Roos J M Havermans1, Mariska A C de Jongh2, Mike Bemelman3, A Pieter G van Driel4, Gerrit J Noordergraaf5, Koen W W Lansink6. 1. Brabant Trauma Registry, Network Emergency Care Brabant, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, ETZ Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.havermans@etz.nl. 2. Brabant Trauma Registry, Network Emergency Care Brabant, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.d.jongh@nazb.nl. 3. Department of Surgery, ETZ Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.bemelman@etz.nl. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, ETZ hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: p.vandriel@etz.nl. 5. Department of Anaesthesiology & Resuscitation, ETZ hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.noordergraaf@etz.nl. 6. Brabant Trauma Registry, Network Emergency Care Brabant, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, ETZ Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: k.lansink@etz.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of trauma systems has led to a significant reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay. In our level I trauma centre, 24/7 in-hospital coverage was implemented, and a renovation of the trauma room took place to improve the trauma care. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of the optimised in-hospital infrastructure in terms of mortality, processes and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. All adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma centre directly during two time periods (2010-2012 and 2014-2016) were included. Any patients below the age of 18 years and patients who underwent primary trauma screening in another hospital were excluded. Logistic and linear regression were used and adjusted for demographics and characteristics of trauma. The primary endpoint was mortality. The secondary endpoints were subgroups of earlier mortality rates and severely injured patients, processes and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In period I, 1290 patients were included, and in period II, 2421. The adjusted mortality in the trauma room (odds ratio (OR): 0.18; CI: 0.05-0.63) and the total in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.63 CI: 0.42-0.95) showed a significant reduction in period II. The trauma room (TR) time decreased by 30 min (p < 0.001), and the time until CT decreased by 22 min (p < 0.001). The number of delayed diagnoses and complications were significantly lower in the second period, with an OR of 0.2 (CI: 0.1-0.2) and 0.4 (CI: 0.3-0.6), respectively. The hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay decreased significantly, -1.5 day (p = 0.010) and -1.8 days (p = 0.022) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of the in-hospital infrastructure related to trauma care resulted in improved survival rates in both severely injured patients as well as in the whole trauma population. Moreover, the processes and clinical outcomes improved, showing a shorter hospital length of stay, shorter TR time, fewer complications and fewer delayed diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: The implementation of trauma systems has led to a significant reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay. In our level I trauma centre, 24/7 in-hospital coverage was implemented, and a renovation of the trauma room took place to improve the trauma care. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of the optimised in-hospital infrastructure in terms of mortality, processes and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. All adult traumapatients admitted to our trauma centre directly during two time periods (2010-2012 and 2014-2016) were included. Any patients below the age of 18 years and patients who underwent primary trauma screening in another hospital were excluded. Logistic and linear regression were used and adjusted for demographics and characteristics of trauma. The primary endpoint was mortality. The secondary endpoints were subgroups of earlier mortality rates and severely injured patients, processes and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In period I, 1290 patients were included, and in period II, 2421. The adjusted mortality in the trauma room (odds ratio (OR): 0.18; CI: 0.05-0.63) and the total in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.63 CI: 0.42-0.95) showed a significant reduction in period II. The trauma room (TR) time decreased by 30 min (p < 0.001), and the time until CT decreased by 22 min (p < 0.001). The number of delayed diagnoses and complications were significantly lower in the second period, with an OR of 0.2 (CI: 0.1-0.2) and 0.4 (CI: 0.3-0.6), respectively. The hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay decreased significantly, -1.5 day (p = 0.010) and -1.8 days (p = 0.022) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of the in-hospital infrastructure related to trauma care resulted in improved survival rates in both severely injured patients as well as in the whole trauma population. Moreover, the processes and clinical outcomes improved, showing a shorter hospital length of stay, shorter TR time, fewer complications and fewer delayed diagnoses.
Authors: Eva Visser; Brenda Leontine Den Oudsten; Taco Gosens; Paul Lodder; Jolanda De Vries Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 4.147