Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Trauma Care in a Mature Level I Trauma Center in The Netherlands: Outcomes in a Dutch Mature Level I Trauma Center

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Trauma centers are associated with improved survival rates and outcomes in trauma patients. In 2000 our hospital officially became a level I trauma center. The implementation of the trauma center model showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospital length of stay in our hospital and throughout the trauma region. The aim of the present prospective database study was to present the outcomes of patients treated during the course of further maturation of a level I trauma center.

Methods

We performed the prospective database study and included and analyzed outcome data for all adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma center during the years 2003 through 2006 (period 1) and 2007 through 2010 (period 2).

Results

A total of 5,299 patients were included; 2,419 in period 1 and 2,880 in period 2. Mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) increased from 12.6 to 13.8 (p < 0.001). Mean Revised Trauma Score decreased from 7.4 to 7.2 (p < 0.001). Penetrating injuries increased from 111 (4.6 %) to 192 (6.7 %) (p < 0.001). More head injuries (+7.2 %) and spine injuries (+3.1 %), and fewer injuries to extremities (−6.5 %) were seen in the second period. Mortality, adjusted for age and ISS, was lower in period 2 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.736, p = 0.010). Adjusted for age, ISS, and survival, both the hospital stay and the intensive care unit stay were shortened (OR: 1.068, p < 0.018; OR: 1.188, p = 0.007). Mean probability of survival was significantly higher in the second period. Moreover, more unexpected survivors were seen in the second period (Z-score of 3.4 and W-value of 1.46).

Conclusions

Maturation of the trauma center and the trauma system resulted in improved patient outcomes. A significant increase in unexpected survivors was noted, and shorter hospital stay and ICU stay were achieved. Of note, population-based studies on trauma system and trauma center performance with statistical analysis by logistic regression are considered strong class III evidence.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (2010) http://www.who.int/topics/injuries/about/en/index.html

  2. Lansink KWW, Leenen LPH (2007) Do designated trauma systems improve outcome? Curr Opin Crit Care 13:686–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ten Duis HJ, van der Werken C (2003) Trauma care systems in The Netherlands. Injury 34:722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. www.atls.nl. 2009. Accessed 31 Jan 2011

  5. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport (1997) With care connected (In Dutch: Ministerie van VWS en BZK. Met zorg verbonden)

  6. Dutch Trauma Society (2009) Trauma care: Our care! (In Dutch: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traumatologie. Traumazorg: onze zorg!)

  7. Spijkers ATE, Meylaerts SAG, Leenen LPH (2010) Mortality decreases by implementing a level I trauma center in a Dutch hospital. J Trauma 69:1138–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duchesne JC, Hunt JP, Wahl G et al (2008) Review of current blood transfusions strategies in a mature level I trauma center: were we wrong for the last 60 years? J Trauma 65:272–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holcomb JB, Wade CE, Michalek JE et al (2008) Increased plasma and platelet to red blood cell ratios improves outcome in 466 massively transfused civilian trauma patients. Ann Surg 248:447–458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cotton BA, Au BK, Nunez TC et al (2009) Predefined massive transfusion protocols are associated with a reduction in organ failure and postinjury complications. J Trauma 66:41–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deunk J, Dekker HM, Brink M (2007) The value of indicated computed tomography scan of the chest and abdomen in addition to the conventional radiologic work-up for blunt trauma patients. J Trauma 63:757–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick LM et al (2009) Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 373(9673):1455–1461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wurmb TE, Frühwald P, Hopfner W et al (2009) Whole-body multislice computed tomography as the first line diagnostic tool in patients with multiple injuries: the focus on time. J Trauma 66:658–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dutton RP, Stansbury LG, Leone S et al (2010) Trauma mortality in mature trauma systems: are we doing better? An analysis of trauma mortality patterns, 1997–2008. J Trauma 69(3):620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peitzman AB, Coucoulas AP, Stinson C et al (1999) Trauma center maturation, quantification of process and outcome. Ann Surg 230:87–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 1990 revision, update 1998. Barrington, IL, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine

