Who is at risk of clinical deterioration? Adverse events among trauma patients undergoing intra-hospital transport for emergent computerized tomography

Abstract

Introduction

Computerized tomography is an essential element of the early diagnostic stages of trauma care for hemodynamically stable patients. However, there are inherent challenges and risks associated with the intra-hospital transport of critically injured trauma patients to the radiology suite and during the scanning process itself. We examined the frequency and nature of adverse events during computerized tomography among critically injured patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of adverse event in critically injured adult (>18 years old) trauma patients who underwent emergent computerized tomographic scan following evaluation in the trauma bay over a 22-month period who were either admitted to the intensive care unit or the operating room post computerized tomography. Data was abstracted from the hospital's trauma registry and chart review of electronic medical records. The frequency of adverse events during computerized tomography and the associated patient transport phases was recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of adverse event on 7-day in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of the 526 critically injured trauma patients who underwent computerized tomographic scan during the study period, 17.3% (91/526) experienced one or more adverse event. The most common adverse events were hypotension n = 50 (9.5%), hypertension n = 18 (3.4%), initiation of vasopressors n = 11 (2.1%) and vomiting n = 8 (1.5%). One patient required re-intubation following endotracheal tube dislodgement and one patient required intubation following hypoxia post-sedation for agitation. Patient factors independently associated with adverse event were mechanical ventilation and blood product administration. When adjusted for injury severity score and age, patients who experienced adverse event were at increased odds of death (odds ratio: 2.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.11–4.36) compared to those who did not experience adverse event.

Conclusion

Adverse events occur frequently in critically injured patients undergoing emergent trauma computerized tomography and may significantly impact clinical outcomes. This study provides important information to guide system and process-level improvements including optimized designs of the built environment and safety-informed protocols for high-risk patients undergoing emergent trauma computerized tomography.

Keywords

Trauma adverse event computerized tomography process improvement patient safety

Introduction

Computerized tomography (CT) imaging of the hemodynamically stable trauma patient is a standard diagnostic procedure in early trauma evaluation that provides critical information to inform treatment decisions.^1,2 CT is generally not recommended for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients by most guidelines, however, a patient who is hemodynamically stable initially in the trauma bay may not remain so throughout their clinical course.^3,4 Fluctuations in patient condition during transport to the radiology suite and during CT scanning are potentially life-threatening and require a cautious balance of the risks of transport and benefits of CT.⁵

Even in the absence of hemodynamic instability, there are inherent challenges associated with the transport and imaging of trauma patients. Many centers in North America require transport of patients to the radiology department remote from the trauma bay.⁶ In transit to and within the radiology department access to resuscitation equipment is often limited. Once in the CT scanner, difficulty in escalation of care and lack of direct bedside trauma team presence increases the potential for patient deterioration and complications.

The incidence of adverse events (AE) during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients undergoing diagnostic testing or therapeutic procedures ranges from 1.7% to 79.8%.^7–13 However, this range of AE captures all critically ill patients including adult medical, surgical and trauma patients. Little is known regarding the rates of AE exclusively among trauma patients during intrahospital transport for CT despite the significant risk posed during this phase of care.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the incidence and nature of AE in critically injured trauma patients being transported to radiology to undergo a CT scan. Secondary objectives included the identification of specific patient factors associated with AE and a comparison of 7 day in-hospital mortality between trauma patients who did and did not experience an AE during CT.

Methods

Study design and setting

This is a retrospective cohort study of all injured patients included in our trauma registry who underwent CT scan following evaluation in the trauma bay at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario Canada between 1 January 2019 to 1 November 2020. Trauma team activation occurs for patients who meet triage standards based on anatomic, physiologic, mechanism of injury (MOI) or special considerations criteria.¹⁴ At our institution, the CT suite is located three floors above the trauma bay requiring transport via one of three service elevators. Data were abstracted from the hospital's trauma registry with supplemental information obtained from manual chart review of electronic medical records.

Participants and data collection

Using our trauma registry, critically ill patients (aged 18 years or older) who underwent CT scan following evaluation in the trauma bay were included if their post-CT destination was the intensive care unit (ICU) or the operating room (OR). Patients who were transferred to the ward, transferred to another facility (i.e. Police custody), or discharged home were excluded.

We collected patient demographics, injury severity score (ISS), MOI, initial trauma bay vitals, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), outcome of FAST exam (positive abdominal free fluid), and in-hospital characteristics including length of stay, disposition, and mortality from the trauma registry. In addition, we collected variables including risk factors potentially associated with AE including serum lactate, base deficit, transfusion requirement, activation of massive hemorrhage protocol or mechanical ventilation. Given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on transport for diagnostic procedures we defined AE using published literature of critically ill patients undergoing interfacility transport.^{7,8,10–12,13} Physiological AEs included acute deterioration in Level of Consciousness (LOC) (GCS ≤ 8 or fall ≥3 or new onset of seizure activity), vomiting/aspiration, a new arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 or fall by ≥20 mmHg), hypertension (SBP ≥ 190 mmHg), bradycardia (HR < 50) or tachycardia (HR > 150) or hypoxia (SpO₂ < 90%). Equipment AE included loss of parenteral or central access, dislodgement of endotracheal tube (ETT), chest tube or other significant equipment failures. Interventions included the need for intubation, initiation of blood product administration, initiation of vasopressors or any invasive or surgical procedures (i.e., chest tube insertion, needle decompression).

Data were abstracted from the hospital's trauma registry with supplemental information obtained from manual chart review of electronic medical records including trauma bay nursing records and trauma team leader transcription. The occurrence of AE was screened from the manual chart review defined by when the patient departed the trauma bay for the CT suite to when the patient was handed over to the ICU or OR staff. Overall, 98% (526/537) had complete trauma bay records and laboratory results. We excluded 11 patients (2%) with missing data and completed a comprehensive case analysis.¹⁵

Two study authors reviewed a random sample of 20 patient charts and the inter-rater reliability resulted in 100% agreement for AE assignment. There was no formal sample size calculation obtained as the study is predominately descriptive; we selected a 22-month study period to account for annual and seasonal variations in trauma volumes. This time frame allowed us to achieve a sample size similar to other published reports^10,16

Outcomes

The primary outcome is the incidence of AE during transport and/or during CT among critically injured trauma patients. The secondary outcome included the risk factors associated with AE and the risk of 7-day in-hospital mortality between patients who did and did not experience AE.

Statistical analysis

We used descriptive statistics for all variables of interest. We performed a univariate analysis for continuous variables using t-tests, parametric or non-parametric as appropriate. We analyzed categorical variables using Chi-Square tests.

We developed a logistic regression model to study the association between AE and in-hospital mortality at day 7. Age and ISS were determined a priori to be included in the model as confounders to mortality. A similar logistic regression model was also used to explore specific patient characteristics and probability of having AE. To obtain information as to when the event occurred, a time-to-event analysis was used to investigate the relationship between AE and in-hospital death after adjusting for age and ISS. Schoenfeld residuals were used to assess the proportional hazards assumption. Residual analysis was used to examine the model fit. All models were internally validated using the bootstrap method and calibration of the logistic regression model was also performed using the bootstrap method.¹⁵ The number of variables included in each of the above models was limited using the rule of thumb of 10 events per predictor

Results

Frequency and nature of AEs in patients undergoing trauma CT

A total of 526 critically injured trauma patients underwent CT scan during the study period (Figure 1). The incidence of AE was 17.3% (91/526), and occurred during CT image acquisition. There were no significant differences in age, gender, mechanisms of injury or ISS between AE and no-AE patients (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Study flow diagram of critically injured patients who underwent emergent trauma CT and experienced AE between 1 January 2019 to 1 November 2020. CT: computerized tomography; AE: adverse event.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients who underwent trauma CT who had and did not have an adverse event.

