Review of the requirements for effective mass casualty preparedness for trauma systems. A disaster waiting to happen?

Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.

The terrorist bombings in London on July 7, 2005, produced the largest mass casualty event in the UK since World War 2. The aim of this study was to analyse the prehospital and in-hospital response to the incident and identify system processes that optimise resource use and reduce critical mortality. This study was a retrospective analysis of the London-wide prehospital response and the in-hospital response of one academic trauma centre. Data for injuries, outcome, triage, patient flow, and resource use were obtained by the review of emergency services and hospital records. There were 775 casualties and 56 deaths, 53 at scene. 55 patients were triaged to priority dispatch and 20 patients were critically injured. Critical mortality was low at 15% and not due to poor availability of resources. Over-triage rates were reduced where advanced prehospital teams did initial scene triage. The Royal London Hospital received 194 casualties, 27 arrived as seriously injured. Maximum surge rate was 18 seriously injured patients per hour and resuscitation room capacity was reached within 15 min. 17 patients needed surgery and 264 units of blood products were used in the first 15 h, close to the hospital's routine daily blood use. Critical mortality was reduced by rapid advanced major incident management and seems unrelated to over-triage. Hospital surge capacity can be maintained by repeated effective triage and implementing a hospital-wide damage control philosophy, keeping investigations to a minimum, and transferring patients rapidly to definitive care.

Background Trauma care in England was re-organised in 2012 with ambulance bypass of local hospitals to newly designated Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). There is still controversy about the optimal way to organise health series for patients suffering severe injury. Methods A longitudinal series of annual cross-sectional studies of care process and outcomes from April 2008 to March 2017. Data was collected through the national clinical audit of major trauma care. The primary analysis was carried out on the 110,863 patients admitted to 35 hospitals that were ‘consistent submitters’ throughout the study period. The main outcome was longitudinal analysis of risk adjusted survival. Findings Major Trauma networks were associated with significant changes in (1) patient flow (with increased numbers treated in Major Trauma Centres), (2) treatment systems (more consultant led care and more rapid imaging), (3) patient factors (an increase in older trauma), and (4) clinical care (new massive transfusion policies and use of tranexamic acid). There were 10,247 (9.2%) deaths in the 110,863 patients with an ISS of 9 or more. There were no changes in unadjusted mortality. The analysis of trends in risk adjusted survival for study hospitals shows a 19% (95% CI 3%–36%) increase in the case mix adjusted odds of survival from severe injury over the 9-year study period. Interrupted time series analysis showed a significant positive change in the slope after the intervention time point of April 2012 (+ 0.08% excess survivors per quarter, p = 0.023), in other words an increase of 0.08 more survivors per 100 patients every quarter. Interpretation A whole system national change was associated with significant improvements in both the care process and outcomes of patients after severe injury. Funding This analysis was carried out independently and did not receive funding. The data collection for the national clinical audit was funded by subscriptions from participating hospitals.