Marius Rehn

Precision of field triage in patients brought to a trauma centre after introducing trauma team activation guidelines

BackgroundField triage is important for regional trauma systems providing high sensitivity to avoid that severely injured are deprived access to trauma team resuscitation (undertriage), yet high specificity to avoid resource over-utilization (overtriage). Previous informal trauma team activation (TTA) at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) caused imprecise triage. We have analyzed triage precision after introduction of TTA guidelines.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 7 years (2001–07) of prospectively collected trauma registry data for all patients with TTA or severe injury, defined as at least one of the following: Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, proximal penetrating injury, admitted ICU > 2 days, transferred intubated to another hospital within 2 days, dead from trauma within 30 days. Interhospital transfers to UUH and patients admitted by non-healthcare personnel were excluded. Overtriage is the fraction of TTA where patients are not severely injured (1-positive predictive value); undertriage is the fraction of severely injured admitted without TTA (1-sensitivity).ResultsOf the 4 659 patients included in the study, 2 221 (48%) were severely injured. TTA occurred 4 440 times, only 2 002 of which for severely injured (overtriage 55%). Overall undertriage was 10%. Mechanism of injury was TTA criterion in 1 508 cases (34%), of which only 392 were severely injured (overtriage 74%). Paramedic-manned prehospital services provided 66% overtriage and 17% undertriage, anaesthetist-manned services 35% overtriage and 2% undertriage. Falls, high age and admittance by paramedics were significantly associated with undertriage. A Triage-Revised Trauma Score (RTS) < 12 in the emergency department reduced the risk for undertriage compared to RTS = 12 (normal value). Field RTS was documented by anaesthetists in 64% of the patients compared to 33% among paramedics.Patients subject to undertriage had an ISS-adjusted Odds Ratio for 30-day mortality of 2.34 (95% CI 1.6–3.4, p < 0.001) compared to those correctly triaged to TTA.ConclusionTriage precision had not improved after TTA guideline introduction. Anaesthetists perform precise trauma triage, whereas paramedics have potential for improvement. Skewed mission profiles makes comparison of differences in triage precision difficult, but criteria or the use of them may contribute. Massive undertriage among paramedics is of grave concern as patients exposed to undertriage had increased risk of dying.

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.

Oslo government district bombing and Utøya island shooting July 22, 2011: The immediate prehospital emergency medical service response

BackgroundOn July 22, 2011, a single perpetrator killed 77 people in a car bomb attack and a shooting spree incident in Norway. This article describes the emergency medical service (EMS) response elicited by the two incidents.MethodsA retrospective and observational study was conducted based on data from the EMS systems involved and the public domain. The study was approved by the Data Protection Official and was defined as a quality improvement project.ResultsWe describe the timeline and logistics of the EMS response, focusing on alarm, dispatch, initial response, triage and evacuation. The scenes in the Oslo government district and at Utøya island are described separately.ConclusionsMany EMS units were activated and effectively used despite the occurrence of two geographically separate incidents within a short time frame. Important lessons were learned regarding triage and evacuation, patient flow and communication, the use of and need for emergency equipment and the coordination of helicopter EMS.

Prognostic models for the early care of trauma patients: a systematic review

BackgroundEarly identification of major trauma may contribute to timely emergency care and rapid transport to an appropriate health-care facility. Several prognostic trauma models have been developed to improve early clinical decision-making.MethodsWe systematically reviewed models for the early care of trauma patients that included 2 or more predictors obtained from the evaluation of an adult trauma victim, investigated their quality and described their characteristics.ResultsWe screened 4 939 records for eligibility and included 5 studies that derivate 5 prognostic models and 9 studies that validate one or more of these models in external populations. All prognostic models intended to change clinical practice, but none were tested in a randomised clinical trial. The variables and outcomes were valid, but only one model was derived in a low-income population. Systolic blood pressure and level of consciousness were applied as predictors in all models.ConclusionsThe general impression is that the models perform well in predicting survival. However, there are many areas for improvement, including model development, handling of missing data, analysis of continuous measures, impact and practicality analysis.

Efficacy of a two-tiered trauma team activation protocol in a Norwegian trauma centre

A registry‐based analysis revealed imprecise informal one‐tiered trauma team activation (TTA) in a primary trauma centre. A two‐tiered TTA protocol was introduced and analysed to examine its impact on triage precision and resource utilization.

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.

