No abstract

No abstract

Background:In situ simulation shows promise as an effective training tool for trauma; however, its disruptive nature is a major downside. Although the benefits of in situ simulation in trauma have been described, the potential perceived harms of running an unscheduled simulation using working staff are unknown. The aim of this study is to assess trauma team members' perceptions regarding the value of in situ simulation relative to its perceived impact on patient care. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal survey study including all members of the multidisciplinary trauma team at the Halifax Infirmary, a level 1 trauma centre in Nova Scotia. Following an in situ simulation, participants were given a 10-question survey with answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 61 surveys were collected. Survey respondents were grouped into allied health (nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists; 44%), learners (residents and medical students; 44%) and other (staff physicians, those who did not specify their role; 12%). Respondents felt that participating in the in situ simulation delayed (28%) or compromised patient care (5%) infrequently. No respondents felt that patients were harmed. In situ simulation was felt to identify important safety issues (70%), improve trauma team communication (89%) and improve trauma patient care (89%). The in situ simulation was considered enjoyable (92%) and was identified as a good educational experience (95%). It was felt by participants that simulations should continue to be done in situ in the trauma bay rather than in a sim laboratory (54%). Conclusion:The trauma in situ simulation program at the Halifax Infirmary is not felt to cause delays or compromise patient care. The program is considered to be a good learning opportunity that identifies safety issues and improves patient care. Epidemiology of submersion injuries inCanadian children and adolescents: 1990-2018.

IntroductionHeart injury caused by thoracic gunshot wounds (GSW) is especially life-threatening and require prompt diagnosis and treatment. Heart injury is especially life-threatening and requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. During the pre-hospital phase and initial triage in the emergency department (ED), early recognition of a patient with heart GSW is difficult but important. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictability of heart injury in patients with chest GSWs. MethodsThe National Trauma Data Bank was queried for patients with chest GSW treated at all US trauma centres from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2016. Patients with and without heart injuries (ICD-9: 861.00-03, 861.10-13) were compared and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent factors of heart injury which could be obtained during the pre-hospital or triage phase only. Step-backward selection was used to establish a model for such patients. We used the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to test the accuracy of this model and Youden’s J statistic to find the cutoff value of sensitivity/specificity. Level 1 trauma registry data from Stroger Hospital of Cook County (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017) was used for external validation of this prediction model.Results47,044 patients with chest GSW were evaluated in the ED and 8.6% of them had heart injuries. The mortality rates of patients without cardiac injury versus those with cardiac injury were 9.0% (3864/42997) and 21.7% (879/4047) respectively. Patients with heart injuries were significantly younger (28.4 vs. 29.3, p<0.001), had lower SBP (34.7 vs. 103.8 mmHg, p<0.001), had lower GCS (5.1 vs. 11.2, p<0.001) and a higher probability of apnea (58.3% vs. 14.7%, p<0.001), higher rate of pulselessness (59.9% vs. 12.0%, p<0.001), and more self-inflicted injuries (9.7% vs. 8.5%, p<0.001) than patients without heart injuries. The cutoff values of SBP and GCS for prediction of heart injury were 61mmHg (AUC: 0.783) and 5.5 (AUC: 0.768) respectively. Integration of six independent factors (age, SBP, GCS, apnea, lack of pulse and suicide intent) with multivariate logistic regression showed an AUC: 0.823 and specificity of 88.8% in the heart injury prediction model. External validation with the local database showed 95.6% specificity.ConclusionEarly diagnosis of heart injury is important in the management of patients with chest GSWs. Our model has high specificity and can be beneficial for early triage of cardiac injury in patients with GSW to the chest.

No abstract