J Trauma
-
This study was designed to document the reasons hospitals have been unsuccessfully peer reviewed as potential trauma centers. ⋯ A limited but critical set of criteria enable a hospital to function as a trauma center. Trauma quality improvement is a poorly understood but a correctable issue. Surgical and hospital commitment are essential for verification. Prior consultation may be of benefit.
-
The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for thoracic/lumbar spine fractures in patients with blunt injuries and subsequently establish indications for obtaining surveillance thoracolumbar radiographs. Retrospective review of all patients with blunt injuries (n = 1485) admitted in 1992 to a level I trauma center with a discharge diagnosis of thoracolumbar spine fracture established entrance criteria for a 4-month prospective study. Relative risk of fracture (RR) was calculated. ⋯ Our data define these indications for obtaining thoracolumbar radiographs in patients with blunt injuries: back pain (RR1), fall > or = 10 feet, ejection from motorcycle/motor vehicle crash > or = 50 mph, GCS score < or = 8, (all RR2), and neurologic deficit (RR10). The sensitivity of our surveillance radiography protocol has increased to 100%. The absence of back pain does not exclude significant thoracolumbar trauma.
-
Quality assurance/quality improvement (QA-QI) is a priority for maintaining the highest standards of care in trauma systems. To be an effective tool for system review, the QA-QI indicators should identify patients with higher rates of morbidity and mortality from injury. While the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Operations have identified certain audit filters within the trauma system, there are few data to substantiate the value of these audit filters for trauma care. ⋯ This study demonstrates that several ACS clinical indicators, as currently written, are not useful in identifying patients at higher risk for poor outcome. The indicators need further definition to be of value in the quality review process. Specifically, the study suggests that audit filters should be data driven and based upon analyses of large populations of injured patients and their outcomes to be valid QA-QI tools.
-
A possible way to circumvent the continuing decline in the number of autopsies is to perform computed tomography after death. The present study compares the pathologic findings of postmortem CT tomography (PMCT) in trauma fatalities with those disclosed upon conventional forensic autopsy. Within 6 hours of death, the bodies of 25 trauma victims underwent total body CT scanning, all with permission of the relatives, followed by conventional autopsy in 13 cases under court order. ⋯ In all, PMCT revealed 70.5% and autopsy 74.8% of the pathologic states. Although PMCT was not more effective than conventional autopsy in exposing pathologic entities, it increased the yield of findings when combined with conventional autopsy. Where conventional autopsy is unattainable, PMCT may be effective in shedding light on the pathologic state and mechanism of death in trauma fatalities.
-
An instrument was developed using routinely available field data to identify the sizable subgroup of stable vehicular trauma victims initially triaged to the trauma center by mechanism indicators alone who are in reality at minimal risk for serious injury. The six most common vehicular mechanism indicators seen at a level I trauma center were evaluated: rollover, head-on greater than 30 mph, intrusion, prolonged extrication, other death in same vehicle, and ejection. Review of 1235 consecutive trauma team activations yielded 349 victims with a qualifying vehicular mechanism. ⋯ Retrospectively, use of this instrument would have excluded 56% of the MI group from unproductive trauma team referral, but nearly none of the SI group. We conclude that an identifiable subset of trauma patients referred by vehicular mechanism criteria alone could be safely evaluated on arrival in the emergency department as a form of secondary triage rather than by referral to the trauma team. The use of an appropriate exclusionary instrument can still preserve the sensitivity of trauma team activation for severely injured victims.