Missed injuries in trauma patients: A literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Overlooked injuries and delayed diagnoses are still common problems in the treatment of polytrauma patients. Therefore, ongoing documentation describing the incidence rates of missed injuries, clinically significant missed injuries, contributing factors and outcome is necessary to improve the quality of trauma care. This review summarizes the available literature on missed injuries, focusing on overlooked muscoloskeletal injuries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Manuscripts dealing with missed injuries after trauma were reviewed. The following search modules were selected in PubMed: Missed injuries, Delayed diagnoses, Trauma, Musculoskeletal injuires. Three time periods were differentiated: (n = 2, 1980–1990), (n = 6, 1990–2000), and (n = 9, 2000-Present).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found a wide spread distribution of missed injuries and delayed diagnoses incidence rates (1.3% to 39%). Approximately 15 to 22.3% of patients with missed injuries had clinically significant missed injuries. Furthermore, we observed a decrease of missed pelvic and hip injuries within the last decade.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The lack of standardized studies using comparable definitions for missed injuries and clinically significant missed injuries call for further investigations, which are necessary to produce more reliable data. Furthermore, improvements in diagnostic techniques (e.g. the use of multi-slice CT) may lead to a decreased incidence of missed pelvic injuries. Finally, the standardized tertiary trauma survey is vitally important in the detection of clinically significant missed injuries and should be included in trauma care.</p

Emergency department spirometric volume and base deficit delineate risk for torso injury in stable patients

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine torso injury rates and sensitivities associated with fluid-positive abdominal ultrasound, metabolic acidosis (increased base deficit and lactate), and impaired pulmonary physiology (decreased spirometric volume and PaO(2)/FiO(2)). METHODS: Level I trauma center prospective pilot and post-pilot study (2000–2001) of stable patients. Increased base deficit was < 0.0 in ethanol-negative and ≤ -3.0 in ethanol-positive patients. Increased lactate was > 2.5 mmol/L in ethanol-negative and ≥ 3.0 mmol/L in ethanol-positive patients. Decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2 )was < 350 and decreased spirometric volume was < 1.8 L. RESULTS: Of 215 patients, 66 (30.7%) had a torso injury (abdominal/pelvic injury n = 35 and/or thoracic injury n = 43). Glasgow Coma Scale score was 14.8 ± 0.5 (13–15). Torso injury rates and sensitivities were: abdominal ultrasound negative and normal base deficit, lactate, PaO(2)/FiO(2), and spirometric volume – 0.0% & 0.0%; normal base deficit and normal spirometric volume – 4.2% & 4.5%; chest/abdominal soft tissue injury – 37.8% & 47.0%; increased lactate – 39.7% & 47.0%; increased base deficit – 41.3% & 75.8%; increased base deficit and/or decreased spirometric volume – 43.8% & 95.5%; decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2 )– 48.9% & 33.3%; positive abdominal ultrasound – 62.5% & 7.6%; decreased spirometric volume – 73.4% & 71.2%; increased base deficit and decreased spirometric volume – 82.9% & 51.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with normal base deficit and spirometric volume are unlikely to have a torso injury. Patients with increased base deficit or lactate, decreased spirometric volume, decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2), or positive FAST have substantial risk for torso injury. Increased base deficit and/or decreased spirometric volume are highly sensitive for torso injury. Base deficit and spirometric volume values are readily available and increase or decrease the suspicion for torso injury

Tertiary Survey Performance in a Regional Trauma Hospital Without a Dedicated Trauma Service

Background: Initial management of trauma patients is focused on identifying life- and limb-threatening injuries and may lead to missed injuries. A tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries and involves a physical re-examination and review of all investigations within 24 h of admission. There is little information on current practice of tertiary survey performance in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service. We aimed to determine the rate of tertiary survey performance and the detail of documentation as well as the baseline rate of missed injuries. Methods: We performed a retrospective, descriptive study of all multitrauma patients who presented to an Australian level II regional trauma centre without a dedicated trauma service between May 2008 and February 2009. A medical records review was conducted to determine tertiary survey performance and missed injury rate. Results: Of 252 included trauma patients, 20% (n = 51) had a tertiary survey performed. A total of nine missed injuries were detected in eight patients (3.2%). Of the multiple components of the tertiary survey, most were poorly documented. Documentation was more comprehensive in the subgroup of patients who did have a formal tertiary survey. Conclusions: Tertiary survey performance was poor, as indicated by low documentation rates. The baseline missed injury rate was comparable to previous that of retrospective studies, although in this study an underestimation of true missed injury rates is likely. Implementing a formal, institutional tertiary survey may lead to improved tertiary survey performance and documentation and therefore improved trauma care in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service