Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
State Trauma Registry (state + trauma_registry)
Selected AbstractsThe Validity of Using Multiple Imputation for Missing Out-of-hospital Data in a State Trauma RegistryACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 3 2006Craig D. Newgard MD Objectives: To assess 1) the agreement of multiply imputed out-of-hospital values previously missing in a state trauma registry compared with known ambulance values and 2) the potential impact of using multiple imputation versus a commonly used method for handling missing data (i.e., complete case analysis) in a typical multivariable injury analysis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. Multiply imputed out-of-hospital data from 1998 to 2003 for four variables (intubation attempt, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate) were compared with known values from probabilistically linked ambulance records using measures of agreement (,, weighted ,, and Bland,Altman plots). Ambulance values were assumed to represent the "true" values for all analyses. A hypothetical multivariable regression model was used to demonstrate the impact (i.e., bias and precision of model results) of handling missing out-of-hospital data with multiple imputation versus complete case analysis. Results: A total of 6,150 matched ambulance and trauma registry records were available for comparison. Multiply imputed values for the four out-of-hospital variables demonstrated fair to good agreement with known ambulance values. When included in typical multivariable analyses, multiple imputation increased precision and reduced bias compared with using complete case analysis for the same data set. Conclusions: Multiply imputed out-of-hospital values for intubation attempt, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate have fair to good agreement with known ambulance values. Multiple imputation also increased precision and reduced bias compared with complete case analysis in a typical multivariable injury model, and it should be considered for studies using out-of-hospital data from a trauma registry, particularly when substantial portions of data are missing. [source] Motorcycle-related major trauma: On-road versus off-road incidence and profile of casesEMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, Issue 5 2010Antonina Mikocka-Walus Abstract Objective: To describe and compare the incidence and profile of on- and off-road motorcycle-related major trauma (including death) cases across a statewide population. Methods: A review of prospectively collected data on adult, motorcycle-related major trauma cases from 2001 to 2008 was conducted. Major trauma survivors were identified from the population-based Victorian State Trauma Registry, and deaths were extracted from the National Coroners Information System. Poisson regression was used to test for increasing incidence using two measures of exposure: population of Victoria aged ,16 years, and registered motorcycles. Results: There were 1157 major trauma survivors and 344 deaths with motorcycle-related injuries over the study period. There was no change in the incidence of motorcycle-related major trauma (both survivors plus deaths) (Incident Rate ratio [IRR]= 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94,1.37) over the study period. Similarly, there was no change over time in the incidence of on-road motorcycle-related injury (survivors plus deaths) per 100 000 population (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.84,1.27). However, the incidence of off-road motorcycle-related injury (survivors plus deaths) increased over the study period (IRR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.10,2.60). Among survivors and deaths, 882 (76%) and 301 (87.5%) cases, respectively, occurred on road. Conclusions: Off-road motorcycle-related major trauma has increased and this has not been targeted in injury prevention campaigns in Australia. The incidence of on-road motorcycle-related death in adults has decreased. Preventive strategies to address on-road injuries have been enforced and these are expected to lead to further reduction of on-road motorcycle crashes in the future. [source] Epidemiology of major paediatric chest traumaJOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH, Issue 11 2009Sumudu P Samarasekera Aim: Paediatric chest trauma is a marker of severe injury and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. However, current trends in the Australian population are unknown. This study aims to outline the profile and management of major paediatric chest trauma in Victoria. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients from the Victorian State Trauma Registry from July 2001 to June 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on fatalities were obtained from the National Coroners Information System. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the profiles of major trauma cases and coroners' cases. Results: Overall, 204 cases with serious paediatric chest injuries were reported by the Victorian State Trauma Registry (n = 158) and National Coroners Information System (n = 46) (excluding overlapping cases) in 2001,2007. Paediatric chest trauma was more common in males. The Injury Severity Score ranged from 16 to 25 in most patients. Blunt trauma was responsible for 96% of cases, of which motor vehicle collisions accounted for 75%. Median hospitalisation was 9 days, and 64% of patients were admitted to intensive care. Common injuries included lung contusion (66%), haemo/pneumothorax (32%) and rib fracture (23%). Multiple organ injury occurred in 99% of cases, with head (62%) and abdominal (50%) injury common. Management was conservative, with only 11 cases (7%) treated surgically. The highest mortality was in the 10,15-year age group. In 52 (79%) fatalities, injury was transport related. Conclusion: Australian paediatric chest trauma trends are similar to international patterns. Serious injury requiring surgical intervention is rare. This limited exposure may lead to difficulty in maintaining surgical expertise