• S Ruchholtz, B Zintl, D Nast-Kolb, C Waydhas, D Schwender, K J Pfeifer, and L Schweiberer.
• Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik Klinikum Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
• Unfallchirurg. 1997 Nov 1;100(11):859-66.

AbstractTo enhance the quality of treatment of patients with multiple injuries (blunt trauma), guidelines for the acute clinical management (trauma-algorithm) were implemented at our clinic in 1994. The impact of these guidelines was analysed, comparing two prospectively recorded collectives of polytraumatized patients 4/1988-12/1993 (A; n = 126) and 1/1994-6/1996 (B; n = 74). Nine specifically defined parameters were used to assess the therapeutic process of early clinical trauma management. All parameters showed an improvement after implementation of the algorithm (group B): (1) Complete radiological and sonographic basic diagnostics in 97% vs. 92% of patients; (2) time interval of 38 min vs. 55 min until cranial CT was done after severe head injury (GCS < 10); (3) reduction of delayed diagnosis of lesions to 5% vs. 24%; (4) duration of 16 min vs. 20 min until intubation; (5) period of 23 min to 30 min to pleural drainage; (6) duration of 18 min vs. 32 min until transfusion in shock; (7) period of 79 min vs. 98 min until emergency operation in shock; (8) duration of 95 min vs. 124 min until trepanation, and (9) operation rate within 24 h after admission to ICU in 3% vs. 12%. The lethality rates of each collective were assessed after subdivision in three groups (I-III) with middle (ISS: 18-24), high (ISS: 25-49) and extreme (ISS: 50-75) injury severity. In all groups of both collectives ISS values, age, initial loss of consciousness (GCS) and shock were comparable (except the higher injury severity of collective B in group I). In all groups a reduction of lethality could be shown for collective B: Group I, 0% vs. 20% (P < 0.05); group II, 8% vs. 24% (P < 0.05); and group III, 40% vs. 71%, not significant because of the small group in B (n = 5). The implementation of therapeutic management guidelines led to an improvement of both treatment processes and outcome. In order to regularly reassess validity and practicability of such guidelines as well as further enhance therapeutic quality, a continuous evaluation programme representing a quality management system should be inaugurated.

24 keywords...

hide…