Does the Institution of a Statewide Trauma System Reduce Preventable Mortality and Yield a Positive Return on Investment for Taxpayers?

Value in acute care surgery, part 4: The economic value of an acute care surgery service to a hospital system

ABSTRACT

The Healthcare Economics Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma has published a series of three articles on the topic of value in acute care surgery (ACS). In this series, the key elements of value, cost and outcomes, and the impact of stakeholder perspective on what constitutes high-value care are discussed. The fourth article in this series continues the discussion by focusing on the unique economic value that an ACS service brings to a hospital system and its patients. Characterized by the immediate 24-hour availability of surgeons trained in trauma management, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care, acute care surgeons extend the benefits of surgical rescue and critical care to all hospitalized patients. As such, an ACS service acts as a vital part of a hospital's infrastructure to successfully care for complex and seriously ill patients, in addition to enabling the establishment of other, high revenue-generating services such as vascular, transplant, and complex oncologic surgery programs. The trauma service acts as intake for patients that lead to downstream revenue creation by other disciplines such as orthopedic and neurological surgery, while trauma center designation itself results in dedicated state funding to ensure trauma readiness in many states in the United States. The traditional "value equation" in health care of outcomes achieved per dollar spent is ill-suited to capture many of these unique aspects and benefits of ACS. This article provides the background to understand the economic value of an ACS service and future directions toward improving overall value of care.

Effects of major trauma care organisation on mortality in a European level 1 trauma centre: A retrospective analysis of 2016-2023

INTRODUCTION

The centralisation of care for trauma patients in trauma centres, alongside the creation of inclusive trauma networks, has proven to reduce mortality. In Europe, such structured trauma programs and trauma networks are in development.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the aetiology and evolution of in-hospital mortality in a developing European level 1 trauma centre, to determine the early effect of trauma care reorganisation on mortality and to identify the areas for future investments in trauma care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included the calculation of the standardised mortality ratio (SMR), the time to in-hospital death and the cause of in-hospital death of all primary major trauma admissions to the Antwerp University Hospital from 2016 to 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 patients was included with a crude mortality of 16.4 %, a median Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC II) adjusted mortality of 1.47 %, and a SMR of 1.12. A limitation of care directive was registered for 18.1 % of the patients. The causes of in-hospital death were traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 60 %, haemorrhagic shock in 15 %, organ failure in 10 %, miscellaneous in 14 % and unknown in 1 %. Sixty percent died in the first 48 h of hospital admission (mainly due to TBI and haemorrhagic shock) and 27 % died after more than seven days (mainly due to organ failure and TBI). In 24 % of the deceased patients with severe TBI, a non-TBI related cause of death was found. Overall, the SMR showed a nonsignificant decreasing trend, with a significant decrease of the SMR in the highest risk group (RISCII > 75 %) and a nonsignificant increase in the lowest risk group (RISC II <15 %).

CONCLUSION

The standardised mortality ratio declined over a period of 8 years, even though the SMR increased nonsignificantly in the lowest risk-adjusted mortality group. Future analysis of this subgroup could clarify whether this trend is due to an increase of limitation of care directives and if these deaths could have been prevented with improved trauma care. There might be opportunities to increase the survival of patients with severe TBI who have a non-TBI cause of death.

Progressive Reduction in Preventable Mortality in a State Trauma System Using Continuous Preventable Mortality Review to Drive Provider Education: Results of Analyzing 1,979 Trauma Deaths from 2015 to 2022

BACKGROUND

The state legislature codified and funded the Arkansas Trauma System (ATS) in 2009. Quarterly preventable mortality reviews (PMRs) by the ATS began in 2015 and were used to guide state-wide targeted education to reduce preventable or potentially preventable (P/PP) deaths. We present the results of this PMR-education initiative from 2015 to 2022.

STUDY DESIGN

The ATS uses a statistical sampling model of the Arkansas Trauma Registry to select ~40% of the deaths for quarterly review, reflecting the overall the Arkansas Trauma Registry mortality population. A multispecialty PMR committee reviews the medical records from prehospital care to death, and hospital and regional advisory council reviews for each death. The PMR committee assigns opportunities for improvement (OFIs), cause(s) of death, and the likelihood of preventability for each case. Education to improve trauma care includes annual state-wide trauma meetings, novel classes targeted at level III/IV trauma center hospital providers, trauma evidence-based guidelines, and PMR "pearls."

