Survival of seriously injured patients first treated in rural hospitals

Geography of the Underserved: The Contribution of Rural Non-trauma Hospitals to Trauma Care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion and characteristics of injured rural residents treated at urban trauma centers (TCs), urban non-trauma centers (NTCs), rural TCs, and rural NTCs.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Timely treatment at a designated TC improves outcomes for patients with serious injuries, but rural residents have limited access to designated TCs. Rural NTCs may constitute an under-recognized source of TC.

METHODS

We used the National Emergency Department Sample to conduct a retrospective, pooled cross-sectional study of ED visits among rural residents with injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 (indicating at least moderate injury). Hospitals were designated as TC or NTC and as rural or urban. We compared management, disposition, and outcomes among hospital types.

RESULTS

Of 748,587 injured rural residents from 2016 to 2020, 384,113 (51.3%) were treated in rural NTCs, 232,845 (31.1%) in urban TCs, 116,493 (15.6%) in urban NTCs, and 15,137 (2.0%) in rural TCs. Injuries treated at rural NTCs were moderate in severity (ISS: 9-15) in 76.6% of visits, severe (ISS: 16-25) in 15.7%, and very severe (ISS: >25) in 1.1%. Urban TCs saw the highest proportion of very severe injuries (17.3%). Rural NTCs managed 77.5% of visits definitively, discharging 72.8%. They transferred 21.9% of patients. The length of stay was the longest, and hospital charges were highest for patients treated in urban TCs, which also performed the most procedures. Rural NTCs had the shortest length of stay and lowest mean charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural NTCs provided initial care for more than half of injured rural residents, including 2 in 5 of those with the most severe injuries, and managed more than 3 in 4 definitively. These hospitals may be an under-recognized component of the US trauma system.

Does Referral Distance Deteriorates the Burn Patients Outcome? Results From an Academic Tertiary Hospital in a Developing Country

Every year millions of people are burned and many of them are transported to specialized burn centers. One of the most important challenges in the face of burn patients in urban areas is deciding about referring patients to specialized burn centers. In this study, correlation between referral distance and mortality rate is investigated. Our cross-sectional analytic study included admission data of 7248 burn patients from Imam Reza Burn Center (Mashhad, Iran) over 9 years. The outcomes of interest were mortality, length of hospital stay, and the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI). Also, we measured the distance between the patient referral location to Mashhad. SPSS version 16 was used for data analysis. Overall, 52.7% of admitted patients were referred from hospitals in other cities. The referred group had more severe burn injury (P < .001), higher mortality rate (P < .001), and longer length of hospital stay (P < .001). The referred distance was associated with an increased risk of death (Odds ratio = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.47-1.92), but after controlling the severity of burns, only ABSI was the statistically significant predictor of mortality (Odds ration = 2.17, 95% CI, 2.05-2.28). Therefore, increasing the distance from urban areas to specialized burn center did not increase the mortality rate. After adjusting for ABSI, the mortality rate in referred patients was not related to referral distance. By observing referral points based on available guidelines, distance from a referral burn center does not affect mortality rate independently. Therefore, equipping the existing burn centers instead of building new ones and focusing on improving referral system can be a good strategy in low- and middle-income countries with limited resources.

