Kjetil Gorseth Ringdal

The Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: A joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG

BackgroundIn 1999, an Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma was published. Few papers have since been published based on that template, reflecting a lack of international consensus on its feasibility and use. The aim of the present revision was to further develop the Utstein Template, particularly with a major reduction in the number of core data variables and the addition of more precise definitions of data variables. In addition, we wanted to define a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria that will facilitate uniform comparison of trauma cases.MethodsOver a ten-month period, selected experts from major European trauma registries and organisations carried out an Utstein consensus process based on a modified nominal group technique.ResultsThe expert panel concluded that a New Injury Severity Score > 15 should be used as a single inclusion criterion, and five exclusion criteria were also selected. Thirty-five precisely defined core data variables were agreed upon, with further division into core data for Predictive models, System Characteristic Descriptors and for Process Mapping.ConclusionThrough a structured consensus process, the Utstein Template for Uniform Reporting of Data following Major Trauma has been revised. This revision will enhance national and international comparisons of trauma systems, and will form the basis for improved prediction models in trauma care.

Trauma systems and early management of severe injuries in Scandinavia: Review of the current state

INTRODUCTION Scandinavian countries face common challenges in trauma care. It has been suggested that Scandinavian trauma system development is immature compared to that of other regions. We wanted to assess the current status of Scandinavian trauma management and system development. METHODS An extensive search of the Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and SweMed+ databases was conducted. Wide coverage was prioritized over systematic search strategies. Scandinavian publications from the last decade pertaining to trauma epidemiology, trauma systems and early trauma management were included. RESULTS The incidence of severe injury ranged from 30 to 52 per 100,000 inhabitants annually, with about 90% due to blunt trauma. Parts of Scandinavia are sparsely populated with long pre-hospital distances. In accordance with other European countries, pre-hospital physicians are widely employed and studies indicate that this practice imparts a survival benefit to trauma patients. More than 200 Scandinavian hospitals receive injured patients, increasingly via multidisciplinary trauma teams. Challenges remain concerning pre-hospital identification of the severely injured. Improved triage allows for a better match between patient needs and the level of resources available. Trauma management is threatened by the increasing sub-specialisation of professions and institutions. Scandinavian research is leading the development of team- and simulation-based trauma training. Several pan-Scandinavian efforts have facilitated research and provided guidelines for clinical management. CONCLUSION Scandinavian trauma research is characterised by an active collaboration across countries. The current challenges require a focus on the role of traumatology within an increasingly fragmented health care system. Regional networks of predictable and accountable pre- and in-hospital resources are needed for efficient trauma systems. Successful development requires both novel research and scientific assessment of imported principles of trauma care.

Clinical and cellular effects of hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy in major injury

Hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy have long been considered critical combinations after severe injury. The aim of this review was to give a clinical update on this triad in severely injured patients.

Abbreviated Injury Scale: Not a reliable basis for summation of injury severity in trauma facilities?

BACKGROUND Injury severity is most frequently classified using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) as a basis for the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which are used for assessment of overall injury severity in the multiply injured patient and in outcome prediction. European trauma registries recommended the AIS 2008 edition, but the levels of inter-rater agreement and reliability of ISS and NISS, associated with its use, have not been reported. METHODS Nineteen Norwegian AIS-certified trauma registry coders were invited to score 50 real, anonymised patient medical records using AIS 2008. Rater agreements for ISS and NISS were analysed using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). A clinically acceptable LoA range was set at ± 9 units. Reliability was analysed using a two-way mixed model intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering. RESULTS Ten coders submitted their coding results. Of their AIS codes, 2189 (61.5%) agreed with a reference standard, 1187 (31.1%) real injuries were missed, and 392 non-existing injuries were recorded. All LoAs were wider than the predefined, clinically acceptable limit of ± 9, for both ISS and NISS. The joint ICC (range) between each rater and the reference standard was 0.51 (0.29,0.86) for ISS and 0.51 (0.27,0.78) for NISS. The joint ICC (range) for inter-rater reliability was 0.49 (0.19,0.85) for ISS and 0.49 (0.16,0.82) for NISS. Univariate linear regression analyses indicated a significant relationship between the number of correctly AIS-coded injuries and total number of cases coded during the raters career, but no significant relationship between the rater-against-reference ISS and NISS ICC values and total number of cases coded during the raters career. CONCLUSIONS Based on AIS 2008, ISS and NISS were not reliable for summarising anatomic injury severity in this study. This result indicates a limitation in their use as benchmarking tools for trauma system performance.

