National trauma system establishment based on implementation of regional trauma centers improves outcomes of trauma care: A follow-up observational study in South Korea

Although South Korea is a high-income country, its trauma system is comparable to low- and middle-income countries with high preventable trauma death rates of more than 30%. Since 2012, South Korea has established a national trauma system based on the implementation of regional trauma centers and improvement of the transfer system; this study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness. We compared the national preventable trauma death rates, transfer patterns, and outcomes between 2015 and 2017. The review of preventable trauma deaths was conducted by multiple panels, and a severity-adjusted logistic regression model was created to identify factors influencing the preventable trauma death rate. We also compared the number of trauma patients transferred to emergency medical institutions and mortality in models adjusted with injury severity scores. The preventable trauma death rate decreased from 2015 to 2017 (30.5% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.001). In the severity-adjusted model, the preventable trauma death risk had a lower odds ratio (0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.87, p = 0.002) in 2017 than in 2015. Regional trauma centers received 1.6 times more severe cases in 2017 (according to the International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score [ICISS]; 23.1% vs. 36.5%). In the extended ICISS model, the overall trauma mortality decreased significantly from 2.1% (1008/47 806) to 1.9% (1062/55 057) (p = 0.041). The establishment of the national trauma system was associated with significant improvements in the performance and outcomes of trauma care. This was mainly because of the implementation of regional trauma centers and because more severe patients were transferred to regional trauma centers. This study might be a good model for low- and middle-income countries, which lack a trauma system.

Epidemiology of trauma in the subarctic regions of the Nordic countries

Background The northern regions of the Nordic countries have common challenges of sparsely populated areas, long distances, and an arctic climate. The aim of this study was to compare the cause and rate of fatal injuries in the northernmost area of the Nordic countries over a 5-year period. Methods In this retrospective cohort, we used the Cause of Death Registries to collate all deaths from 2007 to 2011 due to an external cause of death. The study area was the three northernmost counties in Norway, the four northernmost counties in Finland and Sweden, and the whole of Iceland. Results A total of 4308 deaths were included in the analysis. Low energy trauma comprised 24% of deaths and high energy trauma 76% of deaths. Northern Finland had the highest incidence of both high and low energy trauma deaths. Iceland had the lowest incidence of high and low energy trauma deaths. Iceland had the lowest prehospital share of deaths (74%) and the lowest incidence of injuries leading to death in a rural location. The incidence rates for high energy trauma death were 36.1/100000/year in Northern Finland, 15.6/100000/year in Iceland, 27.0/100000/year in Northern Norway, and 23.0/100000/year in Northern Sweden. Conclusion We found unexpected differences in the epidemiology of trauma death between the countries. The differences suggest that a comparison of the trauma care systems and preventive strategies in the four countries is required.

National Trauma System Establishment Based on Implementation of Regional Trauma Centers Improves Outcomes of Trauma Care; A Follow-up Observational Study in South Korea

Background: Although Korea is a high-income country, its trauma system is comparable to low- and middle-income countries with high preventable trauma death rates (> 30%). Since 2012, Korea has established a national trauma system based on the implementation of regional trauma centers and improvement of the transfer system; this study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness.Methods: We compared the national preventable trauma death rates, transfer patterns, and outcomes between 2015 and 2017. The review of preventable trauma deaths was conducted by multiple panels and a severity-adjusted logistic regression model was created to identify factors influencing the preventable trauma death rate. We also compared the number of trauma patients transferred to emergency medical institutions and mortality in models adjusted with injury severity scores.Results: The preventable trauma death rate decreased from 2015 to 2017 (30.5% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.001). In the severity-adjusted model, the preventable trauma death risk had a lower odds ratio (0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.87, p = 0.002) in 2017 than in 2015. Regional trauma centers received 1.6 times more severe cases in 2017 (according to the International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score [ICISS]; 23.1% vs. 36.5%). In the extended ICISS model, the overall trauma mortality decreased significantly from 2.1% (1008/47806) to 1.9% (1062/55057) (p = 0.041).Conclusions: Establishment of the national trauma system was associated with significant improvements in performance and outcomes of trauma care. This was mainly because of the implementation of regional trauma centers and because more severe patients were transferred to regional trauma centers. This study might be a good model for low- and middle-income countries, which lack a trauma system.

Highly Resilient, Biocompatible, and Antibacterial Carbon Nanotube/Hydroxybutyl Chitosan Sponge Dressing for Rapid and Effective Hemostasis

Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading cause of trauma death. Development of safe and efficient hemostatic agents that can rapidly and effectively control bleeding is of great significance to rescue the...

MP47: Factors associated with preventable trauma death: a narrative review

Introduction: Trauma care is highly complex and prone to medical errors. Accordingly, several studies have identified adverse events and conditions leading to potentially preventable or preventable deaths. Depending on the availability of specialized trauma care and the trauma system organization, between 10 and 30% of trauma-related deaths worldwide could be preventable if optimal care was promptly delivered. This narrative review aims to identify the main determinants and areas for improvements associated with potentially preventable trauma mortality. Methods: A literature review was performed using Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to a maximum of 6 months before submission for publication. Experimental or observational studies that have assessed determinants and areas for improvements that are associated with trauma death preventability were considered for inclusion. Two researchers independently selected eligible studies and extracted the relevant data. The main areas for improvements were classified using the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations patient event taxonomy. No statistical analyses were performed given the data heterogeneity. Results: From the 3647 individual titles obtained by the search strategy, a total of 37 studies were included. Each study included between 72 and 35311 trauma patients who had sustained mostly blunt trauma, frequently following a fall or a motor vehicle accident. Preventability assessment was performed for 17 to 2081 patients using either a single expert assessment (n = 2, 5,4%) or an expert panel review (n = 35, 94.6%). The definition of preventability and the taxonomy used varied greatly between the studies. The rate of potentially preventable or preventable death ranged from 2.4% to 76.5%. The most frequently reported areas for improvement were treatment delay, diagnosis accuracy to avoid missed or incorrect diagnosis and adverse events associated with the initial procedures performed. The risk of bias of the included studies was high for 32 studies because of the retrospective design and the panel review preventability assessment. Conclusion: Deaths occurring after a trauma remain often preventable. Included studies have used unstandardized definitions of a preventable death and various methodologies to perform the preventability assessment. The proportion of preventable or potentially preventable death reported in each study ranged from 2.4% to 76.5%. Delayed treatment, missed or incorrect initial diagnosis and adverse events following a procedure were commonly associated with preventable trauma deaths and could be targeted to develop quality improvement and monitoring projects.