Portrait of trauma care in Quebec's rural emergency departments and identification of priority intervention needs to improve the quality of care: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Trauma remains the primary cause of death in individuals under 40 years of age in Canada. In Quebec, the Trauma Care Continuum (TCC) has been demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the mortality rate among trauma victims. Although rural citizens are at greater risk for trauma and trauma death, no empirical data concerning the effectiveness of the TCC for the rural population in Quebec are available. The emergency departments (EDs) are important safety nets for rural citizens. However, our data indicate that access to diagnostic support services, such as intensive care units and CT is limited in rural areas. The objectives are to (1) draw a portrait of trauma services in rural EDs; (2) explore geographical variations in trauma care in Quebec; (3) identify adaptable factors that could reduce variation; and (4) establish consensus solutions for improving the quality of care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will take place from November 2015 to November 2018. A mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative) will be used. We will include data (2009-2013) from all trauma victims treated in the 26 rural EDs and tertiary/secondary care centres in Quebec. To meet objectives 1 and 2, data will be gathered from the Ministry's Database of the Quebec Trauma Registry Information System. For objectives 3 and 4, the project will use the Delphi method to develop consensus solutions for improving the quality of trauma care in rural areas. Data will be analysed using a Poisson regression to compare mortality rate during hospital stay or death on ED arrival (objectives 1 and 2). Average scores and 95% CI will be calculated for the Delphi questionnaire (objectives 3 and 4).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project MP-HDL-2016-003). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Urban/Rural disparities in Oregon pediatric traumatic brain injury

Background

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) greatly contributes to morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population. We examined potential urban/rural disparities in mortality amongst Oregon pediatric patients with TBI treated in trauma hospitals.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of children ages 0–19 using the Oregon Trauma Registry for years 2009–2012. Geographic location of injury was classified using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban/Rural Classification Scheme. Incidence rates were calculated using Census data for denominators. Associations between urban/rural injury location and mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders. Generalized estimating equations were used to help account for clustering of data within hospitals.

Results

Of 2794 pediatric patients with TBI, 46.6 % were injured in large metropolitan locations, 24.8 % in medium/small metropolitan locations, and 28.6 % in non-metropolitan (rural) locations. Children with rural locations of injury had a greater annualized TBI incidence rate, at 107/100,000 children per year, than those from large metropolitan areas (71/100,000 per year). Compared to children injured in urban locations, those in rural locations had more than twice the crude odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % CI, 1.6–4.0). This association remained significant (OR, 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.04–3.3) while adjusting for age, gender, race, insurance status, injury severity, and type of TBI (blunt vs. penetrating).

Conclusion

We observed higher rates of TBI and greater proportions of severe injury in rural compared to urban areas in Oregon. Rural children treated in the trauma system for TBI were more likely to die than urban children after controlling for demographic and injury factors associated with urban/rural residence. Further research is needed to examine treatment disparities by urban/rural location. Future work should also identify interventions that can reduce risk of TBI and TBI-related mortality among children, particularly those who live in rural areas.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40621-015-0063-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury transferred to a Level I or II trauma center: United States, 2007 to 2009

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater, who are indirectly transported from the scene of injury to a nontrauma center can experience delays to definitive neurosurgical management. Transport to a hospital with appropriate initial emergency department treatment and rapid admission has been shown to reduce mortality in a state's trauma system. This study was conducted to see if the same finding holds with a nationally representative sample of patients with severe TBI seen at Level I and II trauma centers.

METHODS

This study is based on adult (≥18 years), severe TBI patients treated in a nationally representative sample of Level I and II trauma centers, submitting data to the National Trauma Databank National Sample Program from 2007 to 2009. We analyzed independent variables including age, sex, primary payer, race, ethnicity, mode of transport, injury type (blunt vs. penetrating), mechanism of injury, trauma center level, head AIS, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and systolic blood pressure by transfer status. The primary outcome variable was inpatient death, with discharge disposition, neurosurgical procedures, and mean hospital, intensive care unit, and ventilator days serving as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria were applied (ISS < 16; age < 18 years; GCS motor score = 6; non-head AIS score ≥ 3; head AIS < 3; patients with missing transfer status, and death on arrival), a weighted sample of 51,300 (16%) patients was eligible for analysis. In bivariate analyses, transferred patients were older (≥60 years), white, insured, less severely injured (head AIS score ≤ 4, ISS ≤ 25), and less likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (p < 0.001). After controlling for all variables, direct transport, 1 or more comorbidities, advanced age, head AIS score, intracranial hemorrhage, and firearm injury remained significant predictors of death. Being transferred (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96) lowered the risk of death.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe TBI who were transferred to a Level I or II trauma center had lower injury severity, including less penetrating trauma, and, as a result, were less likely to die compared with patients who were directly admitted to a Level I or II trauma center. The results may demonstrate adherence with the current Guidelines for Prehospital Management of Traumatic Brain Injury and Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients, which recommend the direct transport of patients with severe TBI to the highest level trauma center. Patients with severe TBI who cannot be taken to a trauma center should be stabilized at a nontrauma center and then transferred to a Level I or II trauma center. Regional and national trauma databases should consider collecting information on patient outcomes at referral facilities and total transport time after injury, to better address the outcomes of patient triage decisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Rural and urban distribution of trauma incidents in Scotland

Background

Trauma systems reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes from injury. Regional trauma networks have been established in several European regions to address longstanding deficiencies in trauma care. A perception of the geography and population distribution as challenging has delayed the introduction of a trauma system in Scotland. The characteristics of trauma incidents attended by the Scottish Ambulance Service were analysed, to gain a better understanding of the geospatial characteristics of trauma in Scotland.

Methods

Data on trauma incidents collected by the Scottish Ambulance Service between November 2008 and October 2010 were obtained. Incident location was analysed by health board region, rurality and social deprivation. The results are presented as number of patients, average annual incidence rates and relative risks.

Results

Of the 141 668 incidents identified, 72·1 per cent occurred in urban regions. The risk of being involved in an incident was similar across the most populous regions, and decreased slightly with increasing rurality. Social deprivation was associated with greater numbers and risk. A total of 53·1 per cent of patients were taken to a large general hospital, and 38·6 per cent to a teaching hospital; the distribution was similar for the subset of incidents involving patients with physiological derangements.

Conclusion

The majority of trauma incidents in Scotland occur in urban and deprived areas. A regionalized system of trauma care appears plausible, although the precise configuration of such a system requires further study.

Trauma Incidents Attended by Emergency Medical Services in Victoria, Australia

Introduction:

International literature describing the profile of trauma patients attended by a statewide emergency medical services (EMS) system is lacking. Most literature is limited to descriptions of trauma responses for a single emergency medical service, or to patients transported to a specific Level-1 trauma hospital. There is no Victorian or Australian literature describing the type of trauma patients transported by a state emergency medical service.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to define a profile of all trauma incidents attended by statewide EMS.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of all patient care records (PCR) for trauma responses attended by Victorian Ambulance Services for 2002 was conducted. Criteria for trauma categories were defined previously, and data were extracted from the PCRs and entered into a secure data repository for descriptive analysis to determine the trauma profile. Ethics committee approval was obtained.

Results:

There were 53,039 trauma incidents attended by emergency ambulances during the 12-month period. Of these, 1,566 patients were in physiological distress, 11,086 had a significant pattern of injury, and a further 8,931 had an identifiable mechanism of injury. The profile includes minor trauma (n = 9,342), standing falls (n = 20,511), no patient transported (n = 3,687), and deceased patients (n = 459).

Conclusions:

This is a unique analysis of prehospital trauma. It provides a baseline dataset that may be utilized in future studies of prehospital trauma care. Additionally, this dataset identifies a ten-fold difference in major trauma between the prehospital and the hospital assessments.

Patients Referred to a Norwegian Trauma Centre: effect of transfer distance on injury patterns, use of resources and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Triage and interhospital transfer are central to trauma systems. Few studies have addressed transferred trauma patients. This study investigated transfers of variable distances to OUH (Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål), one of the largest trauma centres in Europe.

METHODS

Patients included in the OUH trauma registry from 2001 to 2008 were included in the study. Demographic, injury, management and outcome data were abstracted. Patients were grouped according to transfer distance: ≤20 km, 21-100 km and > 100 km.

