 3,787 patients at risk. The majority (77%) of these actions were for patients in the death audit filter group. There were 343 nondeath fallouts, representing 13% of the 2,719 nondeath patients at risk. Of these, 22 corrective actions were taken, representing 6.4% of the fallouts and less than 1% of the patients at risk. CONCLUSION The non-death process based audit filters that we evaluated in our trauma system documented adherence to care process standards but found few opportunities for quality improvement, suggesting that audit filters should be periodically evaluated and changed when their goals have been accomplished.

Improving Pain Management in Critical Care

BACKGROUND In April 1994 at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center the Surgical Intensive Care Units (SICUs) Quality Improvement Council unanimously agreed on pain management as one of the major factors that negatively affect outcomes for their patient population. Using the FOCUS-PDCA (plan-do-check-act) model for quality improvement (QI), the council chartered a subcommittee to improve the pain management in their ICUs. METHODOLOGY The subcommittee first measured the pain assessment scores of patients at transfer from the ICU. After ascertaining that these scores were greater than the goal of 2, the process of providing pain relief was examined with the assistance of process control statistics, which showed a process barely capable of meeting the goal of pain score of 2 or less on a 0-5 scale. The process factors that affected this outcome were examined and changes were made where appropriate. One of these changes was development of a guideline for acute pain management based on the Agency for Health Care Policy Researchs Acute Pain Management Clinical Practice Guideline. Reassessment of the pain scores and the process was then conducted. RESULTS The pain assessment scores at transfer from the ICU decreased significantly. Thirty-five percent of patients in the preguideline survey rated their scores as greater than 2, compared with only 21% at the postguideline survey. Pain assessment and documentation also improved significantly. CONCLUSION The Quality Improvement Council felt that improvements in pain management were due largely to their having provided staff with the right tools to use in assessing, documenting, and controlling pain. Gains in pain management continue to be made.

Centers for medicare and medicaid services quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality at trauma centers

OBJECTIVES The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reports hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care as quality indicators. We hypothesized that compliance with CMS quality indicators would correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. METHODS A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to measure observed-to-expected mortality ratios (O/E with 95% confidence interval) for Level I and II trauma centers using the National Trauma Data Bank data. Adult patients (>or=16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >or=3) were included (127,819 patients). Compliance with CMS quality indicators in four domains was obtained from Hospital Compare website: acute myocardial infarction (8 processes), congestive heart failure (4 processes), pneumonia (7 processes), surgical infections (3 processes). For each domain, a single composite score was calculated for each hospital. The relationship between O/E ratios and CMS quality indicators was explored using nonparametric tests. RESULTS There was no relationship between compliance with CMS quality indicators and risk-adjusted outcomes of trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS CMS quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. Hence, there is a need to develop new trauma-specific process of care quality indicators to evaluate and improve quality of care in trauma centers.

Improved Trauma System Multicasualty Incident Response: Comparison of Two Train Crash Disasters

BACKGROUND Two train crash multicasualty incidents (MCI) occurred in 2005 and 2008 in Los Angeles. A postcrash analysis of the first MCI determined that most victims went to local community hospitals (CHs) with underutilization of trauma centers (TCs), resulting in changes to our disaster plan. To determine whether our trauma system MCI response improved, we analyzed the distribution of patients from the scene to TCs and CHs in the two MCIs. METHODS Data from the emergency medical services and TC records were interrogated to compare patients triage status, type of transport, and the destination in the 2008 MCI to the 2005 MCI. Clinical data from the 2008 MCI were tabulated to evaluate severity of injuries, need for immediate and delayed operation, need for intensive care unit, and need for specialty surgical services, and appropriate distribution of patients. RESULTS In 2005, 14 (56%) of the 25 severely injured patients and 75 (71%) of the 106 total patients were transported to four CHs. In 2008, 53 (93%) of 57 of the severely injured patients were transported to TCs and only 34 (35%) of 98 of total patients were transported to nine CHs. In 2008, more TCs were used (8 vs. 5) and more patients were transported by air (34 vs. 2). In 2008, the most severely injured victims were transported to four level I TCs (median injury severity score, 16; range, 1-43; 10 emergent operations) and four level II TCs (median injury severity score, 10; range, 1-22; 4 emergent operations). Only 11 patients were admitted to CHs, and no operations were required. CONCLUSIONS A trauma system performance improvement program allowed us to significantly improve our response to MCIs with improved utilization of TCs and improved distribution of victims according to injury severity and needs.