Mass Casualty Incident Management Preparedness: A Survey of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. 1227-1231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Lewis ◽  
Salvador Sordo ◽  
Leonard J. Weireter ◽  
Michelle A. Price ◽  
Leopoldo Cancio ◽  
...  

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are events resulting in more injured patients than hospital systems can handle with standard protocols. Several studies have assessed hospital preparedness during MCIs. However, physicians and trauma surgeons need to be familiar with their hospital's MCI Plan. The purpose of this survey was to assess hospitals’ and trauma surgeon's preparedness for MCIs. Online surveys were e-mailed to members of the American College of Surgeons committee on Trauma Ad Hoc Committee on Disaster and Mass Casualty Management before the March 2012 meeting. Eighty surveys were analyzed (of 258). About 76 per cent were American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers, 18 per cent were Level II trauma centers. Fifty-seven per cent of Level I and 21 per cent of Level II trauma centers had experienced an MCI. A total of 98 per cent of respondents thought it was likely their hospital would see a future MCI. Severe weather storm was the most likely event (95%), followed by public transportation incident (86%), then explosion (85%). About 83 per cent of hospitals had mechanisms to request additional physician/surgeons, and 80 per cent reported plans for operative triage. The majority of trauma surgeons felt prepared for an MCI and believed an event was likely to occur in the future. The survey was limited by the highly select group of respondents and future surveys will be necessary.

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482096629
Author(s):  
Ali Farhat ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Ahmed Farhat ◽  
Theresa L. Chin ◽  
Megan Donnelly ◽  
...  

Background While the benefit of admission to trauma centers compared to non-trauma centers is well-documented and differences in outcomes between Level-I and Level-II trauma centers are well-studied, data on the differences in outcomes between Level-II trauma centers (L2TCs) and Level-III trauma centers (L3TCs) are scarce. Objectives We sought to compare mortality risk between patients admitted to L2TCs and L3TCs, hypothesizing no difference in mortality risk for patients treated at L3TCs compared to L2TCs. Methods A retrospective analysis of the 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was performed. Patients aged 18+ years were divided into 2 groups, those treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified L2TCs and L3TCs. Results From 74,486 patients included in this study, 74,187 (99.6%) were treated at L2TCs and 299 (.4%) at L3TCs. Both groups had similar median injury severity scores (ISSs) (10 vs 10, P < .001); however, L2TCs had a higher mean ISS (14.6 vs 11.9). There was a higher mortality rate for L2TC patients (6.0% vs 1.7%, P = .002) but no difference in associated risk of mortality between the 2 groups (OR .46, CI .14-1.50, P = .199) after adjusting predictors of mortality. L2TC patients had a longer median length of stay (5.0 vs 3.5 days, P < .001). There was no difference in other outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) ( P > .05). Discussion Patients treated at L2TCs had a longer LOS compared to L3TCs. However, after controlling for covariates, there was no difference in associated mortality risk between L2TC and L3TC patients.


2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Romundstad ◽  
Knut Ole Sundnes ◽  
Johan Pillgram-Larsen ◽  
Geir K. Røste ◽  
Mads Gilbert

AbstractDuring a military exercise in northern Norway in March 2000, the snowladen roof of a command center collapsed with 76 persons inside. Twentyfive persons were entrapped and/or buried under snow masses. There were three deaths. Seven patients had serious injuries, three had moderate injuries, and 16 had minor injuries.A military Convalescence Camp that had been set up in a Sports Hall 125 meters from the scene was reorganized as a causality clearing station. Officers from the Convalescence Camp initially organized search and rescue. In all, 417 persons took part in the rescue work with 36 ambulances, 17 helicopters, three ambulance airplanes and one transport plane available. Two ambulances, five helicopters and one transport aircraft were used. Four patients were evacuated to a civilian hospital and six to a field hospital.The stretcher and treatment teams initially could have been more effectively organized. As resources were ample, this was a mass casualty, not a disaster. Firm incident command prevented the influx of excess resources.


2008 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Horton ◽  
Kent J. Dezee ◽  
Michel Wagner

Much excitement has been generated regarding the off label use of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in the severely injured trauma patient. The purpose of our study is 3-fold: 1) describe the type of centers that use rFVIIa, 2) determine which centers use the drug more frequently, and finally 3) investigate how this drug is being administered at trauma centers. A survey was mailed or e-mailed to 435 trauma centers (Level I and II) throughout the nation. One hundred fifty-six surveys were returned. American College of Surgeons (ACS) verification and trauma Level I designation were independent predictors of rFVIIa use (odds ratio [OR] 3.74 and 5.40, P < 0.05). High users of rFVIIa were defined as those centers that had above median usage of the drug. Level I centers accounted for 67 per cent of the high users. Only the number of fellowship-trained trauma surgeons and trauma volume predicted high usage of rFVIIa (OR 1.38 and 14.09, P < 0.05). Trauma volume predicted whether or not Factor VII users implemented a protocol based approach to administration of the drug (OR 6.57, P < 0.05). Most protocols incorporated packed red blood cells (74%) before giving rFVIIa. The dose of 90 mcg/kg was exceeded in 34 per cent of centers, and 3 per cent used the 200 mcg/kg dose. High volume Level I trauma centers use rFVIIa more frequently and are more likely to use a systematic approach to its administration. However, there is no standardized approach to rFVIIa administration in United States trauma centers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
Eric O. Yeates ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Sebastian D. Schubl ◽  
Catherine M. Kuza ◽  
Victor Joe ◽  
...  

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Because of concerns of worsening intracranial hemorrhage, clinicians are hesitant to start VTE chemoprophylaxis in this population. We hypothesized that ACS Level I trauma centers would be more aggressive with VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with severe TBI than Level II centers. We also predicted that Level I centers would have a lower risk of VTE. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) database for patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4 and 5 of the head and compared them based on treating the hospital trauma level. Of 204,895 patients with severe TBI, 143,818 (70.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 61,077 (29.8%) at Level II centers. The Level I cohort had a higher rate of VTE chemoprophylaxis use (43.2% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001) and a shorter median time to chemoprophylaxis (61.9 vs 85.9 hours, P < 0.001). Although Level I trauma centers started VTE chemoprophylaxis more often and earlier than Level II centers, there was no difference in the risk of VTE ( P = 0.414) after controlling for covariates. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the timing, safety, and efficacy of early VTE chemoprophylaxis in severe TBI patients.


Author(s):  
Wendy Y. Rockne ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Ashton Christian ◽  
Jeffry Nahmias ◽  
Michael Lekawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Level Ii ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 722-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bellal Joseph ◽  
Asad Azim ◽  
Terence O’Keeffe ◽  
Kareem Ibraheem ◽  
Narong Kulvatunyou ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Craig D. Newgard ◽  
Richard J. Mullins ◽  
Melanie Arthur ◽  
Jerris R. Hedges

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahid Shafi ◽  
Sunni Barnes ◽  
Chul Ahn ◽  
Mark R. Hemilla ◽  
H. Gill Cryer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Level Ii ◽  

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith W. Neely ◽  
Robert L. Norton ◽  
Ed Bartkus ◽  
John A. Schiver

AbstractHypothesis:Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH).Methods:A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiogaphy (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry.Results:With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p<.01).Conclusions:In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability analysis can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.


2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110335
Author(s):  
Aryan Haratian ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Karan Rajalingam ◽  
Matthew Dolich ◽  
Sebastian Schubl ◽  
...  

Introduction An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers. Methods The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed. Results 970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05). Conclusion While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document