Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Unconscious trauma patients: outcome differences between southern Finland and Germany—lesson learned from trauma-registry comparisons

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

International trauma registry comparisons are scarce and lack standardised methodology. Recently, we performed a 6-year comparison between southern Finland and Germany. Because an outcome difference emerged in the subgroup of unconscious trauma patients, we aimed to identify factors associated with such difference and to further explore the role of trauma registries for evaluating trauma-care quality.

Methods

Unconscious patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 3–8] with severe blunt trauma [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16] from Helsinki University Hospital’s trauma registry (TR-THEL) and the German Trauma Registry (TR-DGU) were compared from 2006 to 2011. The primary outcome measure was 30-day in-hospital mortality. Expected mortality was calculated by Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score. Patients were separated into clinically relevant subgroups, for which the standardised mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated and compared between the two trauma registries in order to identify patient groups explaining outcome differences.

Results

Of the 5243 patients from the TR-DGU and 398 from the TR-THEL included, nine subgroups were identified and analyzed separately. Poorer outcome appeared in the Finnish patients with penetrating head injury, and in Finnish patients under 60 years with isolated head injury [TR-DGU SMR = 1.06 (95 % CI = 0.94–1.18) vs. TR-THEL SMR = 2.35 (95 % CI = 1.20-3.50), p = 0.001 and TR-DGU SMR = 1.01 (95 % CI = 0.87–1.16) vs. TR-THEL SMR = 1.40 (95 % CI = 0.99-1.81), p = 0.030]. A closer analysis of these subgroups in the TR-THEL revealed early treatment limitations due to their very poor prognosis, which was not accounted for by the RISC.

Conclusion

Trauma registry comparison has several pitfalls needing acknowledgement: the explanation for outcome differences between trauma systems can be a coincidence, a weakness in the scoring system, true variation in the standard of care, or hospitals’ reluctance to include patients with hopeless prognosis in registry. We believe, however, that such comparisons are a feasible method for quality control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hemmila MR, Nathens AB, Shafi S, Calland JF, Clark DE, Cryer HG, Goble S, Hoeft CJ, Meredith JW, Neal ML, Pasquale MD, Pomphrey MD, Fildes JJ. The trauma quality improvement program: pilot study and initial demonstration of feasibility. J Trauma. 2010;68:253–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafi S, Ahn C, Parks J, Nathens AB, Cryer HM, Gentilello LM, Hemmila M, Fildes JJ. Quality of care within a trauma center is not altered by injury type. J Trauma. 2010;68:716–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Balogh ZJ, Martin AB. Prospective cohorts and risk adjusted outcomes for trauma. Injury. 2010;41:S24–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2013.

  5. Camp RC. Benchmarking: the search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. Milwaukee: Quality Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987;27:370–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Marmarou A, Roberts I, Habbema JDF, Maas AIR. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lefering R. Development and validation of the revised injury severity classification score for severely injured patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009;35:437–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brilej D, Vlaović M, Komadina R. Improved prediction from revised injury severity classification (RISC) over trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) in an independent evaluation of major trauma patients. J Int Med Res. 2010;38:1530–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brinck T, Handolin L, Paffrath T, Lefering R. Trauma registry comparison: six-year results in trauma care in Southern Finland and Germany. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014. doi:10.1007/s00068-014-0470-z.

  11. Raj R, Siironen J, Kivisaari R, Kuisma M, Brinck T, Lappalainen J, Skrifvars MB. Factors correlating with delayed trauma center admission following traumatic brain injury. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013. doi:10.1186/1757-7241-21-67.

  12. Härtl R, Gerber LM, Iacono L, Ni Q, Lyons K, Ghajar J. Direct transport within an organized state trauma system reduces mortality in patients with severe brain injury. J Trauma. 2006;60(6):1250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pouw ME, Peelen LM, Moons KGM, Kalkman CJ, Lingsma HF. Including post-discharge mortality in hospital standardized mortality ratios: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2013;347:f5913.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Donebian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q. 2005;83:691–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Raj R, Brinck T, Skrifvars MB, Kivisaari R, Siironen J, Lefering R, Handolin L. Validation of the Revised Injury Severity Classification Score in patients with traumatic brain injury. Injury. 2015;46:86–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lefering R, Huber-Wagner S, Nienaber UY, Maegele M, Bouillon B. Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the Trauma Register DGUTM : the revised injury severity classification, version II. Crit Care. 2014;18:476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Marmarou A, Roberts I, Habbema JDF, Maas AIR. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators, Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, Edwards P, Komolafe E, Poccock S, Roberts I, Shakur H, Steyerberg E, Yutthakasemsunt S. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;336:425–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Raj R, Skrifvars MB, Bendel S, Selander T, Kivisaari R, Siironen J, Reinikainen M. Predicting six-month mortality with traumatic brain injury: usefulness of common intensive care severity scores. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Brinkman S, Abu-Hanna A, de Jonge E, de Keizer NF. Prediction of long-term mortality in ICU patients: model validation and assessing the effect of using in hospital versus long-term mortality on benchmarking. Intensiv Care Med. 2013;39:1925–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gill MR, Reiley DG, Green SM. Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Töölö Trauma Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, HUS, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PB 266, 00029, Helsinki, Finland

    T. Brinck & L. Handolin

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    R. Raj, R. Kivisaari & J. Siironen

  3. Division of Intensive Care, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    M. B. Skrifvars

  4. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany

    R. Lefering

Authors
  1. T. Brinck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Raj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. B. Skrifvars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Kivisaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Siironen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Lefering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. Handolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Brinck.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Tuomas Brinck, Rahul Raj, Markus Skrifvars, Riku Kivisaari, Jari Siironen, Rolf Lefering and Lauri Handolin declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

Given the retrospective nature of the study, a waiver for ethical assessment was granted and the study protocol was approved by the administrative board of the TR-THEL, and was registered and approved according to the publication guideline of the TR-DGU (No. 2012-053).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brinck, T., Raj, R., Skrifvars, M.B. et al. Unconscious trauma patients: outcome differences between southern Finland and Germany—lesson learned from trauma-registry comparisons. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 42, 445–451 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0551-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0551-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation