Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Changing the System - Major Trauma Patients and Their Outcomes in the NHS (England) 2008–17

Open access
Moran, Christopher G., Lecky, Fiona, Bouamra, Omar, Lawrence, Tom, Edwards, Antoinette, Woodford, Maralyn, Willett, Keith, Coats, Timothy J.·2018·EClinicalMedicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trauma care in England was re-organised in 2012 with ambulance bypass of local hospitals to newly designated Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). There is still controversy about the optimal way to organise health series for patients suffering severe injury. METHODS: A longitudinal series of annual cross-sectional studies of care process and outcomes from April 2008 to March 2017. Data was collected through the national clinical audit of major trauma care. The primary analysis was carried out on the 110,863 patients admitted to 35 hospitals that were 'consistent submitters' throughout the study period. The main outcome was longitudinal analysis of risk adjusted survival. FINDINGS: Major Trauma networks were associated with significant changes in (1) patient flow (with increased numbers treated in Major Trauma Centres), (2) treatment systems (more consultant led care and more rapid imaging), (3) patient factors (an increase in older trauma), and (4) clinical care (new massive transfusion policies and use of tranexamic acid). There were 10,247 (9.2%) deaths in the 110,863 patients with an ISS of 9 or more. There were no changes in unadjusted mortality. The analysis of trends in risk adjusted survival for study hospitals shows a 19% (95% CI 3%-36%) increase in the case mix adjusted odds of survival from severe injury over the 9-year study period. Interrupted time series analysis showed a significant positive change in the slope after the intervention time point of April 2012 (+ 0.08% excess survivors per quarter, p = 0.023), in other words an increase of 0.08 more survivors per 100 patients every quarter. INTERPRETATION: A whole system national change was associated with significant improvements in both the care process and outcomes of patients after severe injury. FUNDING: This analysis was carried out independently and did not receive funding. The data collection for the national clinical audit was funded by subscriptions from participating hospitals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.001

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Moran, C. G., Lecky, F., Bouamra, O., Lawrence, T., Edwards, A., Woodford, M., Willett, K., & Coats, T. J.
Venue
EClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
2-3
Pages
13-21
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887203368
Cited by
384
References
22
FWCI
39.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Changing the System - Major Trauma Patients and Their Outcomes in the NHS (England) 2008–17. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.001
The paper
Moran, C. G., Lecky, F., Bouamra, O., Lawrence, T., Edwards, A., Woodford, M., Willett, K., & Coats, T. J. (2018). Changing the System - Major Trauma Patients and Their Outcomes in the NHS (England) 2008–17. EClinicalMedicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.