Identifying the severely injured benefitting from a specific level of trauma care in an inclusive network:A multicentre retrospective study

Introduction: Defining major trauma (MT) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) &gt; 15 has limitations. This threshold is used for concentrating MT care in networks with multiple levels of trauma care. Objective: This study aims to identify subgroups of severely injured patients benefiting on in-hospital mortality and non-fatal clinical outcome measures in an optimal level of trauma care. Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study on data of the Dutch National Trauma Registry, region South West, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patients ≥ 16 years admitted within 48 h after trauma transported with (H)EMS to a level I trauma centre (TC) or a non-level I trauma facility with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≥ 3 were included. Patients with burns or patients of ≥ 65 years with an isolated hip fracture were excluded. Logistic regression models were used for comparing level I with non-level I. Subgroup analysis were done for MT patients (ISS &gt; 15) and non-MT patients (ISS 9–14). Results: A total of 7,493 records were included. In-hospital mortality of patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility did not differ significantly from patients admitted to the level I TC (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.30). This was also applicable for MT patients (OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.73–1.53) and non-MT patients (OR: 1.30; 95% CI (0.56–3.03). Hospital and ICU LOS were significantly shorter for patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facilities, and patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility were more likely to be discharged home. Findings were confirmed for MT and non-MT patients, per injured body region. Conclusion: All levels of trauma care performed equally on in-hospital mortality among severely injured patients (MAIS ≥ 3), although patients admitted to the level I TC were more severely injured. Subgroups of patients by body region or ISS, with a survival benefit or more favorable clinical outcome measures were not identified. Subgroups analysis on clinical outcome measures across different levels of trauma care in an inclusive trauma network is too simplistic if subgroups are based on injuries in specific body region or ISS only.</p

Identifying the severely injured benefitting from a specific level of trauma care in an inclusive network:A multicentre retrospective study

Introduction: Defining major trauma (MT) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) &gt; 15 has limitations. This threshold is used for concentrating MT care in networks with multiple levels of trauma care. Objective: This study aims to identify subgroups of severely injured patients benefiting on in-hospital mortality and non-fatal clinical outcome measures in an optimal level of trauma care. Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study on data of the Dutch National Trauma Registry, region South West, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patients ≥ 16 years admitted within 48 h after trauma transported with (H)EMS to a level I trauma centre (TC) or a non-level I trauma facility with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≥ 3 were included. Patients with burns or patients of ≥ 65 years with an isolated hip fracture were excluded. Logistic regression models were used for comparing level I with non-level I. Subgroup analysis were done for MT patients (ISS &gt; 15) and non-MT patients (ISS 9–14). Results: A total of 7,493 records were included. In-hospital mortality of patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility did not differ significantly from patients admitted to the level I TC (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.30). This was also applicable for MT patients (OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.73–1.53) and non-MT patients (OR: 1.30; 95% CI (0.56–3.03). Hospital and ICU LOS were significantly shorter for patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facilities, and patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility were more likely to be discharged home. Findings were confirmed for MT and non-MT patients, per injured body region. Conclusion: All levels of trauma care performed equally on in-hospital mortality among severely injured patients (MAIS ≥ 3), although patients admitted to the level I TC were more severely injured. Subgroups of patients by body region or ISS, with a survival benefit or more favorable clinical outcome measures were not identified. Subgroups analysis on clinical outcome measures across different levels of trauma care in an inclusive trauma network is too simplistic if subgroups are based on injuries in specific body region or ISS only.</p

Dutch Prospective Observational Study on Prehospital Treatment of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: The BRAIN-PROTECT Study Protocol

Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with a high mortality rate and those that survive commonly have permanent disability. While there is a broad consensus that appropriate prehospital treatment is crucial for a favorable neurological outcome, evidence to support currently applied treatment strategies is scarce. In particular, the relationship between prehospital treatments and patient outcomes is unclear. The BRAIN-PROTECT study therefore aims to identify prehospital treatment strategies associated with beneficial or detrimental outcomes. Here, we present the study protocol. Study Protocol: BRAIN-PROTECT is the acronym for BRAin INjury: Prehospital Registry of Outcome, Treatments and Epidemiology of Cerebral Trauma. It is a prospective observational study on the prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI in the Netherlands. Prehospital epidemiology, interventions, medication strategies, and nonmedical factors that may affect outcome are studied. Multivariable regression based modeling will be used to identify confounder-adjusted relationships between these factors and patient outcomes, including mortality at 30 days (primary outcome) or mortality and functional neurological outcome at 1 year (secondary outcomes). Patients in whom severe TBI is suspected during prehospital treatment (Glasgow Coma Scale score 8 in combination with a trauma mechanism or clinical findings suggestive of head injury) are identified by all four helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in the Netherlands. Patients are prospectively followed up in 9 participating trauma centers for up to one year. The manuscript reports in detail the objectives, setting, study design, patient inclusion, and data collection process. Ethical and juridical aspects, statistical considerations, as well as limitations of the study design are discussed. Discussion: Current prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI is based on marginal evidence, and optimal treatment is basically unknown. The BRAINPROTECT study provides an opportunity to evaluate and compare different treatment strategies with respect to patient outcomes. To our knowledge, this study project is the first large-scale prospective prehospital registry of patients with severe TBI that also collects long-term follow-up data and ma