  17. 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 14:187–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Linn S (1995) The injury severity score—importance and uses. Ann Epidemiol 5:440–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Reilly GM, Jolley DJ, Cameron PA et al (2010) Missing in action: a case study of the application of methods for dealing with missing data to trauma system benchmarking. Acad Emerg Med 17:1122–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moore L, Hanley JA, Lavoie A et al (2009) Evaluating the validity of multiple imputation for missing physiological data in the national trauma data bank. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2:73–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Glance LG, Osler TM, Mukamel DB et al (2009) Impact of statistical approaches for handling missing data on trauma centre quality. Ann Surg 249:143–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS (1987) Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. J Trauma 27:370–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Committee on Trauma, American College of Surgeons (2006) Resources for optimal care of the injured patient 2006. American College of Surgeons, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  24. Celso B, Tepas J, Langland-Orban B et al (2006) A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centres following the establishment of trauma systems. J Trauma 60:371–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Twijnstra MJ, Moons KGM, Simmermacher RKJ et al (2010) Regional trauma system reduces mortality and changes admission rates: a before and after study. Ann Surg 251:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Durham R, Pracht E, Orban B et al (2006) Evaluation of a mature trauma system. Ann Surg 243:775–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore L, Hanley JA, Turgeon AF et al (2010) Evaluation of the long-term trend in mortality from injury in a mature inclusive trauma system. World J Surg 34:2069–2075. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0588-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Davenport RA, Tai N, West A et al (2010) A major trauma centre is a speciality hospital not a hospital of specialities. Br J Surg 97:109–117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ et al (1990) The major trauma outcome study: establishing national norms for trauma care. J Trauma 30:1356–1365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Joosse P, Goslings JC, Luitse JS et al (2005) M-study; arguments for regional trauma databases. J Trauma 58:1272–1276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lane PL, Doig G, Mikrogianakis A et al (1996) An evaluation of Ontario trauma outcomes and the development of regional norms for Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) analysis. J Trauma 41:731–734

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Teixeira PG, Inaba K, Hadjizacharia P et al (2007) Preventable or potentially preventable mortality at a mature trauma center. J Trauma 63:1338–1347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hsia R, Shen YC (2011) Possible geographical barriers to trauma center access for vulnerable patients in the United States; an analysis of urban and rural communities. Arch Surg 146:46–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Röder F, Schwab M, Aleker T et al (2003) Proximal femur fracture in older patients—rehabilitation and clinical outcome. Age Ageing 32:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sampalis JS, Denis R, Lavoie A et al (1999) Trauma care regionalization: a process-outcome evaluation. J Trauma 46:565–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gomez D, Haas B, Hemmila M et al (2010) Hips can lie: impact of excluding isolated hip fractures on external benchmarking of trauma center performance. J Trauma 69:1037–1041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McKenney MG, Livingstone AS, Schulman C et al (2009) Trauma surgeon mortality rates correlate with surgeon time at institution. J Am Coll Surg 208:750–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mann NC, Mullings RJ, MacKenzie EJ et al (1999) Systemic review of published evidence regarding trauma system effectiveness. J Trauma 47(3 Suppl):S25–S33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenberg ML, Pollock D, Waxweiler R (1999) Trauma care systems—what’s the catch? J Trauma 47(3 Suppl):S81–S84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Suite G04.228, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Koen W. W. Lansink, Amy C. Gunning, Anique T. E. Spijkers & Luke P. H. Leenen

Authors
  1. Koen W. W. Lansink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy C. Gunning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anique T. E. Spijkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luke P. H. Leenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koen W. W. Lansink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lansink, K.W.W., Gunning, A.C., Spijkers, A.T.E. et al. Evaluation of Trauma Care in a Mature Level I Trauma Center in The Netherlands: Outcomes in a Dutch Mature Level I Trauma Center. World J Surg 37, 2353–2359 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2103-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2103-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation