Structural and Process Data on Radiological Imaging in the Treatment of Severely Injured Patients – Results of a Survey of Level I and II Trauma Centers in Germany

Abstract

Purpose Systematic data collection regarding the integration of radiology as well as structural and process characteristics of radiological diagnostics of severely injured patients in Germany using a structured questionnaire.

Materials and Methods Personal contact with all certified Level I and Level II Trauma Centers in Germany. Data on infrastructure, composition of the trauma room team, equipment, and data on the organization/performance of primary major trauma diagnostics were collected.

Results With a participation rate of 46.9 % (n = 151) of all German trauma centers (N = 322), a solid database is available. There were highly significant differences in the structural characteristics incl. CT equipment between the level I and II centers: In 63.8 % of the level II centers, the CT unit was located more than 50 m away from the trauma room (34.2 % in the level I centers). A radiologist was part of the trauma room team in 59.5 % of level II centers (level I 88.1 %). Additionally, highly significant differences were found comparing 24-h provision of other radiologic examinations and interventions, such as MRI (level II 44.9 %, level I 92.8 %) and angiography (level II 69.2 %, level I 97.1 %).

Conclusion Heterogeneous structural and process characteristics of the diagnosis of severely injured patients in Germany were revealed, with highly significant differences between level I and level II centers.

Key Points: 

• This is the first study on the diagnostic reality of radiology in severely injured patients in Germany. Despite a high level of standardization, significant differences were observed.

Citation Format

• Ernstberger A, Reske SU, Brandl A et al. Structural and Process Data on Radiological Imaging in the Treatment of Severely Injured Patients – Results of a Survey of Level I and II Trauma Centers in Germany. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 505 – 514

Key words

CT-spiral - decision analysis - technical aspects - trauma

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Februar 2021

Angenommen: 30. September 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Dezember 2021

• References

• 1 Mohan D. Road traffic injuries – a neglected pandemic. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81: 684-685 . doi:S0042-96862003000900012 [pii]
• 2 Statistisches Bundesamt – DESTATIS. Gesellschaft und Umwelt: Verkehrsunfälle. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/_inhalt.html (abgerufen am 27.01.2021)
• 3 World Health Organisation (WHO). Global status report on road safety 2013 – supporting a decade of action. https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/ (abgerufen am 27.01.2021)
• 4 German_Trauma_Society. Whitebook Medical Care of the Severely Injured – 2nd revised and updated edition. Orthopaedics and traumatology Communications and News 2012; Supplement 1: 1–63
• 5 AWMF/DGU. S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletztenbehandlung. AWMF Register-Nr. 012/019. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-019l_S3_Polytrauma_Schwerverletzten-Behandlung_2017-08.pdf (abgerufen am 27.01.2021)
• 6 DGU Traumaregister. TraumaRegister DGU Annual Report 2019. http://www.traumaregister-dgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/traumaregister-dgu.de/docs/Downloads/Jahresbericht_2019.pdf (abgerufen 10.01.2021)
• 7 TraumaRegister DGU. 20 years TraumaRegister DGU((R)): development, aims and structure. Injury 2014; 45 (Suppl. 03) S6-S13
• 8 Ernstberger A, Koller M, Zeman F. et al. A trauma network with centralized and local health care structures: Evaluating the effectiveness of the first certified Trauma Network of the German Society of Trauma Surgery. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0194292
• 9 DGU. Weißbuch Schwerverletztenversorgung (3., erweiterte Auflage 2019). https://www.dgu-online.de/fileadmin/published_content/5.Qualitaet_und_Sicherheit/PDF/2019_DGU_Weissbuch_Schwerverletztenversorgung_Vorabdruck.pdf (abgerufen 20.01.2021)
• 10 Davies RM, Scrimshire AB, Sweetman L. et al. A decision tool for whole-body CT in major trauma that safely reduces unnecessary scanning and associated radiation risks: An initial exploratory analysis. Injury 2016; 47: 43-49
• 11 Huber-Wagner S, Biberthaler P, Haberle S. et al. Whole-body CT in haemodynamically unstable severely injured patients – a retrospective, multicentre study. PLoS One 2013; 8: e68880
• 12 Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick LM. et al. Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 2009; 373: 1455-1461
• 13 Ernstberger A, Schreyer A, Schleder S. et al. Computertomografie bei Polytrauma. Trauma und Berufskrankheit 2017; 19: 57-63
• 14 Häuser H, Bohndorf K, Rüter A. Der traumatologische Notfall im Schockraum Analyse des Spektrums und des Zeitbedarfs der bildgebenden Diagnostik. Unfallchirurg 1998; 101: 129-136
• 15 Hilbert P, Zur Nieden K, Hofmann GO. et al. New aspects in the emergency room management of critically injured patients: A multi-slice CT-oriented care algorithm. Injury 2007; 38: 552-558
• 16 Lee KL, Graham CA, Lam JMY. et al. Impact on trauma patient management of installing a computed tomography scanner in the emergency department. Injury 2009; 40: 873-875
• 17 Gross T, Messmer P, Amsler F. et al. Impact of a multifunctional image-guided therapy suite on emergency multiple trauma care. The British journal of surgery 2010; 97: 118-127
• 18 Saltzherr TP, Bakker FC, Beenen LFM. et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of computed tomography in the trauma room versus the radiology department on injury outcomes. The British journal of surgery 2012; 99 (Suppl. 01) 105-113
• 19 Huber-Wagner S, Mand C, Ruchholtz S. et al. Effect of the localisation of the CT scanner during trauma resuscitation on survival -- a retrospective, multicentre study. Injury 2014; 45 (Suppl. 03) S76-S82
• 20 Paulus EM, Fabian TC, Savage SA. et al Blunt cerebrovascular injury screening with 64-channel multidetector computed tomography: more slices finally cut it. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76: 279-283 ; discussion 284–275
• 21 Becker A, Lin G, McKenney MG. et al. Is the FAST exam reliable in severely injured patients?. Injury 2010; 41: 479-483
• 22 Richards JR, Schleper NH, Woo BD. et al. Sonographic assessment of blunt abdominal trauma: A 4-year prospective study. Journal of clinical Ultrasound 2002; 30: 59-67
• 23 Schleder S, Dendl LM, Ernstberger A. et al. Diagnostic value of a hand-carried ultrasound device for free intra-abdominal fluid and organ lacerations in major trauma patients. Emergency medicine journal: EMJ 2013; 30: e20
• 24 Geyer LL, Körner M, Reiser M. et al. Aktueller Stellenwert der konventionellen Radiografie und Sonografie in der frühen Versorgung traumatisierter Patienten. Notfall + Rettungsmedizin 2010; 13: 428-435
• 25 Hillier JC, Tattersall DJ, Gleeson FV. Trainee reporting of computed tomography examinations: do they make mistakes and does it matter?. Clinical Radiology 2004; 59: 159-162
• 26 Briggs RH, Rowbotham E, Johnstone AL. et al. Provisional reporting of polytrauma CT by on-call radiology registrars. Is it safe? Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 616-622
• 27 Terreblanche OD, Andronikou S, Hlabangana LT. et al. Should registrars be reporting after-hours CT scans? A calculation of error rate and the influencing factors in South Africa. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 61-68
• 28 Maung AA, Johnson DC, Barre K. et al. Cervical spine MRI in patients with negative CT: A prospective, multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT). J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017; 82: 263-269
• 29 Ares WJ, Jankowitz BT, Tonetti DA. et al. A comparison of digital subtraction angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis of penetrating cerebrovascular injury. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 47: E16