Table 1 Survey responses
Question | Response Option | Results % (n) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
U.S Census Bureau Region | Midwest | 25% (10) | 40 |
Northeast | 20% (8) | ||
South | 40% (16) | ||
West | 15% (6) | ||
Number of 2017 trauma admissions | Low-Volume ≤  1500 | 10% (4) | 40 |
High-Volume 1501–4000 | 90% (36) | ||
Length of time as Level 1 Trauma Center | <  1 year | 5% (2) | 40 |
>  1 to 2 years | 15% (6) | ||
>  2 to 5 years | 18% (7) | ||
>  5 to 10 years | 5% (2) | ||
>  10 years | 58% (23) | ||
Organization that developed guideline | EAST | 43% (9) | 21 |
WTA | 29% (6) | ||
TQIP | 14% (3) | ||
ATLS | 10% (2) | ||
Other | 5% (1) | ||
WSES | 0 | ||
Pelvic packing used | Yes | 83% (30) | 36 |
No | 17% (6) | ||
Indicators for pelvic packing | Hemodynamically Unstable | 34% (10) | 29 |
After Ex-Lap | 10% (3) | ||
After angiography | 3% (1) | ||
No blush, unstable after Angio | 7% (2) | ||
IR Unavailable | 17% (5) | ||
In OR | 3% (1) | ||
Increasing hematoma in OR | 3% (1) | ||
Last resort | 10% (3) | ||
Physicians judgement | 10% (3) | ||
Type of pelvic packing used | Retroperitoneal | 3% (1) | 30 |
Preperitoneal | 53% (16) | ||
Both | 43% (13) | ||
Pelvic packing used only as a last resort | Yes | 47% (14) | 30 |
No | 53% (16) | ||
Pelvic packing used on all hemodynamically unstable patients | Yes | 13% (2) | 16 |
No | 88% (14) | ||
Pelvic packing is a treatment option for hemodynamically stable patients | Yes | 6% (1) | 16 |
Sometimes | 50% (8) | ||
No | 44% (7) | ||
Pelvic packing is a safe treatment method | Yes | 72% (26) | 36 |
Sometimes | 25% (9) | ||
No | 3% (1) | ||
Pelvic packing is an effective treatment method | Yes | 33% (12) | 36 |
Sometimes | 64% (23) | ||
No | 3% (1) | ||
Pelvic packing increases risk for infection | Yes | 44% (16) | 36 |
No | 56% (20) | ||
The benefits of pelvic packing outweigh the risks | Yes | 94% (15) | 16 |
No | 6% (1) |