• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.225-232
• /
• 2021

Purpose: Trauma is the top cause of death in people under 45 years of age. Deaths from severe trauma can have a negative economic impact due to the loss of people belonging to socio-economically active age groups. Therefore, efforts to reduce the mortality rate of trauma patients are essential. The purpose of this study was to investigate preventable mortality in trauma patients and to identify factors and healthcare-related challenges affecting mortality. Ultimately, these findings will help to improve the quality of trauma care. Methods: We analyzed the deaths of 411 severe trauma patients who presented to Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center in South Korea from January 2015 to December 2017, using an expert panel review. Results: The preventable death rate of trauma patients treated at the Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center was 8.0%. Of these, definitely preventable deaths comprised 0.5% and potentially preventable deaths 7.5%. The leading cause of death in trauma patients was traumatic brain injury. Treatment errors most commonly occurred in the intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent management error was delayed treatment of bleeding. Conclusions: Most errors in the treatment of trauma patients occurred in early stages of the treatment process and in the ICU. By identifying the main causes of preventable death and errors during the course of treatment, our research will help to reduce the preventable death rate. Appropriate trauma care systems and ongoing education are also needed to reduce preventable deaths from trauma.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2001

The purpose of the present study was to assess the agreement of survival probability estimated by International Classification of Diseases l0th Edition(ICD-10) based International Classification of Diseases based Injury Severity Score(ICISS) with professional panel's judgment on preventable death. ICISS has a promise as an alternative to Trauma and Injury Severity Score(TRISS) which have served as a standard measure of trauma severity, but requires more validation studies. Furthermore as original version of ICISS was based ICD-9CM, it is necessary to test its performance employing ICD-10 which has been used in Korea and is expected to replace ICD-9 in many countries sooner or later. Methods : For 1997 and 1998 131 trauma deaths and 1,785 blunt trauma inpatients from 6 emergency medical centers were randomly sampled and reviewed. Trauma deaths were reviewed by professional panels with hospital records and survival probability of trauma inpatients was assessed using ICD-10 based ICISS. For trauma mortality degree of agreement between ICISS survival probability with judgment of professional panel on preventable death was assessed and correlation between W-score and preventable death rate by each emergency medical center was assessed. Results : Overall agreement rate of ICISS survival probability with preventable death judged by professional panel was 66.4%(kappa statistic 0.36). Spearman's correlation coefficient between W-score and preventable death rate by each emergency medical center was -0.77(p=0.07) and Pearson's correlation coefficient between them was -0.90(p=0.01). Conclusions : The agreement rate of ICD-10 based ICISS survival probability with of professional panel's judgment on preventable death was similar to TRISS. The W-scores of emergency medical centers derived from ICD-10 based ICISS were highly correlated with preventable death rates of them with marginal statistical significance.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.75-82
• /
• 2010

Purpose: In Korea, trauma is the $3^{rd}$ most common cause of death. The trauma treatment system is divided into pre-hospital and hospital stages. Deaths occurring in the pre-hospital stage are 50% of the total death, and 20% of those are deaths that are preventable. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to calculate the preventable death rates caused by trauma in our current pre-hospital system, to analyze the appropriateness of the treatment of traumatized patients and to draw a conclusions about the problems we have. Methods: The study was done on traumatized patients who expired at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009, at the Korea University Medical Centers in Anam, Guro and Ansan. The data on the patients were reviewed retrospectively based on characteristics, conditions on admission and trauma severity. The patient's RTS (revised trauma score) and ISS (injury severity score) was calculated. Preventable death rate was calculated by TRISS (the trauma score-injury severity score). Results: A total of 168 patients were enrolled. All patients were intubated and underwent CPR. Of the total, 72% patients were male, and traffic accidents were the most common form of trauma (52.4%), falls being second (28.6%). Head injury, solitary or multiple, was the most common cause of death (55.4%). Thirty-eight (38, 22.6%) deaths were preventable. The 22.6% preventable death rate consisted of 15.5% potentially preventable and 7.1% definitely preventable deaths. Based on a logistic regression analysis, the relationship between the time intervals until transfusion and imaging and death was statistically significant in the hospital stage. In the pre-hospital stage, transit time from the site of the injury to the hospital showed a significant relationship with the mortality rate. Conclusion: One hundred sixty-eight (168) patients died of trauma at the 3 hospitals of Korea University Medical Center. The TRISS method was used to calculate the preventable death rate, with a result of 22.6%. The only factor that was significant related to the preventable death rate in the pre-hospital stage was the time from injury to hospital arrival, and the time intervals until transfusion and imaging were the two factors that showed significance in the hospital stage. Shortening the time of treatment in the field and transferring the patient to the hospital as quickly as possible is the most important life-saving step in the pre-hospital stage. In the hospital stage, the primary survey, resuscitation and diagnosis should proceed simultaneously.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.126-130
• /
• 2017