Patient characteristics	Overall (n = 526)	No-adverse event (n = 435)	Adverse event (n = 91)	p-value
Age, mean (SD)	47.60 (20.82)	47.44 (20.69)	48.38 (21.53)	0.699
Age by categories (%)
<30	142 (27.0)	118 (27.1)	25 (27.5)	0.875
30–49	142 (27.0)	119 (27.4)	23 (25.6)
50–69	146 (27.8)	122 (28.0)	24 (26.4)
70+	95 (18.1)	76 (17.5)	19 (20.9)
Sex, n (%)
Male	139 (26.4)	114 (26.2)	25 (27.5)	0.906
Female	387 (73.6)	321 (73.8)	66 (72.5)
Mechanism of injury (%)
Blunt	456 (86.7)	379 (87.1)	77 (84.6)	0.637
Penetrating	70 (13.3)	56 (12.9)	14 (15.4)
Injury severity score (%)
<16	166 (31.6)	144 (33.1)	22 (24.2)	0.123
>16	360 (68.4)	291 (66.9)	69 (75.8)
Mechanical ventilation
Non-mechanically ventilated	294 (55.9)	258 (59.3)	36 (39.6)	0.001
Mechanically ventilated	232 (44.1)	177 (40.7)	55 (60.4)
Positive FAST (%)
No	474 (90.1)	394 (90.6)	80 (87.9)	0.561
Yes	52 (9.9)	41 (9.4)	11 (12.1)
Shock index (%)
<0.9	404 (77.0)	343 (78.9)	61 (67.0)	0.033
>0.9	121 (23.0)	92 (21.1)	30 (33.0)
Lactate, median (IQR)	2.80 [1.90, 4.40]	2.70 [1.80, 4.10]	3.80 [2.10, 6.05]	<0.001
Base deficit (%)
<6	467 (88.8)	396 (91.0)	71 (78.0)	0.001
>6	59 (11.2)	39 (9.0)	20 (22.0)
Blood products (%)
<4 units	503 (95.6)	422 (97.0)	81 (89.0)	0.002
>4 units	23 (4.4)	13 (3.0)	10 (11.0)
Use of any blood products
No	419 (79.7)	361 (83.0)	58 (63.7)	<0.001
Yes	107 (20.3)	74 (17.0)	33 (36.3)
Massive hemorrhage protocol
No	456 (86.7)	390 (89.7)	66 (72.5)	<0.001
Yes	70 (13.3)	45 (10.3)	25 (27.5)
Arrival time
Day (0700-1900)	263 (50.0)	210 (48.3)	53 (58.2)	0.107
Evening (1900-0700)	263 (50.0)	225 (51.7)	38 (41.8)
Post-trauma bay disposition (%)
Operating room	129 (24.5)	114 (26.2)	15 (16.5)	0.068
Intensive care unit	397 (75.5)	321 (73.8)	76 (83.5)
Intensive care unit length of stay in days, median (IQR)	3.00 (1.00, 9.00)	3.00 (1.00, 9.00)	3.00 (2.00, 12.50)	0.095
Total hospital length of stay in days, median (IQR)	10.00 (5.00, 24.00)	10.00 (5.00, 24.00)	11.00 (3.00, 21.50)	0.577
Discharge Status
Alive	444 (84.4)	377 (86.7)	67 (73.6)	0.003
Deceased	82 (15.6)	58 (13.3)	24 (26.4)
In hospital mortality within 7 days of admission, (%)
No	468 (89.0)	396 (91.0)	72 (79.1)	0.002
Yes	58 (11.0)	39 (9.0)	19 (20.9)

Patients in the AE group were more likely to be mechanically ventilated (60.4% vs. 39.6%), have a positive shock index >0.9, higher lactate (3.8 vs 2.7), or greater base deficit >6 (22% vs. 9%) than those in the no-AE group. Patients in the AE group were also more likely to require the use of any blood products (36.3% vs 17%), require >4 units of blood products (11% vs. 3%) or require massive hemorrhage protocol activation (27.5% vs 10.3%).

The most common AE recorded (Table 2) was hypotension n = 50 (9.5%). In one case, the CT was prematurely terminated and the patient was brought to the OR due to hemodynamic instability. Hypertension was the second most common AE n = 18 (3.4%), followed by initiation of vasopressors n = 11 (2.1%) and vomiting n = 8 (1.5%). While we did not a priori define agitation as an AE, in a subsequent review of the 91 patients who experienced AE, 11 patients (2.1%) required pharmacotherapy for agitation management. Notably, one patient required intubation for hypoxia post-sedation for agitation, and one patient required re-intubation after dislodgement of endotracheal tube during CT scan.

Table 2.

Frequency of adverse events during trauma CT (N = 526 patients).

