The development of simple survival prediction models for blunt trauma victims treated at Asian emergency centers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For real-time assessment of the probability of survival (Ps) of blunt trauma victims at emergency centers, this study aimed to establish regression models for estimating Ps using simplified coefficients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The data of 10,210 blunt trauma patients not missing both the binary outcome data about survival and the data necessary for Ps calculation by The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method were extracted from the Japan Trauma Data Bank (2004-2007) and analyzed. Half (5,113) of the data was allocated to a derivation data set, with the other half (5,097) allocated to a validation data set. The data of 6,407 blunt trauma victims from the trauma registry of Khon Kaen Regional Hospital in Thailand were analyzed for validation. The logistic regression models included age, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), respiratory rate (RR), and their coded values (cAGE, 0-1; cISS, 0-4; cSBP, 0-4; cGCS, 0-4; cRR, 0-4) as predictor variables. The coefficients were simplified by rounding off after the decimal point or choosing 0.5 if the coefficients varied across 0.5. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) was calculated for each model to measure discriminant ability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A group of formulas (log (Ps/1-Ps) = logit (Ps) = -9 + cISS - cAGE + cSBP + cGCS + cRR/2, where -9 becomes -7 if the predictor variable of cRR or cISS is missing) was developed. Using these formulas, the AUROCCs were between 0.950 and 0.964. When these models were applied to the Khon Kean data, their AUROCCs were greater than 0.91. Conclusion: These equations allow physicians to perform real-time assessments of survival by easy mental calculations at Asian emergency centers, which are overcrowded with blunt injury victims of traffic accidents.</p

Utilization of injury care case studies: a systematic review of the World Health Organization’s “Strengthening care for the injured: Success stories and lessons learned from around the world”

Objective Translation of evidence to practice is a public health priority. Worldwide, injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Case study publications are common and provide potentially reproducible examples of successful interventions in healthcare from the patient to systems level. However, data on how well case study publications are utilized are limited. To our knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the only collection of international case studies on injury care at the policy level. We aimed to determine the degree to which these injury care case studies have been translated to practice and to identify opportunities for enhancement of the evidence-to-practice pathway for injury care case studies overall. Methods We conducted a systematic review across 19 databases by searching for the title, “Strengthening care for the injured: Success stories and lessons learned from around the world.” Data synthesis included realist narrative methods and two authors independently reviewed articles for injury topics, reference details, and extent of utilization. Findings Forty-seven publications referenced the compilation of case studies, 20 of which included further descriptions of one or more of the specific cases and underwent narrative review. The most common category utilized was hospital-based care (15 publications), with the example of Thailand’s quality improvement (QI) programme (10 publications) being the most commonly cited case. Also frequently cited were case studies on prehospital care (10 publications). There was infrequent utilization of case studies on rehabilitation (3 publications) and trauma systems (2 publications). No reference described a case translated to a new scenario. Conclusions The only available collection of policy-level injury care case studies has been utilized to a moderate extent however we found no evidence of case study translation to a new circumstance. QI programs seem especially amenable for knowledge-sharing through case studies. Prehospital care also showed promise. Greater emphasis on rehabilitation and health policy related to trauma systems is warranted. There is also a need for greater methodologic rigor in evaluation of the use of case study collections in general

Implementation of the World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist Program in 11 centers across multiple economic strata: effect on care process measures

BACKGROUND: Trauma contributes more than ten percent of the global burden of disease. Initial assessment and resuscitation of trauma patients often requires rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions, and errors are common. We investigated whether implementing a trauma care checklist would improve care for injured patients in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma Care Checklist program was assessed in 11 hospitals using a stepped wedge pre- and post-intervention comparison with randomly assigned intervention start dates. Study sites represented nine countries with diverse economic and geographic contexts. Primary end points were adherence to process of care measures; secondary data on morbidity and mortality were also collected. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in measures pre- versus post-intervention, accounting for patient age, gender, injury severity, and center-specific variability. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1641 patients before and 1781 after program implementation. Patient age (mean 34 ± 18 vs. 34 ± 18), sex (21 vs. 22 % female), and the proportion of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) ≥ 25 (10 vs. 10 %) were similar before and after checklist implementation (p \u3e 0.05). Improvement was found for 18 of 19 process measures, including greater odds of having abdominal examination (OR 3.26), chest auscultation (OR 2.68), and distal pulse examination (OR 2.33) (all p \u3c 0.05). These changes were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Trauma Care Checklist was associated with substantial improvements in patient care process measures among a cohort of patients in diverse settings