Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

Objectives: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u27s field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR

Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Preventions field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: We reviewed 2418 abstracts and 315 full-text publications and identified 42 relevant studies. The factors most predictive of serious injury across multiple studies were death in the same vehicle (LR+ 2.2-7.4), ejection (aOR 3.2-266.2), extrication (LR+ 1.1-6.6), lack of seat belt use (aOR 4.4-11.3), high speeds (aOR 2.0-2.9), concerning crash variables identified by vehicle telemetry systems (LR+ 4.7-22.2), falls from height (LR+ 2.4-5.9), and axial load or diving (aOR 2.5-17.6). Minor or inconsistent predictors of serious injury were vehicle intrusion (LR+ 0.8-7.2), cardiopulmonary or neurologic comorbidities (LR+ 0.8-3.1), older age (LR+ 0.6-6.8), or anticoagulant use (LR+ 1.1-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Select mechanism and special consideration criteria contribute positively to appropriate field triage of potentially injured patients

Are trauma surgeons prepared? A survey of trauma surgeons’ disaster preparedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective US trauma centers (TCs) must remain prepared for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). However, trauma surgeons may lack formal MCI training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic drove multiple patient surges, overloaded Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies, and stressed TCs. This survey assessed trauma surgeons’ MCI training, experience, and system and personal preparedness before the pandemic compared with the pandemic’s third year.Methods Survey invitations were emailed to all 1544 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2019, and then resent in 2022 to 1575 members with additional questions regarding the pandemic. Questions assessed practice type, TC characteristics, training, experience, beliefs about personal and hospital preparedness, likelihood of MCI scenarios, interventions desired from membership organizations, and pandemic experiences.Results The response rate was 16.7% in 2019 and 12% in 2022. In 2022, surgeons felt better prepared than their hospitals for pandemic care, mass shootings, and active shooters, but remained feeling less well prepared for cyberattack and hazardous material events, compared with 2019. Only 35% of the respondents had unintentional MCI response experience in 2019 or 2022, and even fewer had experience with intentional MCI. 78% had completed a Stop the Bleed (STB) course and 63% own an STB kit. 57% had engaged in family preparedness activities; less than 40% had a family action plan if they could not come home during an MCI. 100% of the respondents witnessed pandemic-related adverse events, including colleague and coworker illness, patient surges, and resource limitations, and 17% faced colleague or coworker death.Conclusions Trauma surgeons thought that they became better at pandemic care and rated themselves as better prepared than their hospitals for MCI care, which is an opportunity for them to take greater leadership roles. Opportunities remain to improve surgeons’ family and personal MCI preparedness. Surgeons’ most desired professional organization interventions include advocacy, national standards for TC preparedness, and online training.Level of evidence VII, survey of expert opinion