Adverse event	Transports (n)	Transports (%)
Total AE	121	23.0
Hypotension (SBP<90 or fall by >20mmHg)	50	9.5
Hypertension (SBP >190mmHg)	18	3.4
Initiation of vasopressors	11	2.1
Patient agitation	11	2.1
Vomiting	8	1.5
Initiation of blood products	6	1.1
Tachycardia (>150)	4	0.8
Bradycardia (HR <50)	4	0.8
Hypoxia (SpO2 <90%)	3	0.6
Loss of peripheral or central access	2	0.4
Intubation	1	0.2
Dislodgement of ETT or chest tube	2	0.4
New arrhythmia	1	0.2
Invasive surgical procedure (chest tube, needle decompression)	0	0.0
Altered LOC (GCS <8 or decrease >3 or new seizure)	0	0.0
Cardiac arrest	0	0.0
Equipment failure	0	0.0

Patient characteristics associated with having any AE

Using a multivariable logistic regression model, mechanical ventilation (odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–3.02) and requiring a blood transfusion (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.11–3.75) were each significantly associated with the incidence of an AE (Table 3).

Table 3.

Logstic regression model of probability of having an AE after adjustment of patient characteristics.

	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (per 10 years)	1.062 (0.95, 1.19)	0.313
Injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 vs <16	1.332 (0.77, 2.30)	0.305
Mechanical ventilation	1.844 (1.13, 3.02)	0 . 015
Positive FAST	0.896 (0.41, 1.95)	0.782
Shock index >0.9	1.152 (0.65, 2.05)	0.631
Any use of blood products	2.042 (1.11, 3.75)	0.021
Base deficit >6	1.494 (0.75, 2.99)	0.255

Values p < 0.05 indicator in bold.

Association of AEs and 7 day in-hospital mortality

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found a higher odds of death for patients with an ISS > 16 (OR 5.68, 95% CI 2.13–15.13), increasing age per 10 years (OR 1.51 95% CI 1.29–1.78) and requiring mechanical ventilation (OR 4.17 95% CI 2.15–8.08) (Table 4). Additionally, after adjustment, all AE was significantly associated with increased odds of death (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.11–4.36). We conducted a ‘time to death’ analysis, which analyzed in-hospital length of stay while accounting for the competing risk of death (Table 5). While the ‘time to death’ analysis found no significant association between AE and time to death, there is an increased risk of death for older individuals, those with a higher ISS and mechanically ventilated patients.

Table 4.

Generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of odds of in-hospital mortality by day 7.

	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (per 10 years)	1.513 (1.29, 1.78)	<0 . 001
AE (Yes vs No)	2.20 (1.11, 4.36)	0.023
ISS ≥ 16 vs <16	5.682 (2.13, 15.13)	0.001
Mechanical ventilation	4.165 (2.15, 8.08)	<0.001
Blood products (Yes vs No)	0.909 (0.435, 1.9)	0.799

ISS: injury severity score; AE: adverse event.

Values p < 0.05 indicator in bold.

Table 5.

Time of death model.

	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (per 10 years)	1.548 (1.36, 1.76)	<0 . 001
AE (Yes vs No)	1.498 (0.93, 2.49)	0.118
ISS ≥ 16 vs <16	3.072 (1.53, 6.19)	0.002
Mechanical ventilation (Yes vs No)	3.812 (2.31, 6.29)	<0.001
Blood products (Yes vs No)	0.881 (0.52, 1.50)	0.64

ISS: injury severity score; AE: adverse event.

Values p < 0.05 indicator in bold.

Discussion

We conducted a retrospective analysis to characterize AE among critically injured trauma patients in transit to and during emergent CT scan. We found that 17% of these patients experienced ≥1 AE, most commonly hypotension. Two patients required intubation during CT for hypoxia post-sedation and dislodgement of the endotracheal tube. Patient factors independently associated with AE in our study included mechanical ventilation and blood product administration. These AEs in CT were associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality after adjustment for age, ISS, and mechanical ventilation.

The rate of AEs during CT scan in our study aligns with existing literature which report an incidence between 1% and 67.9%, however, these typically included non-trauma patients.^{8,10–12,13,16,17} In one retrospective study of 94 trauma patients undergoing emergent trauma CT, 47.9% patients experienced >1 AE.¹⁷ In this single-centered study, patient requirement for vasopressor support and ongoing transfusion at the time of CT scanning was associated with AE. In contrast, a randomized controlled trial comparing immediate vs. selective CT scanning among trauma patients with potentially severe injuries found a < 1% rate of serious AE during CT scan, where all events resulted in death of the patient and all were hemodynamically unstable on presentation.¹⁸ Similarly, Bashir et al.¹⁹ found a 3% incidence of significant deterioration during CT that required intervention and cited reasons for deterioration including – undiagnosed tension pneumothorax, dislodged ETT, and catastrophic head injury resulting in hemodynamic instability. The heterogeneity in the reported AE rates in the literature is due to the absence of a standardized taxonomy of AE, challenging the comparison of AE across trauma centers. Studies that report a higher volume of AE tend to use a broad definition that span clinical events as well as non-patient related events (e.g., incorrect CT orders, delays in CT availability),¹⁷ whereas studies with lower AE rates limit the definition of AE to serious events that may lead to intervention or patient death.^19,20 A newly developed taxonomy of 67 AE that occurs during the initial phase of trauma resuscitation is an important step towards a standardized evaluation of safe trauma care across different centers.²¹

