Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Choi SJ, Oh MY, Kim NR, Jung YJ, Ro YS, Shin SD
    Emerg Med Australas, 2017 Dec;29(6):697-711.
    PMID: 28782875 DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.12840
    OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare the trauma care systems in Asian countries.

    METHODS: Asian countries were categorised into three groups; 'lower middle-income country', 'upper middle-income country' and 'high-income country'. The Medline/PubMed database was searched for articles published from January 2005 to December 2014 using relevant key words. Articles were excluded if they examined a specific injury mechanism, referred to a specific age group, and/or did not have full text available. We extracted information and variables on pre-hospital and hospital care factors, and regionalised system factors and compared them across countries.

    RESULTS: A total of 46 articles were identified from 13 countries, including Pakistan, India, Vietnam and Indonesia from lower middle-income countries; the Islamic Republic of Iran, Thailand, China, Malaysia from upper middle-income countries; and Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore from high-income countries. Trauma patients were transported via various methods. In six of the 13 countries, less than 20% of trauma patients were transported by ambulance. Pre-hospital trauma teams primarily comprised emergency medical technicians and paramedics, except in Thailand and China, where they included mainly physicians. In Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam, the proportion of patients who died before reaching hospital exceeded 50%. In only three of the 13 countries was it reported that trauma surgeons were available. In only five of the 13 countries was there a nationwide trauma registry.

    CONCLUSION: Trauma care systems were poorly developed and unorganised in most of the selected 13 Asian countries, with the exception of a few highly developed countries.

    Matched MeSH terms: Trauma Centers/standards*
  2. Sethi D, Aljunid S, Saperi SB, Clemens F, Hardy P, Elbourne D, et al.
    Ann Emerg Med, 2007 Jan;49(1):52-61, 61.e1.
    PMID: 17084938
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: The trauma services provided by 6 hospitals operating at 2 levels of care (4 secondary or district general hospitals and 2 tertiary care hospitals) in Malaysia are compared in terms of mortality and disability for direct admissions to emergency departments to test the hypothesis that care at a tertiary care hospital is better than at a district general hospital.
    METHODS: All cases were recruited prospectively for 1 year. The hospitals were purposefully selected as typical for Malaysia. There are 3 primary outcome measures: death, musculoskeletal impairment, and disability at discharge. Adjustment was made for potential covariates and within-hospital clustering by using multivariable random-effects logistic regression analysis.
    RESULTS: For direct admissions, logistic-regression-identified odds of dying were associated with older age (>55 years), odds ratio (OR) 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.8); head injury, OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.9); arrival by means other than ambulance, OR 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.8); severe injuries (Injury Severity Score >15) at a district general hospital, OR 45.2 (95% CI 27.0 to 75.7); severe injuries at a tertiary care hospital, OR 11.2 (95% CI 7.3 to 17.3); and admission to a tertiary care hospital compared to a district general hospital if severely injured (Injury Severity Score >15), OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4). Admission to a tertiary care hospital was associated with increased odds of disability (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) and musculoskeletal impairment (OR 3.5; 95% CI 2.7 to 4.4) at discharge.
    CONCLUSION: Care at a tertiary care hospital was associated with reduced mortality (by 83% in severe injuries), but with a higher likelihood of disability and impairment, which has implications for improving access to trauma services for the severely injured in Malaysia and other low- and middle-income settings.
    Matched MeSH terms: Trauma Centers/standards*
  3. Sabariah FJ, Ramesh N, Mahathar AW
    Med J Malaysia, 2008 Sep;63 Suppl C:45-9.
    PMID: 19227673
    The first Malaysian National Trauma Database was launched in May 2006 with five tertiary referral centres to determine the fundamental data on major trauma, subsequently to evaluate the major trauma management and to come up with guidelines for improved trauma care. A prospective study, using standardized and validated questionnaires, was carried out from May 2006 till April 2007 for all cases admitted and referred to the participating hospitals. During the one year period, 123,916 trauma patients were registered, of which 933 (0.75%) were classified as major trauma. Patients with blunt injury made up for 83.9% of cases and RTA accounted for 72.6% of injuries with 64.9% involving motorcyclist and pillion rider. 42.8% had severe head injury with an admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3-8 and the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) of 5-6 were recorded in 28.8% of patients. The distribution of Injury Severity Score (ISS) showed that 42.9% of cases were in the range of 16-24. Only 1.9% and 6.3% of the patients were reviewed by the Emergency Physician and Surgeon respectively. Patients with admission systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mmHg had a death rate of 54.6%. Patients with severe head injury (GCS < 9), 45.1% died while 79% patients with moderate head injury survived. There were more survivors within the higher RTS range compared to the lower RTS. Patients with direct admission accounted for 52.3% of survivors and there were 61.7% survivors for referred cases. In conclusion, NTrD first report has successfully demonstrated its significance in giving essential data on major trauma in Malaysia, however further expansion of the study may reflect more comprehensive trauma database in this country.
    Matched MeSH terms: Trauma Centers/standards
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links