A trauma network with centralized and local health care structures: Evaluating the effectiveness of the first certified Trauma Network of the German Society of Trauma Surgery

Abstract

BackgroundTrauma is a global burden of disease and one of the main causes of death worldwide. Therefore, many countries around the world have implemented a wide range of different initiatives to minimize mortality rates after trauma. One of these initiatives is the bundling of treatment expertise in trauma centers and the establishment of trauma networks.Germany has a decentralized system of trauma care medical centers. Severely injured patients ought to receive adequate treatment in both level I and level II centers. This study investigated the effectiveness of a decentralized network and the question whether level I and level II centers have comparable patient outcome.Materials and methodsIn 2009, the first trauma network DGU® in Germany was certified in the rural area of Eastern Bavaria. All patients admitted to the 25 participating hospitals were prospectively included in this network in the framework of a study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research between March 2012 and February 2014. 2 hospitals were level I centers (maximal care centers), 8 hospitals were level II centers, and 15 hospitals were level III centers. The criterion for study inclusion was an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 for patients´ primarily admitted to a level I or a level II center. Exclusion criteria were transferal to another hospital within 48 h, an unknown revised injury severity classification II score (RISC II), or primary admittance to a level III center (n = 52). 875 patients were included in the study.Univariate analyses were used regarding the preclinical and clinical parameters, the primary endpoint mortality rate, and the secondary endpoints length of stay, organ failure, and neurological outcome (GOS). The primary endpoint was additionally evaluated by means of multivariable analysis.ResultsIndices for injury severity (GCS, AISHead, ISS, and NISS) as well as the predicted probability of death (RISC II) were higher in level I centers than in level II centers.No significant differences were found between the mortality rate of the unadjusted analysis [level I: 21.6% (CI: 16.5, 27.9), level II: 18.1% (CI: 14.4, 22.5), p = 0.28] and that of the adjusted analysis [level I SMR: 0.94 (CI: 0.72, 1.21), level II SMR: 1.18 (CI 0.95, 1.48) SMR: expected vs. calculated mortality rate according to RISC II]. Multivariable analysis showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13% (RISC II). The number need to treat was 10 patients.DiscussionThis study showed that a rural trauma network with centralized and local structures may achieve equivalent results with regard to mortality rates to those obtained in level I and level II centers. These results were furthered by a certain preclinical centralization (24/7 air rescue) of patients. The study also showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13%. Preclinical and initial clinical evaluation with regard to probable mortality rates should be further improv...

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Associated Factors of Workplace Violence Against Healthcare Professionals in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Such strategies may include hotlines for rapid response in emergency cases, ambulance services for mobilizing the patients, institutionalizing protocols for trauma management guiding specific types of patients to pre-specified centers without delay, and establishing a centralized information system for coordinating the patients and health services organizations for better emergency and referral care. 83,85 Many studies in this review reported critical gaps in existing systems of reporting WPV and insufficient measures taken by the hospital authorities, which may affect the occupational engagement and personal wellbeing of the victims of WPV. Also, the physical and mental health of the victims of WPV should be taken care of alongside the administrative measures.…”

“…Such strategies may include hotlines for rapid response in emergency cases, ambulance services for mobilizing the patients, institutionalizing protocols for trauma management guiding specific types of patients to pre-specified centers without delay, and establishing a centralized information system for coordinating the patients and health services organizations for better emergency and referral care. 83,85…”

Health Related Quality of Life after Multiple Trauma in Adolescents

“…1 The mortality of our adolescent cohort was 0% compared to 19.4% of the total study population including adult patients. 14 Since improvements in preclinical and clinical treatment led to a decreasing rate of mortality, the question of quality of life after severe trauma gains importance. 15 Especially in cohort of younger patients, the functional impairment after injury might be of great interest, since they have an entire life to build.…”

“…The TNO was founded in 2007 and has proven to be an effective network to improve patient care of the severely injured. 7 All 25 hospitals of the TNO network participate in the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (DGU), which was the basis for this prospective multicenter study.…”

Opportunities of Telemedicine for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery

“…The rural eastern Bavarian region is sparsely populated in comparison with metropolitan areas, entailing longer distances between clinics. 12 TNO had merely one, central maximum care provider -the Regensburg University Hospital (UKR). There were insular solutions on the telemedicine market; however, these were exclusively manufacturer-bound.…”