No abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to obtain an unbiased understanding of the prevalence of psychoactive drugs in trauma patients presenting to a large ED. Methods Consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED with an injury resulting in a trauma call had an anonymised, additional blood test taken for detection of over 2000 drugs. Laboratory testing was to judicial standards. Drugs given by ambulance pre‐hospital were detected but excluded from the analysis. Results Over 6 months 276 (74.7%) of 371 patients were tested. Of the 276 patients tested, 158 (57.2%) had one or more psychoactive drug present. Recreational drugs were detected in 101 (36.6%) patients and medicinal drugs in 88 (31.8%) patients, with a combination of both detected in 31 (11.2%) patients. The most common drugs detected were cannabis (22.1%), antidepressants (18.4%), alcohol (15.5%), opioids (10.1%), benzodiazepine/z‐drugs (9.4%) and methamphetamine (7.2%). The prevalence of psychoactive drugs differed by age group, sex and cause of injury. Conclusions The prevalence of psychoactive drugs in injury presentations to an ED is high, and provides an opportunity to reduce harm. The present study demonstrates the feasibility of an approach which limits bias and obtains results that accurately reflect the drug prevalence in injured cohorts. Systematic testing of injured patients is an important contribution to the epidemiology of injury.

Introduction Abbreviated Injury Scale has significant advantages over administrative coding systems for trauma analytics as it was developed specifically for injury, provides greater depth of characterisation of injury and has an integrated severity measure. It is used by trauma registries globally as it allows benchmarking between registries and is used to drive quality improvement. However, the consistency of scoring between individuals is not well understood. An audit was undertaken in six tertiary trauma centres in New Zealand to determine variation between AIS coders. Methods Each of six sites was audited by two experienced auditors. A random selection of case was identified in ISS categories 13–24, 25–44 and 45+. The case notes were pulled, and the auditors independently audited the notes,and then compared their results for a consensus result. The consensus result was then compared with the original coders. Results 111 cases were audited. Coding concordance was found in 31% of cases. Of the 69% of cases where discordant coding was observed, the discordance was attributed to incorrect coding (49%), missed injuries (43%) and other reasons (7%). Head and chest body regions were associated with the greatest number, and largest differences in coding scores. The overall mean difference across all cases was an ISS score of 1. Conclusions The overall accuracy of data held in the New Zealand Trauma Registry (NZTR) is suitable for quality improvement and benchmarking purposes, but more work is needed to improve the accuracy of individual cases, particularly those with head/neck and chest injury. Standardised tools to ensure the accuracy of data in a trauma registry is a gap which needs to be addressed to maintain confidence in a contemporary trauma system.

Purpose Trauma registries are essential tools for trauma systems and underpin any quality improvement activities. This paper describes the history, function, challenges, and future goals of the New Zealand National Trauma Registry (NZTR). Methods Using the available publications and knowledge of the authors, the development, governance, oversight, and usage of the registry is outlined. Results The New Zealand Trauma Network has run a national trauma registry since 2015 and this now contains over fifteen thousand major trauma patient records. Annual reports and a range of research outputs have been published. Key quality improvement initiatives have been undertaken and are described. Vulnerabilities include lack of longterm funding and a small workforce. Conclusions The NZTR has proven to be a critical component of trauma quality improvement in New Zealand. A user-friendly portal and a simple minimum dataset have been keys to successes but maintenance of an effective structure in a constrained healthcare system is a challenge.

No abstract