RESULTS

We reviewed 1,979 deaths with 211 (10.6%) deaths judged to be P/PP deaths. There was a progressive decrease in P/PP deaths and OFIs for P/PP deaths. Five OFI types targeted by education accounted for 72% of the 24 possible OFI types in the P/PP cases, and 94% of the "contributory OFIs." Reductions in "delay in treatment" resulted in the most rapid decrease in P/PP deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Using ongoing PMR studies to target provider education led to a reduction in P/PP deaths and OFIs for P/PP deaths. Focusing on education designed to improve preventable mortality can result in a substantial decrease in P/PP deaths by 43% (14% to 8%) for trauma systems.

Is state trauma funding associated with mortality among injured hospitalized patients?

BACKGROUND

We sought to quantify the association between state trauma funding and (1) in-hospital mortality and (2) transfers of injured patients.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of states with publicly available trauma funding data. We analyzed in-hospital mortality using linked data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey, and these State Department of Public Health trauma funding data.

RESULTS

A total of 594,797 injured adult patients were admitted to acute care hospitals in 17 states. Patients in states with >$1.00 per capita state trauma funding had 0.82 (95 ​% CI: 0.78-0.85, p ​< ​0.001) decreased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality compared to patients in states with less than $1.00 per capita state trauma funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased state trauma funding is associated with decreased adjusted in-hospital mortality.

The Utah Pediatric Trauma Network, a statewide pediatric trauma collaborative can safely help nonpediatric hospitals admit children with mild traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Created in 2019, the Utah Pediatric Trauma Network (UPTN) is a transparent noncompetitive collaboration of all hospitals in Utah with the purpose of improving pediatric trauma care. The UPTN implements evidence-based guidelines based on hospital resources and capabilities with quarterly review of data collected in a network-specific database. The first initiative was to help triage the care of traumatic brain injury (TBI) to prevent unnecessary transfers while ensuring appropriate care. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness of this network wide guideline.

METHODS

The UPTN REDCap database was retrospectively reviewed between January 2019 and December 2021. Comparisons were made between the pediatric trauma center (PED1) and nonpediatric hospitals (non-PED1) in admissions of children with very mild, mild, or complicated mild TBI.

RESULTS

Of the total 3,315 cases reviewed, 294 were admitted to a non-PED1 hospital and 1,061 to the PED1 hospital with very mild/mild/complicated mild TBI. Overall, kids treated at non-PED1 were older (mean, 14.9 vs. 7.7 years; p = 0.00001) and more likely to be 14 years or older (37% vs. 24%, p < 0.00001) compared with those at PED1. Increased admissions occurred post-UPTN at non-PED1 hospitals compared with pre-UPTN (43% vs. 14%, p < 0.00001). Children admitted to non-PED1 hospitals post-UPTN were younger (9.1 vs. 15.7 years, p = 0.002) with more kids younger than 14 years (67% vs. 38%, p = 0.014) compared with pre-UPTN. Two kids required next-day transfer to a higher-level center (1 to PED1), and none required surgery or neurosurgical evaluation. The mean length of stay was 21.8 hours (interquartile range, 11.9-25.4). Concomitantly, less children with very mild TBI were admitted to PED1 post-UPTN (6% vs. 27%, p < 0.00001) and more with complicated mild TBI (63% vs. 50%, p = 0.00003) than 2019.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of TBI guidelines across the UPTN successfully allowed nonpediatric hospitals to safely admit children with very mild, mild, or complicated mild TBI. In addition, admitted kids were more like those treated at the PED1 hospital.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/Epidemiological; Level IV.

