Factors associated with hospital mortality in traumatic injuries: Incentive for trauma care integration

Factors contributing to disparities in trauma care between urban vs rural trauma centers: Towards improving trauma care access and quality of care delivery

BACKGROUND

We aim to explore and target factors contributing to disparities in trauma-care outcomes between urban vs rural trauma centers including EMS protocols, trauma centers' (TC) distribution, infrastructure, and hospital resources.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted from January 1988 through April 1st, 2024, using Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane, ProQuest, and PubMed. Included studies evaluated prehospital and in-hospital factors impacting trauma outcomes in urban and rural care settings. Key outcomes of interest were EMS transport times, TC access, inter-hospital transfers, trauma system utilization, and workforce infrastructure.

RESULTS

A review of 29 studies demonstrated prolonged EMS on-scene and transport times, higher undertriage rates, and lower geospatial access to TCs in rural compared to urban settings. Transferring from rural to urban TCs was associated with increased mortality and designating rural TCs as Level III TCs reduced mortality (32 % decrease, p < 0.0001). The unregulated expansion of TCs did not improve patient access or outcomes. Rural hospitals lacked specialized providers, had more hospitalizations (x̄ rural = 685.4 vs x̄ urban = 566.3; p = 0.005), ICU admissions (20.2% vs 11.6 %, p = 0.042), and ventilation requirements (37.8% vs 20.7 %, p = 0.001) among trauma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural trauma patients often experience worse outcomes than their urban counterparts, possibly due to longer prehospital times, reduced TC access, and less specialized care. The designation of targeted Level III TCs in rural areas has been associated with improved outcomes. In contrast, unregulated TC expansion has not necessarily enhanced access or outcomes for rural patients.

An Analysis of Injured Patients Treated at Level 1 Trauma Centers Versus Other Centers: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Trauma systems continue to evolve to create the best outcomes possible for patients who have undergone traumatic injury.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to evaluate the existing research on outcomes based on field triage to a Level 1 trauma center (L1TC) compared to other levels of hospitals and nontrauma centers.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. Studies analyzing measures of morbidity, mortality, and cost after receiving care at L1TCs compared to lower-level trauma centers and nontrauma centers in the United States and Canada were included. Three independent reviewers reviewed abstracts, and two independent reviewers conducted full-text review and quality assessment of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twelve thousand five hundred fourteen unique articles were identified using the literature search. 61 relevant studies were included in this scoping review. 95.2% of included studies were national or regional studies, and 96.8% were registry-based studies. 72.6% of included studies adjusted their results to account for injury severity. The findings from receiving trauma care at L1TCs vary depending on severity of injury, type of injury sustained, and patient characteristics. Existing literature suffers from limitations inherent to large de-identified databases, making record linkage between hospitals impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review shows that the survival benefit of L1TC care is largest for patients with the most severe injuries. This scoping review demonstrates that further research using high-quality data is needed to elucidate more about how to structure trauma systems to improve outcomes for patients with different severities of injuries and in different types of facilities.

Area Deprivation Index Score is Associated with Lower Rates of Long Term Follow-up after Upper Extremity Vascular Injuries

The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) has been shown to be a determinant of healthcare outcomes in both medical and surgical fields, and is a measure of the socioeconomic status of patients. We sought to analyze outcomes in patients with upper extremity vascular injuries that were admitted over a five-year period to a Level I trauma center sorted by ADI. All patients with upper extremity vascular injury presenting to a level one trauma center between January 2013 and January 2017 were retrospectively collected. The patients were divided into two groups based on their ADI with the first group representing the lowest quartile of patients and the second group the higher three quartiles. Patient's demographics were analyzed as well as modes of trauma, hospital transfer status prior to receiving care, type of intervention received, follow-up rates and outcomes including both complication and amputation rates. Over this time period, a total of 88 patients with traumatic upper extremity vascular injuries were identified. The majority of injuries were due to penetrating trauma (74/88, 84%) with 41% (10/24) of patients in the lower ADI being victims of gunshot wounds compared to 27% (17/64) of those in the higher ADI (P = 0.19). Patients in the lowest ADI quartile were more likely to be African Americans (P= 0.0001), and more likely to be transferred to our university hospital prior to receiving care (P= 0.007). Arrival Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score were similar as was time spent in the emergency room. Length of stay trended longer in the lowest ADI quartile as compared to the higher ADI (7.5 vs. 11.8, P= 0.59). The rates of long term follow-up were significantly lower in patients with the lowest ADI scores as opposed to the higher ADI group (P= 0.0098), however, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two groups including both complication and amputation rates. The ADI is associated with lower rates of long term follow-up after upper extremity vascular injuries, despite patients in both the high and low ADI groups having similar outcomes in regards to complication and amputation rates. Further study is warranted to investigate the role of the socioeconomic status in outcomes following traumatic injury.