RESULTS

Of the 7.353 included patients, 5.803 were admitted directly, and 1.550 were transferred. The number of transfers per year increased, and there was no reduction in injury severity during the study period. Seventy-six per cent of the transferred patients were severely injured. With greater transfer distances, injury severity increased, and there were larger proportions of traffic injuries, polytrauma and hypotensive patients. With shorter distances, patients were older, and head injuries and injuries after falls were more common. The shorter transfers less often activated the trauma team: ≤20 km -34%; 21-100 km -51%; > 100 km -61%, compared to 92% of all directly admitted patients. The mortality for all transferred patients was 11%, but was unequally distributed according to transfer distance.

CONCLUSION

This study shows heterogeneous characteristics and high injury severity among interhospital transfers. The rate of trauma team assessment was low and should be further examined. The mortality differences should be interpreted with caution as patients were in different phases of management. The descriptive characteristics outlined may be employed in the development of triage protocols and transfer guidelines.

Triage and mortality in 2875 consecutive trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Most studies on trauma and trauma systems have been conducted in the United States. We aimed to describe the factors predicting mortality in European trauma patients, with focus on triage.

METHODS

We prospectively registered all trauma patients in Eastern Denmark over 12 consecutive months. We analysed the flow of trauma patients through the system, the time spent at different locations, and we assessed the risk factors of mortality.

RESULTS

We included 2875 trauma patients, of whom 158 (5.5%) died before arrival at the hospital. Most patients (75.3%) were brought to local hospitals and patients primarily (n=82) or secondarily triaged (n=203) to the level I trauma centre were the most severely injured. Secondarily transferred patients spent a median of 150 min in the local hospital before transfer to the level I trauma centre and 48 min on transportation. Severe injury with an injury severity score >15 was seen in 345 patients, of whom 118 stayed at the local hospital. They had a significantly higher mortality than 116 of those secondarily transferred [45/118, 38.1% vs. 11/116, 9.7% (P<0.0001)]. Mortality within 30 days was 4.3% in admitted patients, and significant risk factors of death were violence [odds ratio (OR)=5.72], unconsciousness (OR=4.87), hypotension (OR=4.96), injury severity score >15 (OR=27.42), and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Around 50% of all trauma deaths occurred at the scene. Increased survival of severely injured patients may be achieved by early transfer to highly specialised care.

College student drinking and ambulance utilization

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol misuse by college students places resource demands on colleges and universities, including the provision of medical services for intoxicated students. We harvested archival data to document the prevalence of alcohol-related ambulance utilization and to explore factors associated with ambulance use.

METHODS

We reviewed 2 years of university ambulance records and determined which trips were alcohol related and their demographic, descriptive, and medical correlates.

RESULTS

Alcohol use was associated with 17 and 16 percent of all university-based ambulance trips in 2005 and 2006, respectively. When alcohol was involved, patients were more likely to be younger than 21 years, less alert, and more likely to receive advanced life support. Alcohol-related ambulance trips were more likely to occur on weekends, to involve transport from a residence hall, and to a hospital.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol misuse is associated with one out of every six campus-based ambulance runs, a hidden cost of student alcohol misuse.

Surgical trauma referrals from rural level III hospitals: should our community colleagues be doing more, or less?

BACKGROUND

Rural citizens die more frequently because of trauma than their urban counterparts. Skill maintenance is a potential issue among rural surgeons because of infrequent exposure to severely injured patients. The primary goal was to evaluate the outcomes of multiple injuries patients who required a laparotomy after referral from level III trauma centers.