Re-triage moderates association between state trauma funding and lower mortality of trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Severely injured patients who are re-triaged (emergently transferred from an emergency department to a high-level trauma center) experience lower in-hospital mortality. Patients in states with trauma funding also experience lower in-hospital mortality. This study examines the interaction of re-triage, state trauma funding, and in-hospital mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

Severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) were identified from 2016 to 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases in five states (FL, MA, MD, NY, WI). Data were merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and state trauma funding data. Patients were linked across hospital encounters to determine if they were appropriately field triaged, field under-triaged, optimally re-triaged, or sub-optimally re-triaged. A hierarchical logistic regression modeling in-hospital mortality was used to quantify the effect of re-triage on the association between state trauma funding and in-hospital mortality, while adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 241,756 severely injured patients were identified. Median age was 52 years (IQR: 28, 73) and median ISS was 17 (IQR: 16, 25). Two states (MA, NY) allocated no funding, while three states (WI, FL, MD) allocated $0.09-$1.80 per capita. Patients in states with trauma funding were more broadly distributed across trauma center levels, with a higher proportion of patients brought to Level III, IV, or non-trauma centers, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (54.0% vs. 41.1%, p < 0.001). Patients in states with trauma funding were more often re-triaged, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). Patients who were optimally re-triaged in states with trauma funding experienced 0.67 lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (95% CI: 0.50-0.89), compared to patients in states without trauma funding. We found that re-triage significantly moderated the association between state trauma funding and lower in-hospital mortality (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured patients in states with trauma funding are more often re-triaged and experience lower odds of mortality. Re-triage of severely injured patients may potentiate the mortality benefit of increased state trauma funding.

Development of a unified national trauma center database, 2018

OBJECTIVE

Trauma center certifications across the United States (U.S.) are not unified. Participation in the national trauma certification program established through the American College of Surgeons (ACS) is not universal, and many states maintain unique trauma certification systems with varying criteria. We investigated degree of similarity between the ACS national trauma certification program and state trauma certifications, then combined these distinct certifications into a unified national trauma center database.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of all non-specialty, non-federal emergency U.S. departments (EDs) open in 2018 to determine availability and levels of trauma centers. We created a "Standard" definition of trauma levels using ACS criteria as a benchmark. ACS similar trauma levels were then assigned to state levels I-III by comparing trauma receiving protocol, maximum response times, and general surgical coverage; through this process, levels across distinct systems established through different criteria were standardized.

RESULTS

In 2018, ACS certifications spanned 47 states and DC; 3 states did not participate in ACS (Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington). A distinct, non-ACS state certification system was present in 47 states and DC; 3 states had no ongoing state certification system in 2018 (Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Among 5,514 US EDs open in 2018, we identified 2,132 associated with adult and pediatric trauma centers (39%) holding certification (ACS, state, or both); 1,083 (51%) were certified levels I-III, and the rest (1,049, 49%) were levels IV-V. Of the 1,083 centers with any level I-III certification, 498 (46%) held ACS certification, and 1,059 (98%) held state certification. Applying ACS-similar criteria to centers with state levels I-III (n=1,059) resulted in a level change for 124 centers (12%). Using our "Standard" definition of a trauma level based on ACS criteria, our unified level I-III database included 959 (89%) adult and pediatric centers, with 24 (3%) ACS-certified only, 461 (48%) state-certified only, and 474 (49%) certified by both.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies exist between ACS and state trauma certification systems. The differences in level I-III state criteria confirm discrepant standards for a given trauma "level" across the U.S. We combined these certifications into a unified national trauma center database available to researchers and the public.

Development of a Unified National Database of Burn Centers with Co-located Emergency Departments, 2020

The care of severely burned patients comes with unique requirements for specialized burn centers. The American Burn Association sets guidelines for burn centers and provides a voluntary program to verify their quality of care. However, not all burn centers are verified, and it is unclear which nonverified centers have met requirements set by their state health departments. To compile a complete database of all United States emergency departments in facilities with confirmed burn centers, we investigated state requirements to supplement data from the American Burn Association verification process. In 2020, only 13 states set requirements for burn centers; 3 states explicitly required American Burn Association verification, 4 used modified American Burn Association criteria, and 6 used alternate criteria. Only 2 states had separate requirements for pediatric burn centers. Based on adherence to state and American Burn Association criteria, we identified 90 confirmed burn centers in 2020, 85 of which had emergency departments. Of these 85, 45 (53%) were only verified, 17 (20%) were only state-confirmed, and 23 (27%) were both. Emergency departments in a confirmed burn center were more likely-than those without-to have higher adult and pediatric visit volumes, be academic, be a stroke or trauma (adult or pediatric) center, have a dedicated pediatric area, and have a pediatric emergency care coordinator. We compiled the first unified burn center database that incorporates state and American Burn Association lists. This database can be utilized in future health services research and is available to the public through a smartphone application.