Calculating trauma triage precision: effects of different definitions of major trauma

BackgroundTriage is the process of classifying patients according to injury severity and determining the priority for further treatment. Although the term “major trauma” represents the reference against which over- and undertriage rates are calculated, its definition is inconsistent in the current literature. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different definitions of major trauma on the calculation of perceived over- and undertriage rates in a Norwegian trauma cohort.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients included in the trauma registry of a primary, referral trauma centre. Two “traditional” definitions were developed based on anatomical injury severity scores (ISS >15 and NISS >15), one “extended” definition was based on outcome (30-day mortality) and mechanism of injury (proximal penetrating injury), one ”extensive” definition was based on the “extended” definition and on ICU resource consumption (admitted to the ICU for >2 days and/or transferred intubated out of the hospital in ≤2 days), and an additional four definitions were based on combinations of the first four.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the perceived under- and overtriage rates between the two “traditional” definitions (NISS >15 and ISS >15). Adding “extended” and “extensive” to the “traditional” definitions also did not significantly alter perceived under- and overtriage. Defining major trauma only in terms of the mechanism of injury and mortality, with or without ICU resource consumption (the “extended” and “extensive” groups), drastically increased the perceived overtriage rates.ConclusionAlthough the proportion of patients who were defined as having sustained major trauma increased when NISS-based definitions were substituted for ISS-based definitions, the outcomes of the triage precision calculations did not differ significantly between the two scales. Additionally, expanding the purely anatomic definition of major trauma by including proximal penetrating injury, 30-day mortality, ICU LOS greater than 2 days and transferred intubated out of the hospital at ≤2 days did not significantly influence the perceived triage precision. We recommend that triage precision calculations should include anatomical injury scaling according to NISS. To further enhance comparability of trauma triage calculations, researchers should establish a consensus on a uniform definition of major trauma.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on pre-hospital airway management.

The Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine task force on pre‐hospital airway management was asked to formulate recommendations following standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.

A consensus based template for reporting of pre-hospital major incident medical management

BackgroundStructured reporting of major incidents has been advocated to improve the care provided at future incidents. A systematic review identified ten existing templates for reporting major incident medical management, but these templates are not in widespread use. We aimed to address this challenge by designing an open access template for uniform reporting of data from pre-hospital major incident medical management that will be tested for feasibility.MethodsAn expert group of thirteen European major incident practitioners, planners or academics participated in a four stage modified nominal group technique consensus process to design a novel reporting template. Initially, each expert proposed 30 variables. Secondly, these proposals were combined and each expert prioritized 45 variables from the total of 270. Thirdly, the expert group met in Norway to develop the template. Lastly, revisions to the final template were agreed via e-mail.ResultsThe consensus process resulted in a template consisting of 48 variables divided into six categories; pre-incident data, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) background, incident characteristics, EMS response, patient characteristics and key lessons.ConclusionsThe expert group reached consensus on a set of key variables to report the medical management of pre-hospital major incidents and developed a novel reporting template. The template will be freely available for downloading and reporting on http://www.majorincidentreporting.org. This is the first global open access database for pre-hospital major incident reporting. The use of a uniform dataset will allow comparative analysis and has potential to identify areas of improvement for future responses.

Epidemiology of trauma: a population-based study of geographical risk factors for injury deaths in the working-age population of Norway.

INTRODUCTION Trauma is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. Population-based studies identifying high-risk populations and regions may facilitate primary prevention and the development of optimal trauma systems. This study describes the epidemiology of adult trauma deaths in Norway and identifies high-risk areas by assessing different geographical measures of rurality. METHODS All trauma-related deaths in Norway from 1998 to 2007 among individuals aged 16-66 years were identified by accessing national registries. Mortality data were analysed by linkage to population and geographical data at municipal, county and national levels. Three measures of rurality (centrality, population density and settlement density) were compared based on their association with trauma mortality rates. RESULTS The study included 8466 deaths, of which 78% were males. The national annual trauma mortality rate was 28.7 per 100,000. Population density was the best predictor of high-risk areas, and there was a consistent inverse relationship between mortality rates and population density. The most rural areas had 52% higher trauma mortality rates compared to the most urban areas. This difference was largely due to deaths following transport-related injury. Seventy-eight per cent of all deaths occurred in the prehospital phase. Rural areas and death following self-harm had higher proportion of prehospital deaths. CONCLUSION Rural areas, as defined by population density, are at a higher risk of deaths following traumatic injuries and have higher proportions of prehospital deaths and deaths following transport-related injuries. The heterogeneous characteristics of trauma populations with respect to geography and mode of injury should be recognised in the planning of preventive strategies and in the organisation of trauma care.