This study’s objective was to measure the criterion validity of the BIG score (a new pediatric trauma score composed of the initial base deficit [BD], international normalized ratio [INR], and Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS]) to predict in-hospital mortality among children admitted to the emergency department with blunt trauma requiring an admission to the intensive care unit, knowing that a score <16 identifies children with a high probability of survival.

This was a retrospective cohort study performed in a single tertiary care pediatric hospital between 2008 and 2016. Participants were all children admitted to the emergency department for a blunt trauma requiring intensive care unit admission or who died in the emergency department. The primary analysis was the association between a BIG score ≥16 and in-hospital mortality.

Twenty-eight children died among the 336 who met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred eighty-four children had information on the three components of the BIG score, and they were included in the primary analysis. A BIG score ≥16 demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.98) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87) to identify mortality. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was higher for the BIG score (0.97; 95% IC: 0.95-0.99) in comparison to the Injury Severity Score (0.78; 95% IC: 0.71-0.85).

In this retrospective cohort, the BIG score was an excellent predictor of survival for children admitted to the emergency department following a blunt trauma.

Rapid exposure of a trauma patient is an essential component of the primary survey. No gold standard exists regarding the best technique to remove clothing from a trauma patient. The purpose of this study is to compare two techniques of clothing removal versus usual practice using standard trauma shears.

Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) students were randomized to either the Cut and Rip (CAR) or Cut Alone (CAL) techniques to remove clothing from a standardized trauma mannequin. Practicing paramedics were recruited to remove clothing from the mannequin using Usual Practice (UP). Total time and time for removal of individual pieces of clothing was recorded.

Twenty-four participants (8 per group) were recruited to participate. The student groups (CAR, CAL) were similar in mean age (29, 27), years of practice (1 student >5 years) and male gender (63, 43%). The UP group was older (mean 34), more experienced (63% practice >5 years), and had a higher level of training (63% ACP) but a similar percentage of males (63%). Removal time was significantly less in the CAR group compared to the CAL group (mean 104 seconds, 95% CI 88–120 vs. mean 136 seconds, 95% CI 119–154, p=0.02). Removal times in the UP group were not significantly different from the other groups (mean 124 seconds, 95% CI 108–140, p>0.05).

The CAR technique is faster than both CAL and UP groups to remove clothing from a standard trauma mannequin.

Trauma code activation is initiated by emergency physicians using physiological and anatomical criteria, mechanism of injury, and patient demographic factors. Our objective was to identify factors associated with delayed trauma team activation.

We assessed consecutive cases from a regional trauma database from January 2008 to March 2014. We defined a delay in trauma code activation as a time greater than 30 minutes from the time of arrival. We conducted univariate analysis for factors potentially influencing trauma team activation, and we subsequently used multiple logistic regression analysis models for delayed activation in relation to mortality, length of stay, and time to operative management.

Patients totalling 846 were included for our analysis; 4.1% (35/846) of trauma codes were activated after 30 minutes. Mean age was 40.8 years in the early group versus 49.2 in the delayed group (p=0.01). Patients were over age 70 years in 7.6% in the early activation group versus 17.1% in the delayed group (p=0.04). There was no significant difference in sex, type of injury, injury severity, or time from injury between the two groups. There was no significant difference in mortality, median length of stay, or median time to operative management.

Delayed activation is linked with increasing age with no clear link to increased mortality. Given the severe injuries in the delayed cohort that required activation of the trauma team, further emphasis on the older trauma patient and interventions to recognize this vulnerable population should be made.

The objective of this study was to systematically review the published literature for risk factors associated with adverse outcomes in older adults sustaining blunt chest trauma.

EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception until March 2017 for prognostic factors associated with adverse outcomes in older adults sustaining blunt chest trauma using a pre-specified search strategy. References were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Where appropriate, descriptive statistics were used to evaluate study characteristics and predictors of adverse outcomes.

Thirteen cohort studies representing 79,313 patients satisfied our selection criteria. Overall, 26 prognostic factors were examined across studies and were reported for morbidity (8 studies), length of stay (7 studies), mortality (6 studies), and loss of independence (1 study). No studies examined patient quality of life or emergency department recidivism. Prognostic factors associated with morbidity and mortality included age, number of rib fractures, and injury severity score. Although age and rib fractures were found to be associated with adverse outcomes in more than 3 studies, meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity amongst included studies in how these variables were measured.

While blunt chest wall trauma in older adults is relatively common, the literature on prognostic factors for adverse outcomes in this patient population remains inadequate due to a paucity of high quality studies and lack of consistent reporting standards.

Reviews help scholars consolidate evidence and guide their educational practice. However, few papers describe how to effectively publish review papers. We completed a scoping review to develop a set of quality indicators that will assist junior authors to publish reviews and integrative scholarship.

MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and Google Scholar were searched for English language articles published between 2012 and January 2016 using the terms review, medical education, how to publish, and emergency medicine. Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two authors and included if they focused on how to publish a review or outlined reporting guidelines of reviews. The articles were reviewed in parallel for calibration, and disagreements were resolved through a consensus.

A full text review of the 25 articles was conducted, and 196 recommendations were extracted from 13 articles. A hand search of the included articles’ reference lists and expert recommendation found an additional eight articles. These recommendations were thematically analysed into a list of seven themes and 32 items. Additionally, seven evaluation tools and reporting guidelines were found to guide researchers in optimizing their reviews for publication.

In emergency medicine education, review articles can help synthesize educational research so that educators can engage in evidence-based scholarly teaching. We hope that this work will act as an introduction to those interested in engaging in integrative scholarship by providing them with a guide to key quality markers and important checklists for improving their research.