Severe trauma in Germany and Israel: are we speaking the same language? A trauma registry comparison.
Germany
Israel
trauma
trauma care quality
trauma registry comparison
trauma registry system
Journal
Frontiers in public health
ISSN: 2296-2565
Titre abrégé: Front Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101616579
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
02
01
2023
accepted:
04
04
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
18
5
2023
entrez:
18
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Trauma registries are a crucial component of trauma systems, as they could be utilized to perform a benchmarking of quality of care and enable research in a critical but important area of health care. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two national trauma systems: Germany (TraumaRegister DGU®, TR-DGU) and Israel (Israeli National Trauma Registry, INTR). The present study was a retrospective analysis of data from the described above trauma registries in Israel and Germany. Adult patients from both registries treated during 2015-2019 with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 points were included. Patient demographics, type, distribution, mechanism, and severity of injury, treatment delivered and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and in the hospital were included in the analysis. Data were available from 12,585 Israeli patients and 55,660 German patients. Age and sex distribution were comparable, and road traffic collisions were the most prevalent cause of injuries. The ISS of German patients was higher (ISS 24 vs. 20), more patients were treated on an intensive care unit (92 vs. 32%), and mortality was higher (19.4 vs. 9.5%) as well. Despite similar inclusion criteria (ISS ≥ 16), remarkable differences between the two national datasets were observed. Most probably, this was caused by different recruitment strategies of both registries, like trauma team activation and need for intensive care in TR-DGU. More detailed analyses are needed to uncover similarities and differences of both trauma systems.
Sections du résumé
Background
Trauma registries are a crucial component of trauma systems, as they could be utilized to perform a benchmarking of quality of care and enable research in a critical but important area of health care. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two national trauma systems: Germany (TraumaRegister DGU®, TR-DGU) and Israel (Israeli National Trauma Registry, INTR).
Methods
The present study was a retrospective analysis of data from the described above trauma registries in Israel and Germany. Adult patients from both registries treated during 2015-2019 with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 points were included. Patient demographics, type, distribution, mechanism, and severity of injury, treatment delivered and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and in the hospital were included in the analysis.
Results
Data were available from 12,585 Israeli patients and 55,660 German patients. Age and sex distribution were comparable, and road traffic collisions were the most prevalent cause of injuries. The ISS of German patients was higher (ISS 24 vs. 20), more patients were treated on an intensive care unit (92 vs. 32%), and mortality was higher (19.4 vs. 9.5%) as well.
Conclusion
Despite similar inclusion criteria (ISS ≥ 16), remarkable differences between the two national datasets were observed. Most probably, this was caused by different recruitment strategies of both registries, like trauma team activation and need for intensive care in TR-DGU. More detailed analyses are needed to uncover similarities and differences of both trauma systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37200993
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1136159
pmc: PMC10186152
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1136159Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Kaim, Bodas, Bieler, Radomislensky, Matthes, Givon, Trentzsch, Israel Trauma Group, Waydhas and Lefering.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor VB declared a shared affiliation with the author HT at the time of review.
Références
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 Feb 01;8(1):20
pubmed: 30709421
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Apr 1;90(4):694-699
pubmed: 33443988
Traffic Inj Prev. 2015;16(4):368-73
pubmed: 25133878
J Emerg Med. 2009 Aug;37(2):189-200
pubmed: 18829202
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Feb;32(2):166-70
pubmed: 24332906
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Nov;74(5):697-705
pubmed: 30982628
Brain Inj. 2020;34(2):213-223
pubmed: 31661634
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Mar 20;21(1):196
pubmed: 33743590
Injury. 2014 Oct;45 Suppl 3:S14-9
pubmed: 25284227
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Jun;44:45-49
pubmed: 33578331
Resuscitation. 2008 Jan;76(1):5-10
pubmed: 17767990
Injury. 2007 Sep;38(9):993-1000
pubmed: 17640641
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015 Oct;41(5):509-16
pubmed: 26037999
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Oct;87(4):978-989
pubmed: 31335754
CMAJ. 2013 Nov 19;185(17):E803-10
pubmed: 24101612
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021 Oct;47(5):1581-1590
pubmed: 32128612
JAMA. 2020 Sep 15;324(11):1043-1044
pubmed: 32930742
Injury. 2009 Nov;40 Suppl 4:S23-6
pubmed: 19895949
Resuscitation. 2007 Nov;75(2):286-97
pubmed: 17714850
Accid Anal Prev. 2004 Jan;36(1):37-42
pubmed: 14572825
Crit Care. 2014 Sep 05;18(5):476
pubmed: 25394596
Injury. 2008 Jun;39(6):686-95
pubmed: 18511052
Am J Emerg Med. 2004 May;22(3):164-70
pubmed: 15138950
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018 Apr;44(Suppl 1):3-271
pubmed: 29654333
Arch Surg. 2010 Mar;145(3):286-95
pubmed: 20231631
Med Intensiva. 2014 Dec;38(9):580-8
pubmed: 25241267
Injury. 2014 Oct;45 Suppl 3:S6-S13
pubmed: 25284237
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Apr;46(2):329-335
pubmed: 31760466
Injury. 2013 Nov;44(11):1448-52
pubmed: 23021368