In this study, hypotension occurred in 50 patients (9.5%) undergoing CT and while most were transient, six patients required blood product initiation in CT. This suggests these patients may have required further resuscitation prior to trauma bay departure. It is unsurprising that critically injured patients requiring blood products are at high risk for AE in the CT suite. These data however underscore the importance of robust protocols and strategies for patients at risk of hypotension. Mitigating significant hyper and hypotensive episodes is especially important in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.²² To combat these predictable risks, trauma programs may look towards a pre-departure checklist that follows the principle of an “operative pause” whereby the team deliberately asks whether this patient is stable for CT or is the OR required (a “pathway pause”). Additionally, protocols may include a requirement of invasive blood pressure monitoring (e.g., arterial catheterization) among patients requiring blood products to more closely monitor hemodynamic stability and that additional blood products accompany the patient to CT along with pre-mixed vasopressors.

Other less frequent AE included hypertension, vomiting, and agitation. Each of these represents additional opportunities for targeted protocols and mitigation strategies. For example, hypertension among injured patients may be related to pain or inadequate sedation. This may indicate that quality improvement initiatives linked to timely and adequate analgesia are required. This aligns with the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement recommendations of providing appropriate and timely pain management to trauma patients.²³

Opportunities for improvement and/or change

The CT suite represents a high-risk phase during the care of the severely injured patient. Several factors may amplify this risk including a decreased ability to directly monitor the patient in the CT scanner as well as limited access to resuscitation equipment within or in transit to radiology. The data from this study provide important information to help guide opportunities for improvement. This can be considered at multiple levels:

Design of the built environment: The future of trauma care requires purposely built environments that support rapid, efficient, and safe care. Placing the CT scan within, or in close proximity to the trauma bay reduces transport time and may improve patient safety and mortality^24,25

Development of safety-focused protocols: Optimization of hemodynamic status, treatment of nausea, pain, and agitation prior to CT are key strategies to mitigate AE. With attention to the data from this study and the existing literature, safety-focused protocols²⁶ can be developed and implemented to direct clinician attention to high-risk patients along with mitigation strategies including consideration of common femoral artery access for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in select patients.

Transport and CT suite interventions: As a final lever to improve patient safety, once the decision is made to transport to CT, support for clinicians can be achieved through appropriately selected equipment and medications for high-risk patients.²

Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. As a retrospective analysis it relied on the accuracy of the patient care record which may be incomplete. This limited the ability to better describe time-associated delays that may help to better understand the clinical context and AE occurrence. Rates of AE were exclusively defined to those who were critically injured, and may not be applicable to all patients undergoing emergent trauma CT. We conducted this study at a single center which potentially limits widespread applicability, though our findings are in keeping with the existing literature providing reassurance that this study is relevant and important. Definitions for AE vary widely in the literature; consequently, we selected a broad definition to better capture and review a range of clinically important events. Finally, following the literature, we weighted all AE equally. While we recognize the potential heterogeneity between AEs, there is no standardized taxonomy or classification. To manage this limitation we provide a narrative context for two serious AE.

Conclusion

Critically injured trauma patients undergoing emergent CT scan are at risk for several AE during transport and imaging. In this study, 17% of patients experienced an AE, most commonly hypotension. Those requiring mechanical ventilation and blood product administration were more likely to experience AE and we found an association between AE in CT and higher odds of in-hospital mortality. This data supports the design of system- and process-level interventions to improve patient outcomes among trauma patients undergoing emergent CT.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of St. Michel's Hospital (REB # 20-326).

