No abstract

BackgroundDelayed admission to appropriate care has been shown increase mortality following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We investigated factors associated with delayed admission to a hospital with neurosurgical expertise in a cohort of TBI patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsA retrospective analysis of all TBI patients treated in the ICUs of Helsinki University Central Hospital was carried out from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2010. Patients were categorized into two groups: direct admission and delayed admission. Patients in the delayed admission group were initially transported to a local hospital without neurosurgical expertise before inter-transfer to the designated hospital. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify pre-hospital factors associated with delayed admission.ResultsOf 431 included patients 65% of patients were in the direct admission groups and 35% in the delayed admission groups (median time to admission 1:07h, IQR 0:52–1:28 vs. 4:06h, IQR 2:53–5:43, p <0.001). In multivariate analysis factors increasing the likelihood of delayed admission were (OR, 95% CI): male gender (3.82, 1.60-9.13), incident at public place compared to home (0.26, 0.11-0.61), high energy trauma (0.05, 0.01-0.28), pre-hospital physician consultation (0.15, 0.06-0.39) or presence (0.08, 0.03-0.22), hypotension (0.09, 0.01-0.93), major extra cranial injury (0.17, 0.05-0.55), abnormal pupillary light reflex (0.26, 0.09-0.73) and severe alcohol intoxication (12.44, 2.14-72.38). A significant larger proportion of patients in the delayed admission group required acute craniotomy for mass lesion when admitted to the neurosurgical hospital (57%, 21%, p< 0.001). No significant difference in 6-month mortality was noted between the groups (p= 0.814).ConclusionDelayed trauma center admission following TBI is common. Factors increasing likelihood of this were: male gender, incident at public place compared to home, low energy trauma, absence of pre-hospital physician involvement, stable blood pressure, no major extra cranial injuries, normal pupillary light reflex and severe alcohol intoxication. Focused educational efforts and access to physician consultation may help expedite access to appropriate care in TBI patients.

The overall outcome results of the Helsinki University Hospital trauma unit were similar to those of the German level-one trauma centers. Registry comparison is a feasible method of quality control in a trauma centre.

Background and Aims: Trauma registry data are used for analyzing and improving patient care, comparison of different units, and for research and administrative purposes. Data should therefore be reliable. The aim of this study was to audit the quality of the Helsinki Trauma Registry internally. We describe how to conduct a validation of a regional or national trauma registry and how to report the results in a readily comprehensible form. Materials and Methods: Trauma registry database of Helsinki Trauma Registry from year 2013 was re-evaluated. We assessed data quality in three different parts of the data input process: the process of including patients in the trauma registry (case completeness); the process of calculating Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes; and entering the patient variables in the trauma registry (data completeness, accuracy, and correctness). We calculated the case completeness results using raw agreement percentage and Cohen’s κ value. Percentage and descriptive methods were used for the remaining calculations. Results: In total, 862 patients were evaluated; 853 were rated the same in the audit process resulting in a raw agreement percentage of 99%. Nine cases were missing from the registry, yielding a case completeness of 97.1% for the Helsinki Trauma Registry. For AIS code data, we analyzed 107 patients with severe thorax injury with 941 AIS codes. Completeness of codes was 99.0% (932/941), accuracy was 90.0% (841/932), and correctness was 97.5% (909/932). The data completeness of patient variables was 93.4% (3899/4174). Data completeness was 100% for 16 of 32 categories. Data accuracy was 94.6% (3690/3899) and data correctness was 97.2% (3789/3899). Conclusion: The case completeness, data completeness, data accuracy, and data correctness of the Helsinki Trauma Registry are excellent. We recommend that these should be the variables included in a trauma registry validation process, and that the quality of trauma registry data should be systematically and regularly reviewed and reported.