BACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury... Show moreBACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of >= 3 in >= 2 body regions (2AIS >= 3) combined with the presence of >= 1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODSThe evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS >= 3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of >= 16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS >= 3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of >= 16. RESULTSThe DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of >= 16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS >= 3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS >= 3 and ISS >= 16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSIONThis study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS >= 16 and 2AIS >= 3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. Show less
Objective: Injury coding is well known for lack of completeness and accuracy. The objective of this study was to perform a nationwide assessment of accuracy and reliability on Abbreviated Injury... Show moreObjective: Injury coding is well known for lack of completeness and accuracy. The objective of this study was to perform a nationwide assessment of accuracy and reliability on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coding by Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) coders and to determine the effect on Injury Severity Score (ISS). Additionally, the coders' characteristics were surveyed.Methods: Three fictional trauma cases were presented to all Dutch trauma coders in a nationwide survey (response rate 69%). The coders were asked to extract and code the cases' injuries according to the AIS manual (version 2005, update 2008). Reference standard was set by three highly experienced coders. Summary statistics were used to describe the registered AIS codes and ISS distribution. The primary outcome measures were accuracy of injury coding and inter-rater agreement on AIS codes. Secondary outcome measures were characteristics of coders: profession, work setting, experience in injury coding and training level in injury coding.Results: The total number of different AIS codes used to describe 14 separate injuries in the three cases was 89. Mean accuracy per AIS code was 42.2% (range 2.4-92.7%). Mean accuracy on number of AIS codes was 23%. Overall inter-rater agreement per AIS code was 49.1% (range 2.4-92.7%). The number of assigned AIS codes varied between 0 and 18 per injury. Twenty-seven percentage of injuries were overlooked. ISS was correctly scored in 42.4%. In 31.7%, the AIS coding of the two more complex cases led to incorrect classification of the patient as ISS < 16 or ISS >= 16. Half (47%) of the coders had no (para)medical degree, 26% were working in level I trauma centers, 37% had less than 2 years of experience and 40% had no training in AIS coding.Conclusions: Accuracy of and inter-rater agreement on AIS injury scoring by DTR coders is limited. This may in part be due to the heterogeneous backgrounds and training levels of the coders. As a result of the inconsistent coding, the number of major trauma patients in the DTR may be over- or underestimated. Conclusions based on DTR data should therefore be drawn with caution. Show less