METHODS

All severely injured patients (injury severity score >12) referred to a level I trauma center from level III hospitals, during a 48-month period were evaluated. Comparisons between referrals (level III and IV) as well as survivors and nonsurvivors used standard statistical methodology.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred and thirty patients (35%) were transferred from level III (33%) and level IV (67%) centers (43% underwent an operative procedure). Only 13% required a laparotomy, whereas 87% needed procedures from other subspecialists. Referred patients had a mean injury severity score of 28, length of stay of 28 days, and mortality rate of 26%. More patients arrived hemodynamically unstable from level IV (55%) versus level III (35%) hospitals (p < 0.05). Nonsurvivors from level III centers were more likely to transfer via aircraft (100%) than from level IV hospitals (55%) (p < 0.05). Most (91%) definitive general surgery procedures could have been completed by surgeons at level III centers; however, 90% also had multisystem injuries requiring treatment by other subspecialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Most severely injured patient referrals from level III and IV trauma centers in Western Canada are appropriate. The lack of consistent subspecialty coverage mandates most transfers from level III hospitals. This data will be used to engage rural Alberta physicians in an educational outreach program.

Emergency Medical Treatment andActive Labor Act andTrauma Triage

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was conceived as a means to ensure that patients with emergent conditions would receive stabilizing care and to avert the potentially dangerous, economically driven, interhospital transfer of patients. This legislation and its subsequent application arrived near the time that regional and statewide trauma systems were established. Trauma systems were developed to guide optimal resource use for the injured patient regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Unfortunately, when coupled with current economic and litigation threats to community emergency and surgical practitioners, EMTALA represents a threat to the continuation of the trauma system concept. Trauma systems are dependent on a tiered hospital network where severely injured patients are taken to a hospital with resources aligned to manage the worst of injuries. When primary triage from the field cannot accomplish this task, secondary triage from a nondesignated or lower-level hospital to the higher-level trauma center is needed. EMTALA has served as a driver to change the priority for secondary triage from addressing the needs of the severely injured patient to filling community hospital surgical specialist emergency department on-call coverage gaps for less severely injured patients. Further, legal action associated with claims of EMTALA violations has needlessly extended medical examination and "stabilization" efforts at community emergency departments prior to needed secondary triage. Higher-level trauma centers will benefit from codifying system-wide emergency medical services practices related to primary and secondary triage, establishing trauma center capacity and divert practices, and initiating "transfer center" operations that control transfer of patients to these centers.

Evaluation of trauma care by comparing mortality risks and admission policy in a Dutch trauma region

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of trauma care in the Netherlands compared to UK norms and in terms of mortality risks in three groups of patients. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in risk of hospital death between major trauma patients transferred from another hospital to the trauma centre and patients directly admitted to the trauma centre.

METHODS

Trauma admissions (n=17,023) during the period 2000-2006 in 12 emergency departments were selected from a regional trauma registry database. In the analysis, the dependent variable was death within 30 days of admission. W-Statistics (W(s)) was used to compare outcomes of the total Dutch trauma population and the population admitted to the trauma centre, with norms for England and Wales. The effect of direct admission to a non-trauma centre and immediate admission to a trauma centre for major trauma patients versus indirect admission was tested in a logistic model and adjusted for confounding.

RESULTS

444 (2.6%) patients died within 30 days of admission. 6.1% of all patients were major trauma patients. W(s) resulted in 1.39 (95% CI 1.08-1.70) more observed survivors per 100 admitted trauma patients standardised for case mix using UK norms. W(s) of trauma patients in the trauma centre resulted in 0.85 (95% CI 0.44-1.27) more survivors than expected. Patients directly admitted to a trauma centre or a non-trauma centre without transfer were found to have a non-significant increasing risk of mortality (OR 1.5 (95% CI 0.7-3.4) and 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-4.1), respectively) compared to patients transferred from another hospital to a trauma centre.

CONCLUSION

Trauma care in this Dutch province is performing better than expected comparing to the norms for the England and Wales. The admission policy of transporting major trauma patients to the nearest hospital and, if necessary, then transferring them to the trauma centre, seems legitimate in Dutch trauma care.

Team-oriented training for damage control surgery in rural trauma: a new paradigm

BACKGROUND

The geography of Norway has led to an initiative to train teams from rural hospitals in damage control surgery using a team-oriented approach based on Crew Resource Management. Our aim was to evaluate this approach and its impact on trauma care in rural hospitals across Norway.

