World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 216–222 | Cite as

Performance of a Computerized Protocol for Trauma Shock Resuscitation

  • Joseph F. Sucher
  • Frederick A. Moore
  • R. Matthew Sailors
  • Ernest A. Gonzalez
  • Bruce A. McKinley
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Background

A computerized protocol was developed and used to standardize bedside clinician decision making for resuscitation of shock due to severe trauma during the first day in the intensive care unit (ICU) at a metropolitan Level I trauma center. We report overall performance of a computerized protocol for resuscitation of shock due to severe trauma, incorporating two options for resuscitation monitoring and intervention intensity, according to: (1) duration of use and (2) acceptance of computerized protocol-generated instructions.

Methods

A computerized protocol operated by clinicians, using a personal computer (PC) at the bedside, was used to guide clinical decision making for resuscitation of patients meeting specific injury and shock criteria. The protocol generated instructions that could be accepted or declined. Clinician acceptance of the protocol instructions was stored by the PC software in a database for each patient. A rule-based, data-driven protocol was developed using literature evidence, expert opinion, and ongoing protocol performance analysis. Logic–flow diagrams were used to facilitate communication among multidisciplinary protocol development team members. The protocol was computerized using standard programming methods and implemented using cart-mounted PCs with a touch screen and keyboard interfaces. Protocol progression began with patient demographic data and criteria entry, confirmation of hemodynamic monitor instrumentation, request for specific hemodynamic performance data, and instructions for specific interventions (or no intervention). Use and performance of the computerized protocol was recorded in a protocol execution database. The protocol was continuously maintained with new literature evidence and database performance analysis findings. Initially implemented in 2000, the computerized protocol was refined in 2004 with two options for resuscitation intensity: pulmonary artery catheter- and central venous pressure-directed resuscitation.

Results

Over 2 years ending at August 2006, a total of 193 trauma patients (mean Injury Severity Score was 27, survival rate 89%) were resuscitated using the computerized protocol. Protocol duration was 4400 hours or 22.7 ± 0.4 hours per patient. The computerized protocol generated 3724 instructions (19 ± 1 per patient) that required a bedside clinician response. In all, 94% of these instructions were accepted by the bedside clinician users.

Conclusions

A computerized protocol to guide decision making for trauma shock resuscitation in a Level 1 trauma center surgical ICU was developed and used as standard of care. During 2 years ending at August 2006, 94% of computer-generated instructions for specific interventions or measurements of hemodynamic performance were accepted by bedside clinicians, indicating appropriate, useful design and reliance on the computerized protocol system.

Keywords

Central Venous Pressure Injury Severity Score Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure Computerize Protocol Computerize Provider Order Entry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by NIGMS grants P50-GM38529 and T32-GM008792.

References

  1. 1.
    Marr AB, Moore FA, Sailors RM et al (2004) ‘Starling curve’ generation during shock resuscitation: can it be done? Shock 21:300–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKinley BA, Kozar RA, Cocanour CS et al (2002) Normal vs. supranormal O2 delivery goals in shock resuscitation: the response is the same. J Trauma 53:825–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKinley BA, Sailors RM, Glorsky SL et al (2001) Computer directed resuscitation of major torso trauma. Shock 15(Suppl):46Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKinley BA, Gonzalez EA, Todd SR et al (2006) Mis-triage to central venous pressure (CVP) directed resuscitation (resus) is associated with poor outcome. Shock 25(Suppl 1):91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKinley BA, Kozar RA, Cocanour CS et al (2002) Trauma resuscitation: female hearts respond better. Arch Surg 137:578–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKinley BA, Marvin RG, Cocanour CS, et al (2000) Blunt trauma resuscitation: the old can respond. Arch Surg 135:688–693; discussion 694–695Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKinley BA, Marvin RG, Cocanour CS et al (2000) Nitroprusside in resuscitation of major torso trauma. J Trauma 49:1089–1095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKinley BA, Sucher JF, Todd SR et al (2009) Central venous pressure versus pulmonary artery catheter-directed shock resuscitation. Shock 32:463–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKinley BA, Valdivia A, Moore FA (2003) Goal-oriented shock resuscitation for major torso trauma. Curr Opin Crit Care 9:292–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr et al (1974) The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14:187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    East TD, Morris AH, Clemmer TP, et al (1990) Development of computerized critical care protocols: a strategy that really works. Presented at the 14th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    East TD, Morris AH, Wallace CJ et al (1991) A strategy for development of computerized critical care decision support systems. Int J Clin Monit Comput 8:263–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris AH (1997) Algorithm based decision making. In: Tobin MJ (ed) Principles and practice of intensive care monitoring. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 1355–1381Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sailors RM, East TD, Wallace CJ, et al (1996) Testing and validation of computerized decision support systems. In: Proceedings of the AMIA annual fall symposium, pp 234–238Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sailors RM, McKinley BA (2000) Graphical prototyping and training for computerized clinical decision support systems. In: Abstracts: eighteenth annual Houston conference on biomedical engineering research, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moore FA, Moore EE (2002) Trauma resuscitation. In: Wilmore DW, Cheung LY, Harken AH, Holcroft JW, Meakins JL, Scoper NJ (eds) American college of surgeons: ACS Surgery. WebMD, New York, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sauaia A, Moore FA, Moore EE et al (1995) Epidemiology of trauma deaths: a reassessment. J Trauma 38:185–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sauaia A, Moore FA, Moore EE et al (1998) Multiple organ failure can be predicted as early as 12 hours postinjury. J Trauma 45:291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    East TD, Heermann LK, Bradshaw RL, et al (1999) Efficacy of computerized decision support for mechanical ventilation: results of a prospective multi-center randomized trial. In: Proceedings of the AMIA symposium, pp 251–255Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKinley BA, Parmley CL, Tonnesen AS (1999) Standardized management of intracranial pressure: a preliminary clinical trial. J Trauma 46:271–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nerlikar A (1996) Automated protocol for management of intracranial pressure following severe closed head injury. Biomedical engineering program. University of Houston, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS et al (1996) Implementing antibiotic practice guidelines through computer-assisted decision support: clinical and financial outcomes. Ann Intern Med 124:884–890PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rana R, Afessa B, Keegan MT et al (2006) Evidence-based red cell transfusion in the critically ill: quality improvement using computerized physician order entry. Crit Care Med 34:1892–1897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomsen GE, Pope D, East TD, et al (1993) Clinical performance of a rule-based decision support system for mechanical ventilation of ARDS patients. In: Proceeding of the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care, pp 339–343Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris AH (2006) The importance of protocol-directed patient management for research on lung-protective ventilation. In: Dreyfuss D, Saumon G, Hubamyr R (eds) Ventilator-induced lung injury. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 537–610Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sucher JF, Moore FA, Todd SR et al (2008) Computerized clinical decision support: a technology to implement and validate evidence based guidelines. J Trauma 64:520–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goins WA, Reynolds HN, Nyanjom D et al (1991) Outcome following prolonged intensive care unit stay in multiple trauma patients. Crit Care Med 19:339–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Regel G, Lobenhoffer P, Grotz M et al (1995) Treatment results of patients with multiple trauma: an analysis of 3406 cases treated between 1972 and 1991 at a German level I trauma center. J Trauma 38:70–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore FA, McKinley BA, Moore EE (2004) The next generation in shock resuscitation. Lancet 363:1988–1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph F. Sucher
    • 1
  • Frederick A. Moore
    • 1
  • R. Matthew Sailors
    • 1
  • Ernest A. Gonzalez
    • 2
  • Bruce A. McKinley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryThe Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryThe University of Texas Houston Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital Shock Trauma ICUHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations