An Evaluation of a Proactive Geriatric Trauma Consultation Service
*Department of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada †Division of Trauma, St. Michael's Hospital ‡Department of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital §Division of Geriatric Medicine, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital ‖Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Annals of surgery (Impact Factor: 8.33). 10/2012; 256(6). DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318270f27a
OBJECTIVE:: To describe and evaluate an inpatient geriatric trauma consultation service (GTCS). BACKGROUND:: Delays in recognizing the special needs of older trauma patients may result in suboptimal care. The GTCS is a proactive geriatric consultation model aimed at preventing and managing age-specific complications and discharge planning for all patients 60 years or older admitted to the St Michael's Hospital Trauma Service. METHODS:: This was a before and after case series of patients admitted pre-GTCS (March 2005-August 2007) and post-GTCS (September 2007-March 2010). Study data were derived from a review of the medical records and from the St Michael's Hospital trauma registry. Abstracted data included demographics, type of geriatric issues addressed, rate of adherence to recommendations made by the GTCS, geriatric-specific clinical outcomes, trauma quality indicators, consultation requests, and discharge destinations. RESULTS:: A total of 238 pre-GTCS patients and 248 post-GTCS patients were identified. The rate of adherence to recommendations made by the GTCS team was 93.2%. There were fewer consultation requests made to Internal Medicine and Psychiatry in the post-GTCS group (N = 31 vs N = 18, P = 0.04; and N = 33 vs N = 18, P = 0.02; respectively). There were no differences in any of the prespecified complications except delirium (50.5% pre-GTCS vs 40.9% post- GTCS, P = 0.05). Among patients admitted from home, fewer were discharged to long-term care facilities among the post-GTCS group (6.5% pre-GTCS vs 1.7% post-GTCS, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:: A proactive geriatric consultation model for elderly trauma patients may decrease delirium and discharges to long-term care facilities. Future studies should include a multicenter randomized trial of this model of care.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE In trauma populations, improvements in outcome are documented in institutions with higher case volumes. However, it is not known whether improved outcomes are attributable to the case volume within specific higher-risk groups, such as the elderly, or to the case volume among all trauma patients treated by an institution. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that outcomes of trauma care for geriatric patients are affected differently by the volume of geriatric cases and nongeriatric cases of an institution. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective cohort study using a statewide trauma registry was set in state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers in Pennsylvania. It included 39 431 eligible geriatric trauma patients (aged >65 years) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality, major complications, and mortality after major complications (failure to rescue). RESULTS Between 2001 and 2010, 39 431 geriatric trauma patients and 105 046 nongeriatric patients were captured in a review of outcomes in 20 state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers. Larger volumes of geriatric trauma patients were significantly associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue. In contrast, larger nongeriatric trauma volumes were significantly associated with higher odds of major complications in geriatric patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Higher rates of in-hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue were associated with lower volumes of geriatric trauma care and paradoxically with higher volumes of trauma care for younger patients. These findings offer the possibility that outcomes might be improved with differentiated pathways of care for geriatric trauma patients.JAMA SURGERY 01/2014; 149(4). DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4834 · 3.94 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Care in a trauma centre is associated with significant reductions in mortality after severe injury. However, emerging evidence suggests that outcomes across similarly accredited trauma centres are not equivalent, even after adjusting for case-mix. The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate secular trends in overall mortality at trauma centres. Secondarily, we explored trauma centre-specific mortality to determine the extent of variation between centres. Methods: Data on 26 421 adults (≥□18 yr) admitted to a trauma centre between 2005 and 2011 were derived from the Ontario Trauma Registry. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate in-hospital mortality over time and hierarchical models to estimate trauma-centre-specific mortality. To quantify variability between centres, we calculated median odds ratios. Adjusted odds of death were calculated for each trauma centre to identify those with higher than expected, average and lower than expected mortality. Results: Overall mortality at trauma centres decreased from 13.2% in 2005 to 11.2% in 2009. After adjusting for case mix, the odds of death decreased by approximately 3% a year (95% confidence interval 0%-5%). Trauma centre-specific mortality ranged from 11.4% to 13.1%. After adjusting for case mix, differences in trauma centre-specific mortality were observed (median odds ratio = 1.25), suggesting that the odds of dying could be 1.25-fold greater if the same patient was admitted to 1 randomly selected trauma centre as opposed to another. Differences were most pronounced for patients with isolated head injuries and among older patients as evidenced by higher median odds ratios and the number of outliers. Interpretation: We observed a significant improvement over time in the mortality of severely injured patients cared for at Ontario's trauma centres. However, considerable differences in trauma centre-specific mortality were observed. Differences were most pronounced among older injured patients and those with isolated traumatic brain injury. System-wide performance improvement initiatives should target these subgroups.07/2014; 2(3):E176-82. DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20140007
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We performed a population-based evaluation of age-related trends in severe injury hospitalization across Canada. METHODS: We identified hospitalizations following severe injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS] 9 15) between 2002 and 2009 using the Canadian National Trauma Registry. Age-standardized severe injury hospitalization rates were calculated using the direct method referencing the 2006 Canadian population. The annual percent change in hospitalization rates were estimated using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: During the 8-year period, hospitalization rates for severe injury rose by 22% among individuals 65 years or older, compared with 10% among individuals younger than 65 years. Fall-related injuries accounted for 46% of all severe injury hospitalizations and increased by an average of 3% annually, with a twofold higher annual rate of increase among the elderly. Case-fatality rates declined by 10%, with the decline more than threefold higher among younger patients. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients accounted for an increasing proportion of hospitalizations, highlighting important opportunities for injury prevention among this age group. Case-fatality rates, while declining among younger patients, remained stable in the elderly population, suggesting the need for better strategies to manage the complex care needs of these patients. Copyright (C) 2014 by Lippincott Williams & WilkinsJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 10/2014; 77(4):608-613. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000412 · 2.74 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.