Trauma team activation for older patients with pelvic fractures: Are current criteria adequate?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Frances Williamson, Elaine Cole
{"title":"Trauma team activation for older patients with pelvic fractures: Are current criteria adequate?","authors":"Frances Williamson, Elaine Cole","doi":"10.1111/1742-6723.14472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study aimed to identify the impact of age on current trauma team activation (TTA) processes and outcomes for patients with pelvic fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients with moderate and/or severe pelvic fractures (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥ 2) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 were included utilising major trauma hospital data in Queensland. Characteristics of older (age ≥ 65) and younger patients including TTA, interventions and outcomes were examined. Multivariate analysis was used to determine factors associated with TTA in older patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 637 patients was included. Despite comparable injury severity, a TTA was activated in fewer older people (older: 65% vs. younger: 79%, P < 0.001). Older patients had more falls leading to the trauma presentation (54.4% vs. 22.6%, P < 0.001), with higher initial systolic BP (131 vs. 125 mmHg, P = 0.04). Outcomes were worse for older people, with greater rates of in-hospital complications (27.2% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.004), and longer hospital stays (12 vs. 8 days, P = 0.04). Fewer older patients could be discharged independently to home (46.3% vs. 74.5%, P < 0.001). In older patients, falls and haemodynamic parameters were strongly associated with the reduced likelihood of TTA (fall mechanism [odds ratio (OR)] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.74; P = 0.01; systolic BP [OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P = 0.03], heart rate [OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99; P = 0.02]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current TTA criteria based on higher energy mechanisms and traditional vital sign thresholds are inadequate for identifying injury in older patients. Sensitive triage criteria and increased clinician awareness are required to enhance injury recognition and improve outcomes in older trauma patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11604,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.14472","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The present study aimed to identify the impact of age on current trauma team activation (TTA) processes and outcomes for patients with pelvic fractures.

Methods: Adult patients with moderate and/or severe pelvic fractures (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥ 2) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 were included utilising major trauma hospital data in Queensland. Characteristics of older (age ≥ 65) and younger patients including TTA, interventions and outcomes were examined. Multivariate analysis was used to determine factors associated with TTA in older patients.

Results: Data from 637 patients was included. Despite comparable injury severity, a TTA was activated in fewer older people (older: 65% vs. younger: 79%, P < 0.001). Older patients had more falls leading to the trauma presentation (54.4% vs. 22.6%, P < 0.001), with higher initial systolic BP (131 vs. 125 mmHg, P = 0.04). Outcomes were worse for older people, with greater rates of in-hospital complications (27.2% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.004), and longer hospital stays (12 vs. 8 days, P = 0.04). Fewer older patients could be discharged independently to home (46.3% vs. 74.5%, P < 0.001). In older patients, falls and haemodynamic parameters were strongly associated with the reduced likelihood of TTA (fall mechanism [odds ratio (OR)] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.74; P = 0.01; systolic BP [OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P = 0.03], heart rate [OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99; P = 0.02]).

Conclusion: Current TTA criteria based on higher energy mechanisms and traditional vital sign thresholds are inadequate for identifying injury in older patients. Sensitive triage criteria and increased clinician awareness are required to enhance injury recognition and improve outcomes in older trauma patients.

为骨盆骨折的老年患者启动创伤团队:目前的标准是否足够?
目的:本研究旨在确定年龄对骨盆骨折患者目前创伤团队激活(TTA)流程和结果的影响:本研究旨在确定年龄对骨盆骨折患者当前创伤团队激活(TTA)流程和结果的影响:利用昆士兰州主要创伤医院的数据,纳入了2016年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间中度和/或严重骨盆骨折(简略损伤量表≥2)的成人患者。研究了老年(年龄≥ 65 岁)和年轻患者的特征,包括 TTA、干预措施和结果。采用多变量分析确定老年患者 TTA 的相关因素:结果:共纳入了 637 名患者的数据。结果:共纳入了 637 名患者的数据。尽管受伤严重程度相当,但启动 TTA 的老年人较少(老年人:65% 对年轻人:79%):P 结论:目前的 TTA 标准基于更高的能量:目前基于高能量机制和传统生命体征阈值的 TTA 标准不足以识别老年患者的损伤。需要制定敏感的分诊标准并提高临床医生的认识,以增强对老年创伤患者的损伤识别能力并改善治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Emergency Medicine Australasia 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.00%
发文量
217
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine Australasia is the official journal of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine (ASEM), and publishes original articles dealing with all aspects of clinical practice, research, education and experiences in emergency medicine. Original articles are published under the following sections: Original Research, Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Disaster Medicine, Education and Training, Ethics, International Emergency Medicine, Management and Quality, Medicolegal Matters, Prehospital Care, Public Health, Rural and Remote Care, Technology, Toxicology and Trauma. Accepted papers become the copyright of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信