Pre-hospital transfusion of post-traumatic hemorrhage: Medical and regulatory aspects

Data of good methodological quality have recently become available to support prehospital use of transfusion in the severe trauma setting. Consistent with recent guidelines for the implementation of damage control resuscitation in the hospital in this setting and in the wake of numerous cohort study data from wartime medicine, they are now guided by recent guidelines for the use of freeze-dried plasma. The main difficulties to overcome in order to implement a practice are of a regulatory and logistic nature.

Factors influencing the use of health services by trauma patients according to insurance type and injury severity score in South Korea: Based on Andersen's behavioral model

This study aims to understand the difference in trauma patients' use of health services in Korea according to insurance type and the Injury Severity Score. Andersen's behavioral model of health service use is employed to identify the factors influencing their use. Claims data from January 1 to December 31, 2016 were extracted from both the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and the automobile insurance screening center for all the medical treatments identified with the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale and Injury Severity Score. Using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service's remote statistical analysis system, hierarchical regression and negative binomial analyses were conducted to determine the effect of predisposing, enabling, and need factors on health service use. The results demonstrate that the use of Korean health services is relatively equitable since medical expenses for trauma patients are greatly influenced by need factors. However, the length of time trauma patients stay in the hospital appears to differ according to insurance type. This study suggests that healthcare policies need to increase coverage benefits and improve medical billing for patients with severe trauma, as well as develop a more robust screening system for patients with mild to moderate impairments.

Establishing a regional pediatric trauma preventable/potentially preventable death rate

PURPOSE

Although trauma is the leading cause of death for the pediatric population, few studies have addressed the preventable/potentially preventable death rate (PPPDR) attributable to trauma.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of trauma-related death records occurring in Harris County, Texas in 2014. Descriptive and Chi-squared tests were conducted for two groups, pediatric and adult trauma deaths in relation to demographic characteristics, mechanism of injury, death location and survival time.

RESULTS

There were 105 pediatric (age < 18 years) and 1738 adult patients. The PPPDR for the pediatric group was 21.0%, whereas the PPPDR for the adult group was 37.2% (p = 0.001). Analysis showed fewer preventable/potentially preventable (P/PP) deaths resulting from any blunt trauma mechanism in the pediatric population than in the adult population (19.6% vs. 48.4%, p < 0.001). Amongst the pediatric population, P/PP traumatic brain injury (TBI) were more common in the youngest age range (age 0-5) vs. the older (6-12 years) pediatric and adolescent (13-17 years) patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results identify areas of opportunities for improving pediatric trauma care. Although the overall P/PP death rate is lower in the pediatric population than the adult, opportunities for improving initial acute care, particularly TBI, exist.

Trauma registry implementation and operation in low and middle income countries: A scoping review

Injury is a major public health crisis contributing to more than 4.48 million deaths annually. Trauma registries have proven highly effective in reducing injury morbidity and mortality rates in high income countries. They are a critical source of information for injury prevention, benchmarking care, quality improvement, and resource allocation. Historically, low and middle income countries (LMICs) have largely been excluded from trauma registry development due to limited resources. Recently, this has begun to change with low-resource hospitals adopting innovative strategies to implement trauma registries. Nonetheless, dissemination of these strategies remains fragmented. Hospitals looking to develop their own trauma registries have no current, comprehensive resource that summarises the implementation decisions of other registries in similar contexts. This scoping review aims to identify where trauma registries are located in LMICs, bringing up to date previous estimates, and to identify the most common approaches to registry implementation and operation in these settings.