J. M. Wohlgemut1, J. Davies2, C. Aylwin2, J. J. Morrison3, E. Cole4, N. Batrick2, S. I. Brundage4, J. O. Jansen5 1Aberdeen Royal Infirmary,Department Of Surgery,Aberdeen, SCOTLAND, United Kingdom 2Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust,St Mary’s Hospital, North West London Trauma Network,London, ENGLAND, United Kingdom 3University Of Maryland,R Adam Cowley Shock Trauma Center,Baltimore, MD, USA 4Queen Mary University Of London,Centre For Trauma Sciences, Blizard Institute,London, ENGLAND, United Kingdom 5University Of Alabama at Birmingham,Division Of Acute Care Surgery, Department Of Surgery,Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Introduction:
Inclusive trauma systems have been shown to improve survival compared to exclusive systems. Metrics exist to assess and validate trauma system outcomes; however, these are clinically focused and do not evaluate the appropriateness of admission patterns, relative to geography and triage category. This is an important consideration in system performance, as the referral of triage negative, non-severely injured patients to a higher echelon of care can overwhelm capability and dilute clinical experience. We propose to term this phenomenon “functional inclusivity” and to define it as the proportion of triage negative, non-severely injured patients, who were injured in proximity to a Level II/III trauma center but were admitted to a Level I facility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of this metric in the context of the Northwest London Trauma Network.
Methods:
Retrospective, geospatial, observational analysis of registry data from the Northwest London Trauma Network. We included all adult (≥16 years) patients who were transported by road directly from the scene to the Level I trauma center between 1/1/13 – 31/12/16. Incident location data were geocoded into longitude/ latitude, and drive-times were calculated from each incident location to each hospital in London’s Trauma System, using Google Maps and R. We determined the number and proportion of non-severely injured patients and triage-negative patients, who were injured in closer proximity to a Level II/III but taken to the Level I. We evaluated changes in these metrics over time.
Results:
Of 2051 patients, 907 (44%) were severely injured (ISS ≥15), and 1144 (56%) non-severely injured (ISS 1-15). 795 of the 1144 non-severely injured patients (69%) were injured in closer proximity to a Level II/III than the Level I, but nevertheless taken to the Level I. Similarly, 488 patients were triage-negative, and 229 (47%) of these were injured in closer proximity to a Level II/III than the Level I, but nevertheless taken to the Level I. Patient volume increased over time, from 23 to 85 severely injured patients, and 25 to 85 non-severely injured patients per quarter. However, although the number of non-severely injured and triage-negative patients also increased over time, the corresponding proportions have remained the same.
Conclusion:
This study has demonstrated the potential value of the concept of functional inclusivity in characterising trauma system performance. Further work is required to establish what constitutes an acceptable level of functional inclusivity, and what the denominator should be. The Northwest London Trauma Network is a maturing system. Though the overall number of trauma patients increased over the study period, system exclusivity is not increasing. Future research should focus on validating and further evaluating the concept of functional inclusivity across the London Trauma System as a whole, and in other settings.