Assessment of Emergency Care in Trauma Patients
There are many reasons for evaluation of an emergency care system, such as expenses (1.035 Bio. DM in 1985) and quality control.
From January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1987 information on all patients seen by an emergency physician in the field have been recorded prospectively in a standard form by the Cologne emergency medical services. Cologne has 1,000,000 inhabitants and covers an area of 405 km2.
The patients’ status, diagnosis and therapeutic interventions were recorded. Trauma patients were further assessed as to time of accident, cause of accident, and trauma score. All trauma patients with a trauma score < 16 were followed up to their discharge from the hospital.
In 1987, 2,073 trauma patients were treated. Overall mortality at the time of discharge was 9.2%. This result alone, however, is not sufficient for assessment of the trauma system. It is important to provide better information on the patient. The trauma evaluation score already used in the US became also a valid instrument in West-Germany. It shows a high correlation between survival and the patients’ physiological status in the field. Standard curves could be established for comparing individual or regional trauma systems.
KeywordsHead injury emergency care system trauma evaluation score quality assessment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bouillon B,Gail HE, Huber J, Klingshirn H,Korbmann H, Kühner R, Raftopoulo A (August 1987) Ansatzpunkte für For schungsarbeiten zumRettungswesen. Projektgruppenbericht der Bundesanstalt fur Straßenwesen, Bereich UnfallforschungGoogle Scholar
- 3.BouillonB, Hirschel V, Imig R, Tiling T, Troidl H (1989) Lebensqualität — Kriterium in der Behandlungsstrategie Schwerstverletzter.Langenbecks Arch Chir [Suppl] II: 117–122Google Scholar
- 5.Bundesamt fur Statistik, Wiesbaden, 1986Google Scholar
- 7.NationalAcademy of Science/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) (1966) Accidental death and disability -the neglected disease of modern society. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 8.Seefelder C, Matzek N, Rossi R (1988) Polytrauma-Bewertungsskalen.Notfallmedizin14: 227–236,317–329Google Scholar
- 13.TscherneH, Regel G, Sturm JA, Friedl HP (1987) Schweregrad und Prioritäten beiMehrfachverletzungen. Chirurg 58: 631 – 640Google Scholar
- 14.Van Wagoner FH (1961) Died in hospital: a three-year study of deathsfollowing trauma. J Trauma 1: 184Google Scholar