Volume 20 Supplement 1

London Trauma and Pre-hospital Care Conference 2011

Open Access

Trauma systems in Norway: implementation of national recommendations three years down the line

  • Thomas Kristiansen1, 2,
  • Hans Morten Lossius1, 3 and
  • Kjetil G Ringdal1, 2
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine201220(Suppl 1):O3

DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-20-S1-O3

Published: 22 March 2012

Background

Trauma systems have improved the quality of trauma care during the last four decades. However, the implementation of these principles has been far more difficult to achieve than the mere consensus among health care providers. In 2007 national recommendations for trauma systems in Norway were published. We wanted to assess the implementation of the recommendations three years after their publication.

Methods

We included all 19 hospitals that received trauma patients in the South-Eastern Norway, excluding Oslo. A telephone interview was conducted between 17. - 21. January 2011. We identified 19 criteria from the 2007 recommendations, these were grouped according topics: trauma teams, material resources, protocols and documentation, and training and competencies for personnel.

Results

The mean number of implemented criteria was 13 (SD: 2.9; Range: 7-19) and only one hospital fulfilled all criteria. There was no difference in the number of implemented criteria between small and large hospitals 13 vs 14 (P= 0.59) or between hospitals located >/< 125 km from a trauma centre: 13 vs 14 criteria (P= 0.41). The trauma team and material resources criteria were on average implemented in 92% and 97% of the responses, respectively. Criteria for protocols and documentation were implemented in 65% of the responses. For criteria regarding training and competency of personnel only 44% of recommendations were implemented. ATLS courses were required in 53% and 42% of hospitals for surgeons and anaesthesiologists, respectively. Only 32% of hospitals had conducted TNCC courses or equivalent training for nurses.

Conclusion

Three years after the publication of nationally accepted recommendations for trauma management, there are still great deficiencies in the resources of trauma receiving hospitals. There are no accreditation systems of hospitals that make implementation obligatory. Research on effective strategies for implementation deserves further attention.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Research, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation
(2)
Faculty of Medicine, Faculty Division Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo
(3)
Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Bergen

References

  1. Moore CL, Copel JA: Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011, 364: 749-57. 10.1056/NEJMra0909487.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Lichtenstein D, Meziere G, Biderman P, Gepner A: The "lung point": an ultrasound sign specific to pneumothorax. Intensive Care Med. 2000, 26: 1434-40. 10.1007/s001340000627.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Soldati G, Testa A, Sher S, Pignataro G, La Sala M, Silveri NG: Occult traumatic pneumothorax: diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasonography in the emergency department. Chest. 2008, 133: 204-11. 10.1378/chest.07-1595.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball CG, Kirkpatrick AW, Feliciano DV: The occult pneumothorax: what have we learned?. Can J Surg. 2009, 52: E173-9.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kristiansen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement