Geographic Distribution of Trauma Burden, Mortality, and Services in the United States: Does Availability Correspond to Patient Need?

Trauma in the Geriatric and the Super-Geriatric: Should They Be Treated the Same?

INTRODUCTION

There is paucity of studies comparing the characteristics of trauma in geriatrics and super-geriatrics. We aimed to explore the injury characteristics and outcomes of older adult trauma patients on a nationwide scale.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 2017-2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. We included moderate to severely injured (Injury Severity Score >8) older adult (≥65 y) trauma patients. Patients were stratified into geriatric (65 y ≤ Age <80 y) and super-geriatric (Age ≥80 y). Outcomes included interventions, complications, failure-to-rescue, withdrawal of support treatment, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 269,208 patients (geriatric = 57%; super-geriatric = 43%). Both groups had similar vital signs and Injury Severity Score (geriatric = 9[9-12] versus super-geriatric = 9[9-11]). The super-geriatric were more likely to have falls (71% versus 89%, P < 0.001), while the geriatric were more likely to have Motor vehicle collision (17% versus. 7%, P < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, geriatric patients were more likely to be treated at a Level I Trauma Center (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.1, P < 0.001), undergo hemorrhage control surgery (aOR = 1.5, P < 0.001), be admitted to the intensive care unit (aOR = 1.15, P < 0.001), or intubated (aOR = 1.4, P < 0.001). However, they were less likely to have withdrawal of support treatment (aOR = 0.37, P < 0.001) compared to the super-geriatric. Furthermore, geriatric patients were more likely to develop major complications (aOR = 1.08, P < 0.01). However, they had lower odds of failure-to-rescue (aOR = 0.69, P < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (aOR = 0.56, P < 0.001) compared to the super-geriatric.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist in injury patterns, interventions, and outcomes between the geriatric and super-geriatric. Future studies and guidelines may need to classify older adults into geriatric and super-geriatric categories to facilitate tailored care and overall improvement of management strategies for older populations.

Needs Assessment for a Resuscitative Thoracotomy Curriculum for General Surgery Residents in the Northeast Region

INTRODUCTION

Resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is a high-acuity low occurrence (HALO) procedure with which general surgical resident (GSR) experience and confidence are unknown. We sought to identify and describe this educational gap by conducting a targeted needs assessment for an RT curriculum for GSRs.

METHODS

An online regional needs assessment survey was conducted for an RT curriculum for GSRs. The survey was developed by a group of trauma stakeholders and revised after being piloted on a small, representative group of GSRs. We surveyed GSRs in the Northeast region regarding their experience and confidence with RT; interest in an RT curriculum; and content, format, and scope for an RT curriculum.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 43%, reflecting the viewpoints of GSRs at 8 major training centers across the Northeast. Only 13% of respondents were interested in pursuing a career in Trauma and Critical Care despite 97% of them training at a Level I Trauma Center. Twenty-nine percent and 33% of GSRs had ever assisted with or performed RT, respectively. Twenty-one percent of GSRs reported feeling confident performing RT. Most respondents (98%) agreed or strongly agreed that an RT curriculum would add value to their general surgery education. The most positively rated content topics were resuscitative maneuvers (100% positive responses [PR]), when to cease resuscitative efforts (100% PR), and morbidity and mortality associated with RT (98% PR). The most highly rated learning methods were individual RT simulation time (97% PR) and a tour of the trauma bay equipment (97% PR).

CONCLUSIONS

This needs assessment demonstrates a lack of experience and confidence with RT, a strong learner interest in an RT curriculum, and a desire for experiential learning methods. Learning objectives are defined herein, and the next steps involve developing educational materials for an RT curriculum for GSRs.

The burden of geriatric traumatic brain injury on trauma systems: Analysis of 348,800 Medicare inpatient claims

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in older adults. The aim of this study was to characterize the burden of TBI in older adults by describing demographics, care location, diagnoses, outcomes, and payments in this high-risk group.

METHODS

Using 2016-2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Standard Analytical Files (IPSAF), patients >65 years with TBI (>1 injury ICD-10 starting with "S06") were selected. Trauma center levels were linked to the IPSAF file via American Hospital Association Hospital Provider ID and fuzzy-string matching. Patient variables were compared across trauma center levels.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-eight thousand eight hundred inpatients (50.4% female; 87.1% white) from 2963 US hospitals were included. Level I/II trauma centers treated 66.9% of patients; non-trauma centers treated 21.5%. Overall inter-facility transfer rate was 19.2%; in Level I/II trauma centers transfers-in represented 23.3% of admissions. Significant TBI (Head AIS ≥3) was present in 70.0%. Most frequent diagnoses were subdural hemorrhage (56.6%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (30.6%). Neurosurgical operations were performed in 10.9% of patients and operative rates were similar regardless of center level. Total unadjusted mortality for the sample was 13.9%, with a mortality of 8.1% for those who expired in-hospital, and an additional 5.8% for those discharged to hospice. Medicare payments totaled $4.91B, with the majority (73.4%) going to Level I/II trauma centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fills a gap in TBI research by demonstrating that although the majority of older adult TBI patients in the United States receive care at Level I/II trauma centers, a substantial percentage are managed at other facilities, despite 1 in 10 requiring neurosurgical operation regardless of level of trauma center. This analysis provides preliminary data on the function of regionalized trauma care for older adult TBI care. Future studies assessing the efficacy of early care guidelines in this population are warranted.

Defining Referral Regions for Inpatient Trauma Care: The Utility of a Novel Geographic Definition

INTRODUCTION

Geographic variation is an inherent feature of the US health system. Despite efforts to account for geographic variation in trauma system strengthening, it remains unclear how trauma "regions" should be defined. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility of a novel definition of Trauma Referral Regions (TRR) for assessing geographic variation in inpatient trauma across the age span of hospitalized trauma patients.

METHODS

Using 2016-2017 State Inpatient Databases, we assessed the extent of geographic variability in three common metrics of hospital use (localization index, market share index, net patient flow) among TRRs and, as a comparison, trauma regions alternatively defined based on Hospital Referral Regions, Hospital Service Areas, and counties.

RESULTS

A total of 860,593 admissions from 102 TRRs, 127 Hospital Referral Regions, 884 Hospital Service Areas, and 583 counties were included. Consistent with expectations for distinct trauma regions, TRR presented with high average localization indices (mean [standard deviation]: 83.4 [11.7%]), low market share indices (mean [standard deviation]: 11.9 [7.0%]), and net patient flows close to 1.00. Similar results were found among stratified pediatric, adult, and older adult patients. Associations between TRRs and variations in important demographic features (e.g., travel time by road to the nearest Level I or II Trauma Center) suggest that while indicative of standalone trauma regions, TRRs are also able to simultaneously capture critical variations in regional trauma care.

CONCLUSIONS

TRRs offer a standalone set of geographic regions with minimal variation in common metrics of hospital use, minimal geographic clustering, and preserved associations with important demographic factors. They provide a needed, valid means of assessing geographic variation among trauma systems.

Does the Geographical Distribution of Facial Trauma Surgeons Correspond to Facial Trauma Burden? A Nationwide Population-Level Analysis

ABSTRACT

It is unknown if craniofacial trauma services are inequitably distributed throughout the US. The authors aimed to describe the geographical distribution of craniofacial trauma, surgeons, and training positions nationwide. State-level data were obtained on craniofacial trauma admissions, surgeons, training positions, population, and income for 2016 to 2017. Normalized densities (per million population [PMP]) were ascertained. State/regional-level densities were compared between highest/lowest. Risk-adjusted generalized linear models were used to determine independent associations. There were 790,415 craniofacial trauma admissions (x[Combining Tilde] = 2330.6 PMP), 28,004 surgeons (x[Combining Tilde] = 83.5 PMP), and 746 training positions (x[Combining Tilde] = 1.9 PMP) nationwide. There was significant state-level variation in the density PMP of trauma (median 1999.5 versus 2983.5, P < 0.01), surgeon (70.8 versus 98.8, P < 0.01), training positions (0 versus 3.4, P < 0.01) between lowest/highest quartiles. Surgeon distribution was positively associated with income and training positions density (P < 0.01). Subanalysis revealed that there was an increase of 6.7 plastic and reconstructive surgeons/PMP for every increase of 1000 trauma admissions/PMP (P < 0.01). There is an uneven state-level distribution of facial trauma surgeons across the US associated with income. Plastic surgeon distribution corresponded closer to craniofacial trauma care need than that of ENT and OMF surgeons. Further work to close the gap between workforce availability and clinical need is necessary.

Firearm Violence, Access to Care, and Gentrification: A Moving Target for American Trauma Systems

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether gentrification predicts the movement of shooting victims over time and if this process has decreased access to care.

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers remain fixed in space, but the populations they serve do not. Nationally, gentrification has displaced disadvantaged communities most at risk for violent injury, potentially decreasing access to care. This process has not been studied, but an increase of only 1 mile from a trauma center increases shooting mortality up to 22%.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study utilizing Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) and Pennsylvania trauma systems outcome (PTOS) data 2006-2018. Shootings were mapped and grouped into census tracts. They were then cross-mapped with gentrification data and hospital location. PPD and PTOS shooting data were compared to ensure patients requiring trauma care were captured. Census tracts with ≥500 residents with income and median home values in the bottom 40th percentile of the metropolitan area were eligible to gentrify. Tracts were gentrified if residents ≥25 with a bachelor's degree increased and home price increased to the top third in the metropolitan area. Change in distribution of shootings and its relation to gentrification was our primary outcome while proximity of shootings to a trauma center was our secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Thirty-two percent (123/379) of eligible tracts gentrified and 31,165 shootings were captured in the PPD database. 9090 (29.2%) patients meeting trauma criteria were captured in PTOS with an increasing proportion over time. The proportion of shootings within gentrifying tracts significantly dropped 2006-2018 (40%-35%, P < 0.001) and increased in non-gentrifying tracts (52%-57%, P < 0.001). In evaluation of shooting densities, a predictable redistribution occurred 2006-2018 with incident density decreasing in gentrified areas and increasing in non-gentrified areas. Shootings within 1 mile of a trauma center increased overall, but proportional access decreased in gentrified areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Shootings in Philadelphia predictably moved out of gentrified areas and concentrated in non-gentrified ones. In this case study of a national crisis, the pattern of change paradoxically resulted in an increased clustering of shootings around trauma centers in non-gentrified areas. Repetition of this work in other cities can guide future resource allocation and be used to improve access to trauma care.

Current trauma care system in Saudi Arabia: A scoping literature review

BACKGROUND

Trauma is one of the leading causes of death worldwide with millions of people dying each year, particularly in low or middle-income countries. This paper describes and evaluates the current trauma system (TS) in Saudi Arabia (SA).

METHODS

A scoping literature review was performed, incorporating an extensive search of Medline and Embase databases for refereed literature, as well as a search of grey literature to locate unpublished articles or reports in English or Arabic. All publications were assessed against the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma System Maturity Index (TSMI) and American College of Surgeon's (ACS) criteria.

RESULTS

Despite local injury prevention efforts, Motor Vehicle Crashes (MVC) remain the primary cause of injuries in SA. Prehospital trauma care in SA aligns with level III care as described in the WHO TSMI classification system, based on the presence of formal emergency medical services and universal access to care. With respect to the ACS classification, no clear written guidelines, either for field triage or trauma destination protocols such as trauma bypass, were identified in prehospital trauma care. The role of secondary and tertiary facilities in treating trauma patients is unclear, with no clear referral linkages, suggesting a level I to III grading of SA's trauma care facilities. Currently, there is no national or regional electronic trauma registry, no quality assurance program, and active involvement in research projects related to injuries is limited.

CONCLUSION

The current SA TS has strengths but there are key features missing in comparison to other systems globally. As MVCs remain a leading cause of death/ disability, efforts to reduce the prevalence and impact of MVC burden in SA through development of a stronger national TS are warranted.