Collecting core data in severely injured patients using a consensus trauma template: an international multicentre study

IntroductionNo worldwide, standardised definitions exist for documenting, reporting and comparing data from severely injured trauma patients. This study evaluated the feasibility of collecting the data variables of the international consensus-derived Utstein Trauma Template.MethodsTrauma centres from three different continents were invited to submit Utstein Trauma Template core data during a defined period, for up to 50 consecutive trauma patients. Directly admitted patients with a New Injury Severity Score (NISS) equal to or above 16 were included. Main outcome variables were data completeness, data differences and data collection difficulty.ResultsCentres from Europe (n = 20), North America (n = 3) and Australia (n = 1) submitted data on 965 patients, of whom 783 were included. Median age was 41 years (interquartile range (IQR) 24 to 60), and 73.1% were male. Median NISS was 27 (IQR 20 to 38), and blunt trauma predominated (91.1%). Of the 36 Utstein variables, 13 (36%) were collected by all participating centres. Eleven (46%) centres applied definitions of the survival outcome variable that were different from those of the template. Seventeen (71%) centres used the recommended version of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Three variables (age, gender and AIS) were documented in all patients. Completeness > 80% was achieved for 28 variables, and 20 variables were > 90% complete.ConclusionsThe Utstein Template was feasible across international trauma centres for the majority of its data variables, with the exception of certain physiological and time variables. Major differences were found in the definition of survival and in AIS coding. The current results give a clear indication of the attainability of information and may serve as a stepping-stone towards creation of a European trauma registry.

Classification of comorbidity in trauma: the reliability of pre-injury ASA physical status classification.

BACKGROUND Pre-injury comorbidities can influence the outcomes of severely injured patients. Pre-injury comorbidity status, graded according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system, is an independent predictor of survival in trauma patients and is recommended as a comorbidity score in the Utstein Trauma Template for Uniform Reporting of Data. Little is known about the reliability of pre-injury ASA-PS scores. The objective of this study was to examine whether the pre-injury ASA-PS system was a reliable scale for grading comorbidity in trauma patients. METHODS Nineteen Norwegian trauma registry coders were invited to participate in a reliability study in which 50 real but anonymised patient medical records were distributed. Reliability was analysed using quadratic weighted kappa (κ(w)) analysis with 95% CI as the primary outcome measure and unweighted kappa (κ) analysis, which included unknown values, as a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS Fifteen of the invitees responded to the invitation, and ten participated. We found moderate (κ(w)=0.77 [95% CI: 0.64-0.87]) to substantial (κ(w)=0.95 [95% CI: 0.89-0.99]) rater-against-reference standard reliability using κ(w) and fair (κ=0.46 [95% CI: 0.29-0.64]) to substantial (κ=0.83 [95% CI: 0.68-0.94]) reliability using κ. The inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate (κ(w)=0.66 [95% CI: 0.45-0.81]) to substantial (κ(w)=0.96 [95% CI: 0.88-1.00]) for κ(w) and from slight (κ=0.36 [95% CI: 0.21-0.54]) to moderate (κ=0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.89]) for κ. CONCLUSIONS The rater-against-reference standard reliability varied from moderate to substantial for the primary outcome measure and from fair to substantial for the secondary outcome measure. The study findings indicate that the pre-injury ASA-PS scale is a reliable score for classifying comorbidity in trauma patients.

Feasibility of comparing core data from existing trauma registries in scandinavia. Reaching for a Scandinavian major trauma outcome study (MTOS).