Purpose: Preventable Trauma Death Rate (PTDR) using Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been most widely used as a quality indicator in South Korea. However, this method has a small number of deaths corresponding to the denominator. Therefore, it is difficult to check the change of quality improvement for annual mortality, and there is a disadvantage that variation is severe. Therefore, we attempted to improve the quality of the mortality evaluation by reducing the variation by applying the PARK Index (preventable major trauma death rate, PMTDR) which can increase the number of denominator significantly. And the Save score (S-score) was also examined as another quality indicator. Methods: In the PARK Index, the denominator is number of all patients who have survival probability (Ps) larger than 0.25. Numerator is the number of deaths among these. The PARK Index includes only patients with ISS >15. The S-score is calculated in the same way as the W-score, but the S-score includes only patients with ISS >15, which is a difference from the W-score. Results: PARK Index decreased annually and was 12.9 (37/287) in 2014, 9.6 (33/343) in 2015, and 7.3 (52/709) in 2016. S-score increased annually and was -0.29 in 2014, 4.21 in 2015, and 8.75 in 2016. Conclusions: PARK Index and S-score improved annually. This shows that both quality indicators are improving year by year. PARK Index (PMTDR) has 9.5-fold increase in denominator overall compared to PTDR by TRISS. The S-score used only ISS >15 patients as a denominator. Therefore, there is an advantage that the numerical value change is larger than the W-score. In addition, S-score is not affected by the ratio of major trauma patients to minor trauma patients.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.42-46
• /
• 2013

Objective : Despite several limitations, the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) is normally used to evaluate trauma systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventable trauma death rate using the TRISS method in severe trauma patients with traumatic brain injury using our emergency department data. Methods : The use of the TRISS formula has been suggested to consider definitively preventable death (DP); the deaths occurred with a probability of survival (Ps) higher than 0.50 and possible preventable death (PP); the deaths occurred with a Ps between 0.50 and 0.25. Deaths in patients with a calculated Ps of less than 0.25 is considered as non-preventable death (NP). A retrospective case review of deaths attributed to mechanical trauma occurring between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 was conducted. Results : A total of 565 consecutive severe trauma patients with ISS>15 or Revised Trauma Score<7 were admitted in our institute. We excluded a total of 24 patients from our analysis : 22 patients younger than 15 years, and 2 patients with burned injury. Of these, 221 patients with head injury were analyzed in the final study. One hundred eighty-two patients were in DP, 13 in PP and 24 in NP. The calculated predicted mortality rates were 11.13%, 59.04%, and 90.09%. The actual mortality rates were 12.64%, 61.547%, and 91.67%, respectively. Conclusion : Although it needs to make some improvements, the present study showed that TRISS performed well in predicting survival of traumatic brain injured patients. Also, TRISS is relatively exact and acceptable compared with actual data, as a simple and time-saving method.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.115-122
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To calculate Preventable Trauma Death Rate (PTDR), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) is the most utilized evaluation index of the trauma centers in South Korea. However, this method may have greater variation due to the small number of the denominator in each trauma center. Therefore, we would like to develop new indicators that can be used easily on quality improvement activities by increasing the denominator. Methods: The medical records of 1005 major trauma (ISS >15) patients who visited 2 regional trauma center (A center and B center) in 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. PTDR and PARK Index (Preventable Major Trauma Death Rate, PMTDR) were calculated in 731 patients with inclusion criteria. We invented PARK Index to minimize the variation of preventability of trauma death. In PTDR the denominator is all number of deaths, and in PARK Index the denominator is number of all patients who have survival probability (Ps) larger than 0.25. Numerator is the number of deaths from patients who have Ps larger than 0.25. Results: The size of denominator was 40 in A center, 49 in B center, and overall 89 in PTDR. The size of denominator was significantly increased, and 287 (7.2-fold) in A center, 422 (8.6-fold) in B center, and overall 709 (8.0-fold) in PARK Index. PARK Index was 12.9% in A center, 8.3% in B center, and overall 10.2%. Conclusion: PARK Index is calculated as a rate of mortality from all major trauma patients who have Ps larger than 0.25. PARK Index obtain an effect that denominator is increased 8.0-fold than PTDR. Therefore PARK Index is able to compensate for greater disadvantage of PTDR. PARK Index is expected to be helpful in implementing evaluation of mortality outcome and to be a new index that can be applied to a trauma center quality improvement activity.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.62 no.2
• /
• pp.232-242
• /
• 2019