METHODS

Thirty-eight teams from 21 hospitals participated in 10 courses (during the years 2003-2006) where providers from the same hospital trained as a team. Each course consisted of interactive lecture modules and operative sessions on live porcine models that emphasize communication, collaboration and team-based problem solving. The data collection tools were a postcourse questionnaire and a phone survey of participating hospitals.

RESULTS

Teams consisted of surgeons (34%), operating room nurses (35%), and anesthesiology staff (31%). Almost all course participants (N = 228, 99%) reported a dramatic increase in their proficiency with damage control techniques. There was a mean increase of 2.3 points in proficiency with extraperitoneal pelvic packing and 1.5 points with emergency thoracotomy on a 5-step Likert scale. The team approach was perceived as crucial by 218 (94%) of participants. The phone survey revealed 12 cases of lifesaving rural damage control operations by course participants in the past 3 years (estimated cost: $15,075 per life saved). Of the 18 hospitals surveyed, 17 modified their trauma protocols as a result of the course.

CONCLUSION

Teaching damage control surgery using a team-oriented approach is an innovative educational method for rural hospitals.

Trauma systems and timing of patient transfer: are we improving?

INTRODUCTION

The regionalization of trauma services is based on the premise that injured persons presenting to nontertiary facilities will be stabilized and rapidly transported to a more definitive center. Although trauma systems seem to improve outcomes for urban patients, this same benefit has not been shown for rural patients. There are many factors associated with the decision to transfer injured patients to a regional trauma center, including referral hospital and patient age, for example. The purpose of this study is to examine factors that influence the timing of transfer of trauma patients and specifically to determine if establishing specific trauma systems has led to any changes in transfer timing over time.

METHODS

The trauma registry at the University of Wisconsin was queried for all patients admitted between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2005. Patients were included in this study if they had been transferred to the university hospital after evaluation at an outside hospital. The registry variables that were abstracted were age, referring hospital, emergency department (ED) time at referring hospital, injury severity score (ISS), the presence of a head injury, performance of a head computed tomography (CT), mode of transport, and the date of ED evaluation.

RESULTS

There were 1656 patients with ISS higher than 9 transferred during the period. The mean ED time was 153 +/- 82 minutes. Emergency department time was significantly shorter for those with ISS higher than 25 and for those transported by helicopter. Four hundred ninety-two (30%) patients had a head CT performed at the outside hospital, of which 221 (44%) were repeated at the trauma center. The mean ED time for those in whom a CT was performed was significantly longer than those without CT (179 +/- 81 vs 142 +/- 84 minutes). The ED times were slightly longer for level III hospitals (158 +/- 82 minutes) than for level IV hospitals (137 +/- 74 minutes). Emergency department times were longer for older patients. The times in the ED showed an upward, but not statistically significant, trend. After controlling for all other variables, ED times were not significantly different over the period studied.

CONCLUSION

Development of a statewide trauma system and outreach education has not significantly affected transfer times from nontrauma centers in our system. Outreach educational efforts should focus on systematic trauma evaluation, prompt transfer, and limitation of nontherapeutic testing.

Effects of a rural trauma system on traumatic brain injuries

The response of trauma systems in rural areas is uncertain since distances between injury scenes and trauma care are considerable. Timely arrival at definitive care is critical for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) since secondary damage can occur during the hours following injury. We evaluated how the implementation of a trauma system in a predominately rural state affected the triage of TBI patients and their risk for mortality. The Iowa System Trauma Registry Dataset was analyzed, and included patients evaluated before trauma system implementation, 1997-1998, and after implementation, 2002-2003. Patients were identified using ICD9-CM codes or AIS codes, and included 710 pre-system patients and 886 post-system patients. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the effect of the trauma system on survival while controlling for confounders. Following implementation of the trauma system, patients treated in Level I or II facilities were older (p = 0.019), more often had multiple injuries (p = 0.0002), and had more severe TBI (p = 0.008). After controlling for confounders, transferred patients and those directly admitted were less likely to die in 72 h in the post-system than the pre-system (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36, 0.88; OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.32, 0.79). Implementation of the Iowa trauma system seems to have led to more appropriate triage and transport for TBI patients, and this likely contributed to reduced in-hospital mortality.