University Teaching Trauma Centers: Decreased Mortality but Increased Complications

BACKGROUND

Teaching hospitals are often regarded as excellent institutions with significant resources and prominent academic faculty. However, the involvement of trainees may contribute to higher rates of complications. Conflicting reports exist regarding outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals, and the difference among trauma centers is unknown. We hypothesized that university teaching trauma centers (UTTCs) and nonteaching trauma centers (NTTCs) would have a similar risk of complications and mortality.

METHODS

We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) for adults treated at UTTCs or NTTCs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of mortality and in-hospital complications, such as respiratory complications (RCs), venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), and infectious complications (ICs).

RESULTS

From 895,896 patients, 765,802 (85%) were treated at UTTCs and 130,094 (15%) at NTTCs. After adjusting for covariates, UTTCs were associated with an increased risk of RCs (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, confidence interval (CI) 1.28-1.37, P < 0.001), VTEs (OR 1.17, CI 1.12-1.23, P < 0.001), and ICs (OR 1.56, CI 1.49-1.64, P < 0.001). However, UTTCs were associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.96, CI 0.93-0.99, P = 0.008) compared with NTTCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates increased associated risks of RCs, VTEs, and ICs, yet a decreased associated risk of in-hospital mortality for UTTCs when compared with NTTCs. Future studies are needed to identify the underlying causative factors behind these differences.

Association of Social Determinants of Health and Road Traffic Deaths: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review systematically the association of social determinants of health (SDH) and road traffic deaths (RTD) within scientific literature.

METHODS

A search strategy was designed and run in EMBASE, PubMed via MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library. Through title, abstract, and full-text screening, all English original papers (except ecological studies) which studied social determinants of health and fatal injuries were included. Papers which studied association between RTD and the education, income, rural settlement, and marital status were evaluated and the related data was extracted from the full-texts.

RESULTS

Eleven articles out of 7,897 primary results were selected to be included in the study. Among eight papers studied education, seven confirmed a negative association between years of schooling and RTD. Two out of three articles reported no association between income leveland RTD. Among three papers studied rural settlement, two approved a positive relationship between this determinant and RTD. Both articles studied marital status, confirmed an association between this determinant and RTD.

CONCLUSION

A few papers studied association of social determinants of health (SDH) and RTD. There was an inverse relationship between education and RTD. The evidence for such an association between income, rural settlement, and marital state was scarce. Further investigations are recommended through original research.

Emergency trauma care in rural and remote settings: Challenges and patient outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Trauma is a global public health concern, with higher mortality rates acknowledged in rural and remote populations. Research to understand this phenomenon and to improve patient outcomes is therefore vital. Trauma systems have been developed to provide specialty care to patients in an attempt to improve mortality rates. However, not all trauma systems are created equally as distance and remoteness has a significant impact on the capabilities of the larger trauma systems that service vast geographical distances. The primary objective of this integrative literature review was to examine the challenges associated with providing emergency trauma care to rural and remote populations and the associated patient outcomes. The secondary objective was to explore strategies to improve trauma patient outcomes.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was used to inform the methods of this study. A systematic search of databases including CINAHL, Medline, EmBase, Proquest, Scopus, and Science Direct was undertaken. Other search methods included hand searching journal references.