Health-related quality of life and return to work 1 year after major trauma from a network perspective

Introduction: Major trauma often results in long-term disabilities. The aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life, cognition, and return to work 1 year after major trauma from a trauma network perspective. Methods: All major trauma patients in 2016 (Injury Severity Score > 15, n = 536) were selected from trauma region Southwest Netherlands. Eligible patients (n = 365) were sent questionnaires with the EQ-5D-5L and questions on cognition, level of education, comorbidities, and resumption of paid work 1 year after trauma. Results: A 50% (n = 182) response rate was obtained. EQ-US and EQ-VAS scored a median (IQR) of 0.81 (0.62–0.89) and 70 (60–80), respectively. Limitations were prevalent in all health dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L; 90 (50%) responders reported problems with mobility, 36 (20%) responders reported problems with self-care, 108 (61%) responders reported problems during daily activities, 129 (73%) responders reported pain or discomfort, 70 (39%) responders reported problems with anxiety or depression, and 102 (61%) of the patients reported problems with cognition. Return to work rate was 68% (37% full, 31% partial). A median (IQR) EQ-US of 0.89 (0.82–1.00) and EQ-VAS of 80 (70–90) were scored for fully working responders; 0.77 (0.66–0.85, p < 0.001) and 70 (62–80, p = 0.001) for partial working respondents; and 0.49 (0.23–0.69, p < 0.001) and 55 (40–72, p < 0.001) for unemployed respondents. Conclusion: The majority experience problems in all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition. Return to work status was associated with all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition

Comparing health status after major trauma across different levels of trauma care

Introduction: Mortality due to trauma has reduced the past decades. Trauma network implementations have been an important contributor to this achievement. Besides mortality, patient reported outcome parameters should be included in evaluation of trauma care. While concentrating major trauma care, hospitals are designated with a certain level of trauma care following specific criteria. Objective: Comparing health status of major trauma patients after two years across different levels of trauma care in trauma networks. Methods: Multicentre observational study comprising a secondary longitudinal multilevel analysis on prospective cohorts from two neighbouring trauma regions in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria: patient aged ≥ 18 with an ISS > 15 surviving their injuries at least one year after trauma. Health status was measured one and two years after trauma by EQ-5D-5 L, added with a sixth health dimension on cognition. Level I trauma centres were considered as reference in uni- and multivariate analysis. Results: Respondents admitted to a level I trauma centre scored less favourable EQ-US and EQ-VAS in both years (0.81–0.81, 71–75) than respondents admitted to a level II (0.88–0.87, 78–85) or level III (0.89–0.88, 75–80) facility. Level II facilities scored significantly higher EQ-US and EQ-VAS in time for univariate analysis (β 0.095, 95% CI 0.038–0.153, p = 0.001, and β 7.887, 95% CI 3.035–12.740, p = 0.002), not in multivariate analysis (β 0.052, 95% CI -0.010–0.115, p = 0.102, and β 3.714, 95% CI -1.893–9.321, p = 0.193). Fewer limitations in mobility (OR 0.344, 95% CI 0.156–0.760), self-care (OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.077–0.618), and pain and discomfort (OR 0.421, 95% CI 0.214–0.831) remained significant for level II facilities in multivariate analysis, whereas significant differences with level III facilities disappeared. Conclusion: Major trauma patients admitted to level I trauma centres reported a less favourable general health status and more limitations compared to level II and III facilities scoring populations norms one to two years after trauma. Differences on general health status and limitations in specific health domains disappeared in adjusted analysis. Well-coordinated trauma networks offer homogeneous results for all major trauma patients when they are distributed in different centres according to their need of care

High prevalence of non-accidental trauma among deceased children presenting at Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands

Purpose: Between 0.1—3% of injured children who present at a hospital emergency department ultimately die as a result of their injuries. These events are typically reported as unnatural causes of death and may result from either accidental or non-accidental trauma (NAT). Examples of the latter include trauma that is inflicted directly or resulting from neglect. Although consultation with a forensic physician is mandatory for all deceased children, the prevalence of fatal inflicted trauma or neglect among children is currently unclear. Methods: This is a retrospective study that included children (0–18 years) who presented and died at one of the 11 Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect team or those of forensic pathologists and/or the court in cases referred for legally mandated autopsies. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of death were reviewed by an expert panel. Results: The study included 175 cases of childhood death. Seventeen (9.7%) of these children died due to inflicted trauma (9.7%), 18 (10.3%) due to neglect, and 140 (80%) due to accidents. Preschool children (< 5 years old) were significantly more likely to present with injuries due to inflicted trauma and neglect compared to older children (44% versus 6%, p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66–12.65). Drowning accounted for 14 of the 18 (78%) pediatric deaths due to neglect, representing 8% of the total cases. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed on 37 (21%) of all cases of childhood death. Conclusion: One of every five pediatric deaths in our nationwide Level I trauma center study was attributed to NAT; 44% of these deaths were the result of trauma experienced by preschool-aged children. A remarkable number of fatal drownings were due to neglect. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed in only one-fifth of all deceased children. The limited use of postmortem investigations may have resulted in missed cases of NAT, which will result in an overall underestimation of fatal NAT experienced by children