Objective : To investigate the effects of trauma center establishment on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of trauma patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods : We enrolled 322 patients with severe trauma and TBI from January 2015 to December 2016. Clinical factors, indexes, and outcomes were compared before and after trauma center establishment (September 2015). The outcome was the Glasgow outcome scale classification at 3 months post-trauma. Results : Of the 322 patients, 120 (37.3%) and 202 (62.7%) were admitted before and after trauma center establishment, respectively. The two groups were significantly different in age (p=0.038), the trauma location within the city (p=0.010), the proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (p=0.001), and the emergency room stay time (p<0.001). Mortality occurred in 37 patients (11.5%). Although the preventable death rate decreased from before to after center establishment (23.1% vs. 12.5%), the difference was not significant. None of the clinical factors, indexes, or outcomes were different from before to after center establishment for patients with severe TBI (Glasgow coma scale score ${\leq}8$). However, the proportion of inter-hospital transfers increased and the time to emergency room arrival was longer in both the entire cohort and patients with severe TBI after versus before trauma center establishment. Conclusion : We confirmed that for patients with severe trauma and TBI, establishing a trauma center increased the proportion of ICU admissions and decreased the emergency room stay time and preventable death rate. However, management strategies for handling the high proportion of inter-hospital transfers and long times to emergency room arrival will be necessary.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.165-169
• /
• 2014

Purpose: Trauma is one of the most common and lethal causes of death in Korea, especially in people under the age of 40. However, a considerable percentage of trauma patients are lost each year due to the scarce resources of the trauma system. The purpose of this study was to determine the recognition of trauma and trauma system. Methods: From April 8th to 22nd, 2014, visitors and in-patients in our medical center were interviewed and surveyed with a questionnaire, which included 28 questions regarding the trauma system, such as the most common cause of death, the locations of trauma centers, the importance of trauma centers, and consent for supporting trauma centers financially. Results: The majority of the respondents recognized trauma as a common cause of death; this was particularly true for people younger than 40. Most respondents' expectancy for the optimal time for trauma patient transport was high, recognizing that major trauma patients should receive urgent care. The respondents felt that trauma centers are important and needed, just as much as police stations and libraries are. Among 178 respondents, 140 (80.5%) were willing to financially support the trauma system. Conclusion: The respondents were aware of the seriousness of trauma and generally agreed on the need for trauma centers. In order to meet the needs and the demands of the people, and to reduce preventable death rate, the trauma system should be improved not only in quality but also in quantity with better and more facilities and manpower, with the aid of publicity from trauma organizations and funding from the government.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.399-408
• /
• 2021

The emergency medical service system in Korea was built upon the Emergency Medical Service Act, 1995 to respond adequately to be much in demand for emergency medical services. In addition, the government recognized the importance of the trauma care system and set out to plan for the designation and establishment of the regional trauma center by 2012. This study aimed to investigate features of quality management and trauma fee schedule on better understanding of trauma care system. First, quality management of the regional trauma center has been implemented by several quality programs involved in quality assessment, committee on trauma quality management, and mortality and morbidity conference. Second, the trauma fee schedule has reflected a specific quality of severe traumatic conditions and added the result to it, which are graded A, B, and C according to quality assessment. Although the government has contributed to instituting a trauma quality assessment program and trauma fee schedule for the regional trauma center, it could not lead to such a fixed standard for quality management of them. Therefore, it will promote discussion on the sustainability of the regional trauma center that requires reducing preventable trauma death rate and the way to apply comprehensive quality management.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.10a
• /
• pp.370-370
• /
• 2005