Introduction: Geriatric patients have a high risk of poor outcomes after trauma and is a rapid-increasing group within the trauma population. Given the need to ensure that the trauma system is targeted, efficient, accessible, safe and responsive to all age groups the aim of the present study was to explore the epidemiology and characteristics of the Norwegian geriatric trauma population and assess differences between age groups within a national trauma system. Materials and methods:This retrospective analysis is based on data from the Norwegian Trauma Registry (2015Registry ( -2018. Injury severity was scaled using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Trauma patients 16 years or older with NISS ≥9 were included, dichotomized into age groups 16-64 years (Group 1, G1) and ≥65 years (Group 2, G2). The groups were compared with respect to differences in demographics, injury characteristics, management and outcome. Descriptive statistics and relevant parametric and non-parametric tests were used.Results: Geriatric patients proved to be at risk of sustaining severe injuries. Low-energy falls predominated in G2, and the AIS body regions 'Head' and 'Pelvis and lower extremities' were most frequently injured. Crude 30-day mortality was higher in G2 compared to G1 (G1: 2.9 vs. G2: 13.6%, P < 0.01) and the trauma team activation (TTA) rate was lower (G1: 90 vs. G2: 73%, P < 0.01). A lower proportion of geriatric patients were treated by a physician prehospitally (G1: 30 vs. G2: 18%, [NISS 15-24], P < 0.01) and transported by air-ambulance (G1: 24 vs. G2: 14%, [NISS 15-24], P < 0.01). Median time from alarm to hospital admission was longer for geriatric patients (G1: 71 vs. G2: 78 min [NISS 15-24], P < 0.01), except for the most severely injured patients (NISS ≥25). Conclusion:In this nationwide study comparing adult and geriatric trauma patients, geriatric patients were found to have a higher mortality, receive less frequently advanced prehospital treatment and transportation, and a lower TTA rate. This is surprising in the setting of a Nordic country with free access to publicly funded emergency services, a nationally implemented trauma system with requirements to pre-and in-hospital services and a national trauma registry with high individual level coverage from all trauma-receiving hospitals. Further exploration and a deeper understanding of these differences is warranted.

Background: Early identification of life-threatening injuries is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. Failure to detect severe injury may cause delayed diagnosis and therapeutic interventions and is associated with increased morbidity. A national trauma system will contribute to ensure the optimal care for seriously injured patients throughout the treatment chain by, among other things, defining a sensitive triage tool for identifying severe injury and contribute to correct treatment destination. In 2017, a National trauma plan was implemented in Norway and several quality indicators were recommended to ensure an evaluation of potential gaps between achieved and desired quality, and thereby highlighting areas with potential for quality improvement. With this commentary, we want to draw attention to, what we believe is, an ignoring of an important quality indicator: undertriage in trauma. Main body: Severely injured patients not met by a trauma team is commonly referred to as undertriage. An undertriage rate below 5 % is an internationally recognized quality indicator in trauma care and is emphasized in the Norwegian national trauma plan. However, whether hospitals measure and report data about undertriage, have received little attention. Therefore, a national survey was performed among Norwegian hospitals, where thirty-seven of forty trauma receiving hospitals contributed. The results of the survey showed that only half of Norwegian trauma hospitals were capable of providing these data. The results of this survey show that currently the national trauma system is not equipped to obtain important data on an important and specific quality indicator. An ongoing discussion at a national level is how to define severe injury, which may alter future definitions on undertriage. Conclusions: Knowledge of undertriage in trauma is important to enhance patient safety, increase the precision of the triage tool and provide valuable learning information to individual hospitals and prehospital services. Currently only half of Norwegian hospitals who receive trauma patients report undertriage rates and unfortunately, only few hospital administrators request these data.

Background Elderly trauma patients constitute a vulnerable group, with a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality even after low-energy falls. As the world’s elderly population continues to increase, the number of elderly trauma patients is expected to increase. Limited data are available about the possible patient safety challenges that elderly trauma patients face. The outcomes and characteristics of the Norwegian geriatric trauma population are not described on a national level. Objective The aim of this project is to investigate whether patient safety challenges exist for geriatric trauma patients in Norway. An important objective of the study is to identify risk areas that will facilitate further work to safeguard and promote quality and safety in the Norwegian trauma system. Methods This is a population-based mixed methods project divided into 4 parts: 3 quantitative retrospective cohort studies and 1 qualitative interview study. The quantitative studies will compare adult (aged 16-64 years) and elderly (aged ≥65 years) trauma patients captured in the Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) with a date of injury from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics and relevant statistical methods to compare groups will be applied. The qualitative study will comprise focus group interviews with doctors responsible for trauma care, and data will be analyzed using a thematic analysis to identify important themes. Results The project received funding in January 2019 and was approved by the Oslo University Hospital data protection officer (No. 19/16593). Registry data have been extracted for 33,344 patients, and the analysis of these data has begun. Focus group interviews will be conducted from spring 2020. Results from this project are expected to be ready for publication from fall 2020. Conclusions By combining data from the NTR with interviews with doctors responsible for treatment and transfer of elderly trauma patients, we will provide increased knowledge about trauma in Norwegian geriatric patients on a national level that will form the basis for further research aiming at developing interventions that hopefully will make the trauma system better equipped to manage the rising tide of geriatric trauma. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/15722