Background: A threshold Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 is common in classifying major trauma (MT), although the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) has been extensively revised over time. The aim of this study was to determine effects of different AIS revisions (1998, 2008 and 2015) on clinical outcome measures. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study including all primary admitted trauma patients was performed (in 2013–2014 AIS98 was used, in 2015–2016 AIS08, AIS08 mapped to AIS15). Different ISS thresholds for MT and their corresponding observed mortality and intensive care (ICU) admission rates were compared between AIS98, AIS08, and AIS15 with Chi-square tests and logistic regression models. Results: Thirty-nine thousand three hundred seventeen patients were included. Thresholds ISS08 ≥ 11 and ISS15 ≥ 12 were similar to a threshold ISS98 ≥ 16 for in-hospital mortality (12.9, 12.9, 13.1% respectively) and ICU admission (46.7, 46.2, 46.8% respectively). AIS98 and AIS08 differed significantly for in-hospital mortality in ISS 4–8 (χ² = 9.926, p = 0.007), ISS 9–11 (χ² = 13.541, p = 0.001), ISS 25–40 (χ² = 13.905, p = 0.001) and ISS 41–75 (χ² = 7.217, p = 0.027). Mortality risks did not differ significantly between AIS08 and AIS15. Conclusion: ISS08 ≥ 11 and ISS15 ≥ 12 perform similarly to a threshold ISS98 ≥ 16 for in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. This confirms studies evaluating mapped datasets, and is the first to present an evaluation of implementation of AIS15 on registry datasets. Defining MT using appropriate ISS thresholds is important for quality indicators, comparing datasets and adjusting for injury severity. Level of evidence: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

BACKGROUND: With implementation of trauma systems, a level of trauma care classification was introduced. Use of such a system has been linked to significant improvements in survival and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was assessing the association between level of trauma care and fatal and nonfatal outcome measures for general and major trauma (MT) populations. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to December 18, 2019. Studies comparing mortality or nonfatal outcomes between different levels of trauma care in general and MT populations (preferably Injury Severity Score of >15) were included. Two independent reviewers performed selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and a quality assessment of included articles. With a random-effects meta-analysis, adjusted and unadjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated for level I versus non–level I trauma centers. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Quality of the included studies was good; however, adjustment for comorbidity (32%) and interhospital transfer (38%) was performed less frequently. Nine (60%) of the 15 studies analyzing in-hospital mortality in general trauma populations reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were not associated with higher mortality than non–level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–1.52). Of the 11 studies reporting in-hospital mortality in MT populations, 10 (91%) reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were associated with lower mortality than non–level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.87). CONCLUSION: The association between level of trauma care and in-hospital mortality is evident for MT populations; however, this does not hold for general trauma populations. Level I trauma centers produce improved survival in MT populations. This association could not be proven for nonfatal outcomes in general and MT populations because of inconsistencies in the body of evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

BACKGROUND: Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01–1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98–1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of −1.63 (95% CI, −2.89 to −0.36) and −0.21 (95% CI, −1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78–1.09). CONCLUSION: Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

Introduction: Major trauma often results in long-term disabilities. The aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life, cognition, and return to work 1 year after major trauma from a trauma network perspective. Methods: All major trauma patients in 2016 (Injury Severity Score > 15, n = 536) were selected from trauma region Southwest Netherlands. Eligible patients (n = 365) were sent questionnaires with the EQ-5D-5L and questions on cognition, level of education, comorbidities, and resumption of paid work 1 year after trauma. Results: A 50% (n = 182) response rate was obtained. EQ-US and EQ-VAS scored a median (IQR) of 0.81 (0.62–0.89) and 70 (60–80), respectively. Limitations were prevalent in all health dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L; 90 (50%) responders reported problems with mobility, 36 (20%) responders reported problems with self-care, 108 (61%) responders reported problems during daily activities, 129 (73%) responders reported pain or discomfort, 70 (39%) responders reported problems with anxiety or depression, and 102 (61%) of the patients reported problems with cognition. Return to work rate was 68% (37% full, 31% partial). A median (IQR) EQ-US of 0.89 (0.82–1.00) and EQ-VAS of 80 (70–90) were scored for fully working responders; 0.77 (0.66–0.85, p < 0.001) and 70 (62–80, p = 0.001) for partial working respondents; and 0.49 (0.23–0.69, p < 0.001) and 55 (40–72, p < 0.001) for unemployed respondents. Conclusion: The majority experience problems in all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition. Return to work status was associated with all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition.

Mortality due to trauma has reduced the past decades. Trauma network implementations have been an important contributor to this achievement. Besides mortality, patient reported outcome parameters should be included in evaluation of trauma care. While concentrating major trauma care, hospitals are designated with a certain level of trauma care following specific criteria. Comparing health status of major trauma patients after two years across different levels of trauma care in trauma networks. Multicentre observational study comprising a secondary longitudinal multilevel analysis on prospective cohorts from two neighbouring trauma regions in the Netherlands. patient aged ≥ 18 with an ISS > 15 surviving their injuries at least one year after trauma. Health status was measured one and two years after trauma by EQ-5D-5 L, added with a sixth health dimension on cognition. Level I trauma centres were considered as reference in uni- and multivariate analysis. Respondents admitted to a level I trauma centre scored less favourable EQ-US and EQ-VAS in both years (0.81-0.81, 71-75) than respondents admitted to a level II (0.88-0.87, 78-85) or level III (0.89-0.88, 75-80) facility. Level II facilities scored significantly higher EQ-US and EQ-VAS in time for univariate analysis (β 0.095, 95% CI 0.038-0.153, p = 0.001, and β 7.887, 95% CI 3.035-12.740, p = 0.002), not in multivariate analysis (β 0.052, 95% CI -0.010-0.115, p = 0.102, and β 3.714, 95% CI -1.893-9.321, p = 0.193). Fewer limitations in mobility (OR 0.344, 95% CI 0.156-0.760), self-care (OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.077-0.618), and pain and discomfort (OR 0.421, 95% CI 0.214-0.831) remained significant for level II facilities in multivariate analysis, whereas significant differences with level III facilities disappeared. Major trauma patients admitted to level I trauma centres reported a less favourable general health status and more limitations compared to level II and III facilities scoring populations norms one to two years after trauma. Differences on general health status and limitations in specific health domains disappeared in adjusted analysis. Well-coordinated trauma networks offer homogeneous results for all major trauma patients when they are distributed in different centres according to their need of care.