...
【24h】

Trauma activation: are we making the right call? A 3-year experience at a Level I pediatric trauma center.

机译:激活创伤:我们打正确的电话吗?在I级小儿创伤中心工作了3年。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Trauma is the leading cause of death in children, accounting for half of all deaths in patients between birth and 18 years of age, and is the cause of a significant number of hospital admissions. We reviewed our experience at a Level I pediatric trauma center with a 2-level trauma activation (TA) system for mobilization of personnel over a 3-year period. The aim was to assess severity of injury of the trauma patients, resource use, and outcome. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, a retrospective analysis of all trauma patients between January 2006 and December 2008 was performed. Data analyzed included number of admissions, level of TA (STAT vs ALERT), mechanism of injury, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, injury severity score (ISS), need for operative intervention, and survival. RESULTS: In 3 years, there were 4502 patients entered. Trauma activation was initiated in 1315 patients (29.2%), divided between 211 STATs (4.7%) and 1104 ALERTs (24.5%). Mean patient age was 5.9 +/- 4.1 years, 65% of the patients were boys, and blunt trauma accounted for 92% of the admissions. An ICU admission was required in 736 (16.3%) of the entire group, whereas 502 (38.2%) patients in the TA group were admitted to the ICU(1). The 154 STAT (21%) and 348 ALERT (47%) patients accounted for 68% of all ICU admissions(1). An ISS listed as severe (16-24) or very severe (>24) was found in 468 (10.4%) and 232 (5.2%) patients, respectively. An ISS listed as 16 or higher was found in 144 (68.2%) of the STATs and 264 (23.9%) of the ALERTs(1). Operative intervention was required in 2118 patients (47%). The overall mortality rate was 1.9%, and this increased to 5.8% in the TA group(1). There were 48 deaths (22.7%) in the STAT group, 29 deaths (2.6%) in the ALERT group, and 9 deaths (0.28%) in patients with no TA(1). When emergency department deaths were excluded, the remaining 60 deaths resulted in a mortality rate of 1.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our Level I pediatric trauma center manages a large volume of patients with significant acuity and, evidenced by a TA in 29% of the patients, a severe or very severe ISS in 16% of the patients, 16% of the patients requiring ICU admission, and 47% requiring operative intervention. The TA patients had markedly higher rates of ICU admission, ISS, and mortality. Deaths in the study were lower by almost an order of magnitude comparing TA STATs with TA ALERTs and TA ALERT patients with patients without TA. The TA criteria are in many ways very helpful and is integral to a Level I trauma center. However, opportunities were identified for improvement because of areas of "overutilization" and discordance between TA and ISS.
机译:背景:创伤是儿童死亡的主要原因,占出生至18岁患者死亡总数的一半,并且是大量住院的原因。我们回顾了我在一级儿童创伤中心的经验,该中心配备了二级创伤激活(TA)系统,用于在3年内动员人员。目的是评估创伤患者的受伤严重程度,资源使用和结果。方法:在获得机构审查委员会的批准后,对2006年1月至2008年12月期间所有创伤患者进行了回顾性分析。分析的数据包括入院次数,TA水平(STAT与ALERT),损伤机制,重症监护病房(ICU)入院,损伤严重程度评分(ISS),手术干预需求和生存率。结果:在3年中,有4502名患者进入。在1315例患者(29.2%)中启动了创伤激活,分为211个STAT(4.7%)和1104个ALERT(24.5%)。平均患者年龄为5.9 +/- 4.1岁,其中65%为男孩,钝性创伤占入院人数的92%。整个组中有736名(16.3%)需要接受ICU入院,而TA组中的502名(38.2%)患者被接受了ICU(1)。 154例STAT(21%)和348例ALERT(47%)患者占所有ICU入院人数的68%(1)。被列为严重(16-24)或非常严重(> 24)的ISS分别在468(10.4%)和232(5.2%)患者中发现。在STAT的144(68.2%)和ALERT(264)的264(23.9%)中发现了被列为16或更高的ISS。 2118例患者(47%)需要手术干预。总死亡率为1.9%,在TA组中增加到5.8%(1)。 STAT组有48例死亡(22.7%),ALERT组有29例死亡(2.6%),没有TA(1)的患者有9例死亡(0.28%)。如果将急诊室的死亡排除在外,则其余60例死亡导致死亡率为1.3%。结论:我们的I级儿科创伤中心管理着大量具有明显敏锐度的患者,其中29%的患者有TA,16%的患者有重度或非常严重的ISS,16%的患者需要ICU入院,其中47%需要手术干预。 TA患者的ICU入院率,ISS和死亡率均显着较高。与具有TA ALERT的TA STAT和具有TA的TA ALERT患者相比,该研究中的死亡率降低了近一个数量级。 TA标准在许多方面都非常有用,并且是I级创伤中心必不可少的。然而,由于“过度利用”和技术援助与国际空间站之间的不协调,确定了改进的机会。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号