in this highly specialised area. [source] Management of spleen injuries: the current profileANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 3 2010Antonina Mikocka-Walus Abstract Background:, There has been a shift from operative to conservative management of splenic injuries in the last two decades, but the current practice in Australia is not known. This study aims to determine the profile of splenic injury in major trauma victims and the approach to treatment in Victoria for the last 2 years. Methods:, A review of prospectively collected data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) from July 2005 to June 2007 was conducted. Demographic data, details of the event, clinical observations, management and associated outcomes were extracted from the database. The patients were categorized into four groups according to management (conservative, splenectomy, embolization and repair) and were compared accordingly. Multivariate binary logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of treatment (conservative versus splenectomy) on arrival. Results:, Of the 318 major trauma patients with splenic injuries, 186 (59%) were treated conservatively, 103 (32%) with splenectomy, 17 (5%) with arterial embolization and 12 (4%) with repair. Of these, 14 (14%) splenectomy cases and 2 (12%) embolization cases did not receive their respective treatments within 24 h. The severity of the spleen injury (as measured by the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)) and age were identified as significant independent predictors of the form of treatment provided. Conclusion:, In Victoria, conservative management is the preferred approach in patients with minor (AIS = 2) to moderate (AIS = 3) splenic injuries. The low rates of embolization warrant further research into whether splenectomy is overused. [source] The Validity of Using Multiple Imputation for Missing Out-of-hospital Data in a State Trauma RegistryACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 3 2006Craig D. Newgard MD Objectives: To assess 1) the agreement of multiply imputed out-of-hospital values previously missing in a state trauma registry compared with known ambulance values and 2) the potential impact of using multiple imputation versus a commonly used method for handling missing data (i.e., complete case analysis) in a typical multivariable injury analysis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. Multiply imputed out-of-hospital data from 1998 to 2003 for four variables (intubation attempt, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate) were compared with known values from probabilistically linked ambulance records using measures of agreement (,, weighted ,, and Bland,Altman plots). Ambulance values were assumed to represent the "true" values for all analyses. A hypothetical multivariable regression model was used to demonstrate the impact (i.e., bias and precision of model results) of handling missing out-of-hospital data with multiple imputation versus complete case analysis. Results: A total of 6,150 matched ambulance and trauma registry records were available for comparison. Multiply imputed values for the four out-of-hospital variables demonstrated fair to good agreement with known ambulance values. When included in typical multivariable analyses, multiple imputation increased precision and reduced bias compared with using complete case analysis for the same data set. Conclusions: Multiply imputed out-of-hospital values for intubation attempt, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate have fair to good agreement with known ambulance values. Multiple imputation also increased precision and reduced bias compared with complete case analysis in a typical multivariable injury model, and it should be considered for studies using out-of-hospital data from a trauma registry, particularly when substantial portions of data are missing. [source] Are All Trauma Centers Created Equally?ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 7 2010A Statewide Analysis ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:701,708 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives:, Prior work has shown differences in mortality at different levels of trauma centers (TCs). There are limited data comparing mortality of equivalently verified TCs. This study sought to assess the potential differences in mortality as well as discharge destination (discharge to home vs. to a rehabilitation center or skilled nursing facility) across Level I TCs in the state of Ohio. Methods:, This was a retrospective, multicenter, statewide analysis of a state trauma registry of American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified Level I TCs from 2003 to 2006. All adult (>15 years) patients transferred from the scene to one of the 10 Level I TCs throughout the state were included (n = 16,849). Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to assess for differences in mortality, keeping each TC as a fixed-effect term and adjusting for patient demographics, injury severity, mechanism of injury, and emergency medical services and emergency department procedures. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and discharge destination (home vs. rehabilitation center or skilled nursing facility). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each TC were also calculated. Results:, Considerable variability existed in unadjusted mortality between the centers, from 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.7% to 3.9%) to 24.2% (95% CI = 24.1% to 24.3%), despite similar patient characteristics and injury severity. Adjusted mortality had similar variability as well, ranging from an OR of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.47 to 1.84) to an OR of 6.02 (95% CI= 3.70 to 9.79). Similar results were seen with the secondary outcomes (discharge destination). Conclusions:, There is considerable variability in the mortality of injured patients at Level I TCs in the state of Ohio. The patient differences or care processes responsible for this variation should be explored. [source] | ||||||||||