Background: The organisation of trauma care in Scandinavia has several similarities, including trauma registries, but so far there are limited amount of research on efficiency and outcome. Data and results from trauma outcome studies like the US MTOS are not fully applicable to the Scandinavian trauma population. Aims: To reveal the feasibility of using data from existing trauma registries of major hospitals in Scandinavia, for a minimal common dataset, in a joint, prospective Scandinavian MTOS. Material and Methods: We collected data points, data point definitions, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, from the major trauma registries of the Swedish trauma registry standard, three university hospitals in Denmark, one university hospital in Finland, and the Norwegian National Trauma Registry. The collected material was compared to reveal common data points, inclusion criteria, and the compatibility of data point definitions. Results: The median number of data points was 147 (range 71–257; interquartile range = 90–205). Most registries lacked precise data definition catalogues. Only 16 data points could be considered as common, of which just a few were core trauma data. Four data points had the same data category options but were not considered having the same data point definitions. The inclusion criteria were not uniform. Conclusions: Trauma registries in Scandinavia have few common core data and data point definitions. There were data points for calculating the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) but the inclusion criteria varied too much to ensure a valid comparison. A consensus process for a joint trauma core data set will be initiated by the Scandinavian Networking Group for Trauma and Emergency Management (SCANTEM) to increase research on trauma efficiency and outcome.

Inter-hospital transfer: the crux of the trauma system, a curse for trauma registries

The inter-hospital transfer of patients is crucial to a well functioning trauma system, and the transfer process may serve as a quality indicator for regional trauma care. However, the assessment of the transfer process requires high-quality data from various sources. Prospective studies and studies based on single-centre trauma registries may fail to capture an appropriate width and depth of data. Thus the creation of inclusive regional and national trauma registries that receive information from all of the services within a trauma system is a prerequisite for high quality inter-hospital transfer studies in the future.

Implementation of recommended trauma system criteria in south-eastern Norway: a cross-sectional hospital survey

BackgroundFormalized trauma systems have shown beneficial effects on patient survival and have harvested great recognition among health care professionals. In spite of this, the implementation of trauma systems is challenging and often met with resistance.Recommendations for a national trauma system in Norway were published in 2007. We wanted to assess the level of implementation of these recommendations.MethodsA survey of all acute care hospitals that receive severely injured patients in the south-eastern health region of Norway was conducted. A structured questionnaire based on the 2007 national recommendations was used in a telephone interview of hospital trauma personnel between January 17 and 21, 2011. Seventeen trauma system criteria were identified from the recommendations.ResultsNineteen hospitals were included in the study and these received more than 2000 trauma patients annually via their trauma teams. Out of the 17 criteria that had been identified, the hospitals fulfilled a median of 12 criteria. Neither the size of the hospitals nor the distance between the hospitals and the regional trauma centre affected the level of trauma resources available. The hospitals scored lowest on the criteria for transfer of patients to higher level of care and on the training requirements for members of the trauma teams.ConclusionOur study identifies a major shortcoming in the efforts of regionalizing trauma in our region. The findings indicate that training of personnel and protocols for inter-hospital transfer are the major deficiencies from the national trauma system recommendations. Resources for training of personnel partaking in trauma teams and development of inter-hospital transfer agreements should receive immediate attention.

Developing templates for uniform data documentation and reporting in critical care using a modified nominal group technique

BackgroundClinical practice in trauma and critical care is predominantly derived from quantitative observational cohort studies based on data retrospectively collected from medical records. Such data create uncontrolled bias and influence external and internal validity, thereby hindering systematic reviews. Templates or standards for uniform documenting and scientific reporting may result in high quality and internationally standardised data being collected on a regular basis, enhance large international multi-centre studies, and increase the quality of evidence. Templates or standards may be developed using multidisciplinary expert panel consensus methods.We present three consensus processes aimed at developing templates for documenting and scientific reporting. We discuss the advantages, limitations, and possible future improvements of our method.MethodsThe template preparation was based on expert panel consensus derived through a modified nominal group technique (NGT) method that combined the traditional Delphi method with the traditional NGT method in a four-step process.ResultsStandard templates for documenting and scientific reporting were developed for major trauma, pre-hospital advanced airway handling, and physician-staffed pre-hospital EMS. All templates were published in scientific journals.ConclusionOur modified NGT consensus method can successfully be used to establish templates for reporting trauma and critical care data. When used in a structured manner, the method uses recognised experts to achieve consensus, but based on our experiences, we recommend the consensus process to be followed by feasibility, reliability, and validity testing.