The Patterns and Quality of Acute Trauma Care in A University Hospital - A 5-year Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: Traumatic injuries contribute to over 5 million fatalities each year and cause a significant burden on healthcare systems' resources and availability. Traumatic injury patterns and a healthcare system's efficiency are critical to predicting patients' outcomes and should be regularly evaluated to deliver optimum care. Objective: The study will present and discuss trauma qualty indicators (TQI's) to display the local practices' opportunities for improvement and analyze patterns of traumatic injuries and outcomes. Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed trauma cases from January 2016 to December 2020, in which patients hospitalized and treated under the trauma unit were included. The collected data included several variables (e.g., demographics, mechanism of injury), and the patients were divided into early/late phase and severe/non-severe cases. Results: In total, there were 2024 cases, 70% were polytraumas with a mean age of 29 years and a male-to-female ratio of 3.8:1. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (55%) while the most common injuries were pneumothorax (18%) and lung contusions (17%). Notably, there was a 3.5-hour reduction in both the time to the operating room and the time to normotension when comparing the early to late phase. The 30-day outcomes for the patients were 90.5% recovery, 2.2% disability, 2.2% transfer, and 5.1% mortality rates. Conclusion: This study emphasizes how crucial trauma quality indicators are to achieve the best outcomes for patients. The results point to improvements in terms of trauma quality indicators and offer insightful information on patterns of traumatic injuries, aiding in the enhancement of trauma care. Thus, the continuous assessment of trauma quality indicators and the implementation of preventive measures are mandatory for the future advancement of trauma care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.