Variations in Revenue Generation for the Care of Orthopaedic Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

In the background of increasing competition between trauma centers, this study investigated the relative reimbursement of trauma care provided in an urban trauma setting, comparing patients previously unknown (new) to the system, representing potential sources of new revenue, and those who were known (established), having received medical care previously in the same system.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 440 patients with high-energy fractures at a single level 1 trauma center was conducted. Payment to charge (P/C) ratios for professional and facilities services within 6 months of injury were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean professional charges per patient were $35,522 and $30,639 (P = 0.11), between new and established patients, respectively, whereas mean professional payments were statistically different, $7,894 and $4,365 (P < 0.001). Mean differences in P/C for facilities payments for new and established patients were not statistically significant, but professional P/C was higher in new patients (P < 0.001), consistent with better insured patients.

DISCUSSION

Insurance companies reimburse for professional or facilities services with statistically different P/C ratios. Treating new patients at our institution likely benefits our institution by offering exposure to a more favorable payer mix and more complex patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective level III.

Exploring geographical variation in access to general surgery in Ireland: Evidence from a national study

BACKGROUND

Improving the equity of surgical services is an important objective of all clinical programmes both local and overseas. Variations in access to care threaten to dismantle the structural paradigm of any health service and such information can aid in promoting quality and access to surgical services. The aim of this study was to explore the geographical variation in the utilisation of common general surgical procedures in Ireland as a measure of the population's access to surgical interventions.

METHODS

Age- and gender-standardized rates for 6 common general surgical procedures were calculated for 28 geographic areas (counties) in the Republic of Ireland using data from the national Hospital Inpatient Enquiry System. Standard statistical indicators (systematic component of variation, coefficient of variation and extremal quotient) were used to measure the extent of regional variation.

RESULTS

A total of 998,406 episodes of hospital care were included in the analysis. Large variation in utilisation was present between the studied counties; CV > 0.3 (range 19.4-31.2), SCV > 5 (range 5.2-14.6). Most procedures were utilised at substantially higher rates outside the larger cities (Dublin, Galway, Waterford).

CONCLUSION

Variations stemming from inefficient and unequal access are important components and markers of modern health systems and should be minimal. County of residence appears to have a clear influence on a patients' inaccessibility to certain interventions. Our findings imply a need for improved access at a regional level by facilitating the integration of public policies and promoting services at the appropriate settings.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

How Does Orthopaedic Research Affect Patient Care?

Academic medicine hinges on high-quality results from research. Surgeon scientists spend their career acquiring grants, writing papers, and educating a next generation of scientists. The real question is how well are we at playing this game? Does our research change surgical practice or affect patient care or government policy? Ideally, published research does and will continue to shape the way care is delivered. Key questions remain, however; what is the return on research investment in orthopaedics? How can surgeons decide which "evidence" matters, and does practice-change only refer to Level I evidence (randomized trials)? This review considers all these questions.

Filling the void: a low-cost, high-yield approach to addressing incidental findings in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings are prevalent in imaging but often go unreported to patients. Such unreported findings may present the potential for harm as well as medico-legal ramifications.

METHODS

A chart review of trauma patients was undertaken over a year. Systems-based changes were made utilizing our electronic medical record system and our staff protocols to improve the disclosure of clinically relevant incidental findings to patients.

RESULTS

During the preintervention period, 674 charts were reviewed. Trauma patients had a rate of incidental findings of 70%, and 36% of patients had clinically relevant incidentals. Rates of follow-up recommendation and disclosure to patients were 22% and 27%, respectively. In the postintervention period, of the 648 charts were reviewed, the rates of a clinically relevant incidental finding were 35%, but the rates of follow-up recommendation and disclosure to patients were 68% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Incidental findings are more prevalent herein than previously reported. With simple changes and minimal resources, clinically relevant and important improvement in reporting incidental findings can be made to mitigate the harm and medico-legal impact of an incidental finding going unreported.