ORCID iDs

Winny Li

Noah Ditkofsky

Michael Pierce

References

Fung Kon Jin

PHP

Goslings

Ponsen

, et al. Assessment of a new trauma workflow concept implementing a sliding CT scanner in the trauma room: The effect on workup times. J Trauma 2008; 64: 1320–1326.

Petrosoniak

Hicks

. Resuscitation resequenced: A rational approach to patients with trauma in shock. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2018; 36: 41–60.

Stassen

Bhullar

Cheng

, et al. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury: An eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73: S288–S293.

American College of Surgeons’ Committee on Trauma, International ATLS working group. Advanced trauma life support (ATLS®): the ninth edition. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 74: 1363–1366.

Neal

Peitzman

Forsythe

, et al.

Over reliance on computed tomography imaging in patients with severe abdominal injury: Is the delay worth the risk?

J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2011; 70: 278–284.

Novelline

Rhea

Rao

, et al. Helical CT in emergency radiology. Radiology 1999; 213: 321–339.

Waydhas

. Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care 1999; 3: R83–R89.

Gillman

Leslie

Williams

, et al. Adverse events experienced while transferring the critically ill patient from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Emerg Med J British Assoc Accident Emerg Med 2006; 23: 858–861.

Lahner

Nikolic

Marhofer

, et al. Incidence of complications in intrahospital transport of critically ill patients–experience in an Austrian university hospital. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2007; 119: 412–416.

10.

Jia

Wang

Gao

, et al. High incidence of adverse events during intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients and new related risk factors: A prospective, multicenter study in China. Crit Care Critical Care 2016; 20: 1–13.

11.

Gimenez

FMP

de Camargo

WHB

Gomes

ACB

, et al. Analysis of adverse events during intrahospital transportation of critically ill patients. Crit Care Res Pract 2017; 2017: 1–7.

12.

Kue

Brown

Ness

, et al. Adverse clinical events during intrahospital transport by a specialized team: a preliminary report. Am J Crit Care 2011; 20: 153–61–quiz162.

13.

Parmentier-Decrucq

Poissy

Favory

, et al. Adverse events during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: Incidence and risk factors. Ann Intensive Care 2013; 3: 10.

14.

Fuller

Pandor

Essat

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools for identifying major trauma in elderly injured patients: A systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021; 90: 403–412.

15.

Harrell

. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis, Vol. 608. New York: Springer, 2001. Chapter 3.8.

16.

Papson

JPN

Russell

Taylor

. Unexpected events during the intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Academic Emerg Med 2007; 14: 574–577.

17.

Ghafil

Matsushima

Chiba

, et al. Trauma computed tomography in the modern era: Not always quick and safe: Am surg. Los Angeles, CA: Sage PublicationsSage CA, 2021.

18.

Sierink

Treskes

Edwards

MJR

, et al. Immediate total-body CT scanning versus conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma (REACT-2): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 673–683.

19.

Bashir

Kong

Buitendag

JJP

, et al. An analysis of adverse events and human error associated with the imaging of patients at a major trauma centre in South Africa. S Afr Med J 2019; 109: 693–695.

20.

Sierink

Saltzherr

Beenen

, et al. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial of immediate total-body CT scanning in trauma patients (REACT-2). BMC Emerg Med BioMed Central 2012; 12: 1–9.

21.

Nolan

Petrosoniak

Hicks

, et al. Defining adverse events during trauma resuscitation: A modified RAND delphi study. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2021; 6: e000805.

22.

Krishnamoorthy

Chaikittisilpa

Kiatchai

, et al.

Hypertension after severe traumatic brain injury: friend or foe?

J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2017; 29: 382–387.

23.

Trauma ATACO. Best practices guidelines for acute pain management in trauma patients, https://www.facs.org/media/exob3dwk/acute_pain_guidelines.pdf (2020).

24.

Furugori

Kato

Abe

, et al. Treating patients in a trauma room equipped with computed tomography and patients’ mortality: A non-controlled comparison study. World J Emergency Surg 2018; 14: 1–11.

25.

Huber-Wagner

Mand

Ruchholtz

, et al. Effect of the localisation of the CT scanner during trauma resuscitation on survival—a retrospective, multicentre study. Injury. 2014; 45(Suppl 3): S76–S82.

26.

Lashoher

Schneider

Juillard

, et al. Implementation of the world health organization trauma care checklist program in 11 centers across multiple economic Strata: Effect on care process measures. World J Surg 2017; 41: 954–962.