Humanitarian mine action (HMA) stakeholders have an organized presence with well-resourced medical capability in many conflict and post-conflict settings. Humanitarian mine action has the potential to positively augment local trauma care capacity for civilian casualties of explosive ordnance (EO) and explosive weapons (EWs). Yet at present, few strategies exist for coordinated engagement between HMA and the health sector to support emergency care system strengthening to improve outcomes among EO/EW casualties.

A scoping literature review was conducted to identify records that described trauma care interventions pertinent to civilian casualties of EO/EW in resource-constrained settings using structured searches of indexed databases and grey literature. A 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) review on trauma systems components in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) was updated with additional eligible reports describing trauma care interventions in LMICs or among civilian casualties of EO/EWs after 2001.

A total of 14,195 non-duplicative records were retrieved, of which 48 reports met eligibility criteria. Seventy-four reports from the 2017 WHO review and 16 reports identified from reference lists yielded 138 reports describing interventions in 47 countries. Intervention efficacy was assessed using heterogenous measures ranging from trainee satisfaction to patient outcomes; only 39 reported mortality differences. Interventions that could feasibly be supported by HMA stakeholders were synthesized into a bundle of opportunities for HMA engagement designated links in a Civilian Casualty Care Chain (C-CCC).

This review identified trauma care interventions with the potential to reduce mortality and disability among civilian EO/EW casualties that could be feasibly supported by HMA stakeholders. In partnership with local and multi-lateral health authorities, HMA can leverage their medical capabilities and expertise to strengthen emergency care capacity to improve trauma outcomes in settings affected by EO/EWs.

While the use of formal trauma teams is widely promoted, the literature is not clear that this structure provides improved outcomes over emergency physician delivered trauma care. The goal of this investigation was to examine if a trauma team model with a formalized, specialty-based trauma team, with specific activation criteria and staff composition, performs differently than an emergency physician delivered model. Our primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days.

An observational registry-based study using aggregate data from both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia trauma registries was performed with data from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013. Inclusion criteria included patients 16 years-old and older who had an Injury Severity Score greater than 12, who suffered a kinetic injury and arrived with signs of life to a level-1 trauma centre.

266 patients from the trauma team model and 111 from the emergency physician model were compared. No difference was found in the primary outcome of proportion of survival to discharge or 30 days between the two systems (0.88, n=266 vs. 0.89, n=111; p=0.8608).

We were unable to detect any difference in survival between a trauma team and an emergency physician delivered model.

Pediatric mortality is predicted by age, presence of head trauma, head trauma with a low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, a low Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), and transport directly to a pediatric trauma center.

Studied were 1,429 patients younger than 16 years old admitted to or declared dead on arrival (DOA) in a pediatric trauma center from January through October, 1988. The trauma system, which served 3-million persons, included six pediatric trauma centers.

Data were obtained by a retrospective review of summary statistics provided to the Chicago Department of Health by the pediatric trauma centers.

Overall mortality was 4.8% (68 of 1429); 32 of the patients who died (47.1%) were DOA. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%. Head injury was the principal diagnosis in 46.2% of admissions and was a factor in 72.2% of hospital deaths. The mortality rate was 20.3% in children with a GCS≤10 and 0.4% when the GCS was >10 (odds ratio [OR] = 67.0, 95% CI = 15.0–417.4). When the PTS was ≤ 5, mortality was 25.6%; with a PTS > 5, the mortality was 0.2% (OR = 420.7, 95% CI = 99.3–2,520). Although transfers to a pediatric trauma center accounted for 73.6% of admissions, direct field triage to a pediatric trauma center was associated with a 3.2 times greater mortality risk (95% CI = 1.58–6.59). Mortality rates were equal for all age groups. Pediatric trauma center volume did not influence mortality rates.

Head injury and death occur in all age groups, suggesting the need for broad prevention strategies. Specific GCS and PTS values that predict mortality can be used in emergency medical services (EMS) triage protocols. Although the high proportion of transfers mandates systemwide transfer protocols, the lower mortality in these patients suggests appropriate EMS field triage. These factors should be considered as states develop pediatric trauma systems.