Introduction Trauma resuscitation at dedicated trauma centers typically consist of ad-hoc teams performing critical tasks in a time-limited manner. This creates a high stakes environment apt or avoidable errors. Reporting of errors in trauma resuscitation is generally center-dependent and lacks common terminology. Methods We conducted a systematic review by searching Ovid Medline, Scopus and Embase from inception to February 24, 2021 for errors in adult trauma resuscitation. English studies published after 2001 were included. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers for meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Errors were characterized from the included studies and a summary table was developed. Our review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020152875). ResultsThe literature search retrieved 4658 articles with 26 meeting eligibility criteria. Errors were identified by morbidity and mortality rounds or other committee in 62%, missed injuries on tertiary assessment or radiology review in 12%, deviations from algorithmic guidelines in 12% or predefined for chest tube complications, critical incident reporting, aspiration or delays in care. In total there were 39 unique error types identified and divided into 9 categories including Emergency Medical Services handover, airway, assessment of injuries, patient monitoring and access, transfusion/blood related, management of injuries, team communication/dynamics, procedure error and disposition. Conclusions Overall, our systematic review identified 39 unique error types in trauma resuscitation. Identifying these errors is imperative in developing systems for improvement of trauma care.

Objectives Trauma resuscitations are sporadic, high-acuity situations and conducting observation in the trauma bay for the purpose of quality improvement is challenging. We aim to review contemporary uses of trauma video review. Methods Medline and Embase were searched from 1980 to May 2020 for studies involving trauma video review. English studies of adult and paediatric populations were included for study and analysed for uses of trauma video review, outcomes measured and any resulting quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Results A total of 463 publications were identified with 21 studies meeting eligibility for final inclusion. A majority of studies (11) observed technical skills with analysis of critical procedures, including tracheal intubation and thoracotomy. The remaining studies observed team dynamics and communication. Overall, eight studies resulted in new policies being put in place for trauma resuscitations and six studies utilized trauma video review as an educational tool. Conclusions This study highlights common uses of trauma video review. The greatest benefit for this new technology is in quality improvement and education. The majority of studies focussed on critical procedures and QI initiatives, such as checklists, protocols and continued education. We recommend adoption of video review systems for ongoing improvement of team dynamics and overall trauma and emergency resuscitation.

ObjectiveTimely access to definitive care is associated with improved outcomes in trauma patients. The goal of this study is to identify patient, institutional and paramedic risk factors for non-optimal resource utilization for interfacility transfers of injured adult patients transported by air ambulance to a LTC.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of adult emergent interfacility transports via Ornge with data collected on patient demographics, clinical status, sending facilities, transport details and paramedic qualifications. A logistic regression model was used to analyze data.Results1777 injured patients undergoing transport with Ornge were analyzed with 805 of these undergoing non-optimal transport. Patients who had an optimal resource use were found to be older and mechanically ventilated. Risk factors increasing odds of non-optimal transport included patients transported from a nursing station (OR 1.94), transport with primary or advanced care paramedics (OR 6.57 and 1.44, respectively) and transport between both 0800-1700 and 1700-0000 (OR 1.40 and 1.54, respectively). The median delay to arrival to receiving facility if a patient had a non-optimal resource use was 40 minutes.ConclusionsThree main risk factors were identified in this study. We believe that nursing stations as a sending facility and type of paramedics crew transporting patients resulted in non-optimal resource utilization primarily due to triage of lower acuity patients. However the timing of day is more likely to be a resource availability issue and something that can be further studied and potentially improved moving forward.

Introduction: Trauma resuscitations are sporadic high acuity situations that can be difficult to assess for areas of quality improvement. We aim to analyse the type of observation that occurs during trauma resuscitations and outcomes that develop as a result. Methods: Medline was searched from 1946 to May 2019 for studies involving direct observation of trauma resuscitation. English studies of both adult and pediatric populations from 2000 onwards were included for study. They were compared for type of observation (in-person vs video) as well as primary outcomes of their observation and any quality improvement as a result. Results: A total of 413 publications were identified with 10 meeting eligibility for inclusion. All 10 studies underwent video review with no in-person review being performed. The most common primary outcome was analysis of a critical procedure (6 studies), with tracheal intubation being studied in 4 studies and thoracotomy and vascular access each being studied once. The remaining studies measured communication styles and team effectiveness. Overall 5 of the 10 studies resulted in new policies being put in place for trauma resuscitations, including; use of interosseous lines as first lines in trauma patients in extremis, tracheal intubation check list, and continuing with medical student participation in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusion: This study highlights some of the common focuses of trauma resuscitation observation; critical procedures, team dynamics and communication. A majority of studies focused on critical procedures during resuscitations and quality improvement in the form of checklists to improve them. Remaining studies focused on equally important aspects of team functioning and communication which can be more difficult to objectively measure and derive quality improvement measures for. These studies led an emphasis on use of a horizontal assessment style and closed loop communication in all their trauma resuscitation.

Introduction: Trauma resuscitations are plagued with high stress and require time sensitive and intensive interventions. It is a landscape that is a perfect hot bed for clinical errors and adverse events for patients. We sought to describe the adverse events and errors that occur during trauma resuscitation and any associated outcomes. Methods: Medline was searched for a combination of key terms involving trauma resuscitation, adverse events and errors from January 2000 to May 2019. Studies that described adverse events or errors in initial adult trauma resuscitations were included. Two reviewers analyzed papers for inclusion and exclusion criteria with a third reviewer for any discrepancies. Descriptions of errors, adverse events and associated outcomes were collated and presented. Results: A total of 3,462 papers were identified by our search strategy. 18 papers met our inclusion and exclusion criteria and were selected for full review. Adverse events and errors reported in trauma resuscitation included missed injuries, aspiration, failed airway, and deviation from protocol. Rates of adverse events and errors were reported where applicable. Mortality outcomes or length of stay were not directly correlated to adverse events or errors experienced in the trauma resuscitation. Conclusion: Our study highlights the predominance of adverse events and errors experienced during initial trauma resuscitation. We described a multitude of adverse events and errors and their rates but further study is needed to determine outcome differences for patients and possibility for quality improvement.