The newest TraumaMedEd newsletter is out! It was emailed to subscribers on Monday. This months focus is prehospital, with articles on the following:
Subscribe to the newsletter by clicking here!
One of the major components of any trauma system is the prehospital piece. These providers extricate, begin medical treatment, and decide where to take the patient. The choice of hospital can make a big difference, and the number of deaths can potentially be reduced by up to 25% by making the right decision. Where to take the patient is not necessarily clear cut, even though CDC guidelines exist to help. Geographic and weather factors can be a factor, as well as patient choice at times (unfortunately), local medical control, or even time of day (traffic).
Harborview and the University of Washington conducted a large retrospective review of the transport patterns for nearly 12,000 injured patients over a 5 year period. They specifically looked at whether CDC guidelines for field triage were being followed. About half were transported to Harborview, the only Level I center in the state. The remainder were transported to the 7 remaining trauma centers, levels III to V. There were a number of interesting findings:
Bottom line: For reasons that are not clear, elderly patients were far less likely to be transported to a Level I trauma center by prehospital providers in Washington state. In fact, the guidelines were obeyed only about 50% of the time! Does this happen in other states or countries? We don’t know. Is this a problem? Unfortunately, we also don’t know how much lower the mortality in these patients is when treated at higher level centers. It seems to be, especially in the more severely injured patients. What we do know is that if the guidelines exist, adhere to them unless you have good reason not to. Their life may depend on it!
Related posts:
Reference: Compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention field triage guidelines in an established trauma system. J Amer Col Surg 215(1):148-156, 2012.
When I was at Penn 25 years ago, I was fascinated to see that police officers were allowed to transport penetrating trauma patients to the hospital. They had no medical training and no specific equipment. They basically tossed the patient into the back seat, drove as fast as possible to a trauma center, and dropped them off. Then they (hopefully) hosed down the inside of the squad car.
Granted, it was fast. But did it benefit the patient? The group now at Penn decided to look at this to see if there was some benefit (survival) to this practice. They retrospectively looked at 5 years of data in the mid-2000’s, thus comparing the results of police transport with reasonably state of the art EMS transport.
They found over 2100 penetrating injury transports during this time frame (!), and roughly a quarter of those (27%) were transported by police. About 71% were gunshots vs 29% stabs. They found the following interesting information:
Although they did not show a survival benefit to this practice, there was certainly no harm done. And in busy urban environments, such a policy could offload some of the workload from busy EMS services.
Bottom line: Certainly this is not a perfect paper. But it does add more fuel to the “stay and play” vs “scoop and run” debate. It seems to lend credence to the concept that, in the field, less is better in penetrating trauma. What really saves these patients is definitive control of bleeding, which neither police nor paramedics can provide. Therefore, whoever gets the patient to the trauma center in the least time wins. And so does the patient.
Related posts:
Reference: Injury-adjusted mortality of patients transported by police following penetrating trauma. Acad Emerg Med 18(1):32-37, 2011.
Most trauma systems set certain prehospital criteria that, when met, direct that patient to a trauma center. It is now well-established that care of these patients results in improved survival if they are managed at those centers. Unfortunately, undertriage is still a problem, meaning that those patients may not always be taken to a hospital most appropriate to care for their injuries. What is the penalty that your patient pays if this happens?
The University of Toronto performed a nice, prospective study across a large region with both urban and rural areas. Database information was analyzed for all victims of motor vehicle crashes who had a severe injury (ISS>15) or who died. Over 6,000 crash victims’ data were analyzed.
Just under half of the victims (45%) were triaged to a trauma center. Of those who were taken to other hospitals, slightly more than half (58%) were transferred to one within 24 hours, but nearly 5% died in the non-trauma center ED. The overall mortality for severely injured patients who were taken to a nontrauma center was 8.7%. This was a 30% increase in adjusted mortality compared to those taken to a trauma center directly.
Bottom line: Follow the rules! EMS authorities and trauma systems should make it a priority to adopt the CDC protocol (see below) or create trauma guidelines based on them that ensure patients with significant injuries are taken directly to a trauma center. Going to the nearest hospital (if it is not a trauma center) or bending to the patient’s preference is not in their best interest (and may kill them)!
Reference: The mortality benefit of direct trauma center transport in a regional trauma system: a population-based analysis. AAST 2011 Annual Meeting, Paper 50.
CPR has increased the survival rate of patients suffering cardiac arrest, and early bystander CPR has been shown to double or triple survival. The sad truth is that CPR is not frequently performed by the general public. The American Heart Association has attempted to simplify CPR to the point that even untrained bystanders can administer chest compressions without a pulse check and without rescue breathing.
But what happens if that well-intentioned bystander starts CPR in someone who has not arrested? How often does this happen? Can the patient be injured?
The Medical College of Wisconsin reviewed the charts of all patients who received bystander CPR in Milwaukee County over a six year period. There were 672 incidents of bystander CPR. Of those cases, 77 (12%) were not in arrest when assessed by EMS personnel, and the researchers focused on those patients.
EMS response time averaged 5 minutes, and was greater than 10 minutes in only 2 cases. Average patient age was 43(!). The male/female ratio was just about 50:50, and the majority of the incidents took place in the home or residence.
Hospital records were available for further analysis in 72 of the patients. A quarter were sent home, a quarter admitted to a ward bed, and half were admitted to an ICU. Only 12 (17%) had a cardiac-related discharge diagnosis. The next most common discharge diagnoses were near-drowning, respiratory failure and drug overdose. Younger patients (<19) were usually near-drowning victims, and older patients (>54) were most commonly diagnosed with syncope. Five patients did not survive. Only one CPR injury was identified, which was charted as rhabdomyolysis “secondary to having received CPR” (a weak injury diagnosis, in my opinion).
Bottom line: The potential benefit of bystander CPR outweighs the risk of injury or performing it on a victim who is not in arrest. This study shows that, although these patients may not need CPR, they are generally very ill. Given the rapid EMS response times and the younger average age of the victims, no real injuries occurred. The new American Heart Association recommendations are beneficial and should be distributed widely.
Reference: The frequency and consequences of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by bystanders on patients who are not in cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care 15:282-287, 2011.