RESULTS

2157 articles were identified for screening and 87 additional papers were located by hand searching. Of these, 49 were included in this review. Current evidence reveals that rural and remote populations face unique challenges in the provision of emergency trauma care such as large distances, delays transferring patients to definitive care, limited resources in rural settings, specific contextual challenges, population specific risk factors, weather and seasonal factors and the availability and skill of trained trauma care providers. Consequently, rural and remote populations often experience higher mortality rates in comparison to urban populations although this may be different for specific mechanisms of injury or population subsets. While an increased risk of death was associated with an increase in remoteness, research also found it costs substantially less to provide care to rural patients in their rural environment than their urban counterparts. Other factors found to influence mortality rates were severity of injury and differences in characteristics between rural and urban populations. Trauma systems vary around the world and must address local issues that may be affected by distance, geography, seasonal population variations, specific population risk factors, trauma network operationalisation, referral and retrieval and involvement of hospitals and services which have no trauma designation.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenges acknowledged for rural and remote trauma patients may be lessened and mortality rates improved by implementing strategies such as telemedicine, trauma training and the expansion of trauma systems that are responsive to local needs and resources. Additional research to determine which of these challenges has the most significant impact on health outcomes for rural patients is required in an effort to reduce existing discrepancies. Emphasis on embracing and expanding inclusive planning for complex trauma systems, as well as strategies aimed at understanding the issues rural and remote clinicians face, will also assist to achieve this.

Barriers to clinical research in trauma

As with all areas of medicine, high-quality clinical research is essential to improving the care of trauma patients. This research is crucial in developing evidence-based treatments that decrease cost, decrease morbidity, and improve mortality. Trauma continues to extract a significant toll on society and is the single largest cause of years of life lost in the United States. The need to conduct high-quality clinical research in trauma is not disputed. However, significant challenges and barriers unique to the field of trauma make performing this research more difficult. It is critical to be aware of these challenges and barriers to performing clinical research involving trauma patients so these challenges can be accounted for and solutions implemented to minimize their impact on research. This review will focus on the barriers and challenges that are encountered while performing clinical research in trauma.

Scientific and logistical challenges in designing the CONTROL trial: recombinant factor VIIa in severe trauma patients with refractory bleeding

BACKGROUND

Clinical research in trauma patients poses multiple challenges in study design. These reflect the heterogeneity of injury and treatment, the paucity of acceptable study endpoints aside from mortality, and the difficulties inherent in obtaining informed consent in acutely ill populations. A current example of this problem is the study of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), which has attracted considerable interest as a systemic procoagulant agent for use in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage.

PURPOSE

To report on the implementation of an international trial - CONTROL - intended to assess the efficacy and safety of rFVIIa in trauma, and discuss trauma research study design in light of this experience.

METHODS

The CONTROL trial international steering committee confronted a number of barriers in the design of the CONTROL trial. They addressed methodologies for (1) standardizing entry criteria for trauma patients suffering inherently heterogeneous injuries, (2) obtaining informed consent in an acutely injured population with altered levels of consciousness, (3) avoiding futile care, while recruiting subjects with incompletely diagnosed injuries, (4) standardizing trauma intensive care across different investigating sites and countries, and (5) establishing study endpoints that were both clinically relevant and convincing to regulatory authorities. The resulting study methodology is reported.

RESULTS

The CONTROL trial began active recruitment in October 2005, and was halted on June 11, 2008 because the observed mortality in the 576 enrolled patients was so far below expectations that the study would lack sufficient statistical power at the planned number of subjects to demonstrate a benefit. The utility of the endpoints selected for study will not be known until completion of data analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Any clinical trial in trauma patients must cope with the urgency of care required, issues of patient heterogeneity, standardization of care across multiple centers, and the difficulties of obtaining informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Research in acutely hemorrhaging trauma patients presents numerous scientific and ethical challenges. The methodology of the CONTROL study is presented as an example of how some of these challenges can be approached and managed, and of the pitfalls that may arise.