The Delaware Trauma System: Impact of Level III Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND

In 2000, Delaware instituted a trauma system that included establishing four Level III trauma centers in counties previously without trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether implementation of this inclusive trauma system reduced the injury-related mortality rates in these counties.

METHODS

Using the state trauma registry, patients with trauma admitted to all acute care hospitals in Delaware from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2004 were identified and categorized into two groups: preimplementation of an inclusive trauma system (1995-1999), and postimplementation (2000-2004). These groups were compared in aggregate and by individual counties for age, sex, mechanism of injury, Abbreviated Injury Score, injury-related mortality rate, mean Injury Severity Score (ISS), acute transfers out, and acute transfers in (Level I only). chi test and Mann-Whitney U test were used where indicated. Significance was determined to be p < or = 0.05.

RESULTS

After implementation, mortality rates significantly decreased (5.3%-2.8%) and rate of acute transfers out increased (14.7%-19.5%) in the counties served by the Level III centers. The ISS of patients in the Level I trauma center significantly increased (mean ISS = 10) when compared with the Level III trauma centers (mean ISS = 6), reflecting increased transfers of patients with severe injuries.

CONCLUSION

An inclusive state trauma system that included the establishment of Level III trauma centers in previously underserved counties led to a decrease in trauma-related mortality rates in these counties. In the county served by the Level I trauma center, mortality remained unchanged despite an increase in admissions and the injury severity of these admissions.

REDUCING TIME TO URGENT SURGERY BY TRANSPORTING RESOURCES TO THE TRAUMA PATIENT

BACKGROUND

Time to definitive trauma care directly influences patient survival. Patient transport (retrieval) services are essential for the transportation of remotely located trauma patients to a major trauma centre. Trauma surgical expertise can potentially be combined with the usual retrieval response (surgically supported response) and delivered to the patient before patient transportation. We identified the frequency and circumstances of such surgically supported retrievals.

METHODS

Retrospective review of trauma patients transported by the NRMA CareFlight, New South Wales Medical Retrieval Service, Australia, from 1999 to 2003, identifying patients who had a surgically supported retrieval response and an urgent surgical procedure carried out before patient transportation to an major trauma centre.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and forty-nine trauma interhospital patient transfers were identified of which 511 (68%) were categorized as urgent and 64% of which were rural based. Three (0.4%) patients had a surgically supported retrieval response and had an urgent surgical procedure carried out before patient transportation. All patients benefited from that early surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

A surgically supported retrieval response allows for the more timely delivery of urgent surgical care. Patients can potentially benefit from such a response. There are, however, important operational considerations in providing a surgically supported retrieval response.

Trauma care at rural level III trauma centers in a state trauma system

BACKGROUND

Although much has been written about the benefits of trauma center care, most experiences are urban with large numbers of patients. Little is known about the smaller, rural trauma centers and how they function both independently and as part of a larger trauma system. The state of Missouri has designated three levels of trauma care. The cornerstone of rural trauma care is the state-designated Level III trauma center. These centers are required to have the presence of a trauma team and trauma surgeon but do not require orthopedic or neurosurgical coverage. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine how Level III trauma centers compared with Level I and Level II centers in the Missouri trauma system and, secondly, how trauma surgeon experience at these centers might shape future educational efforts to optimize rural trauma care.

METHODS

During a 2-year period in 2002 and 2003, the state trauma registry was queried on all trauma admissions for centers in the trauma system. Demographics and patient care outcomes were assessed by level of designation. Trauma admissions to the Level III centers were examined for acuity, severity, and type of injury. The experiences with chest, abdominal, and neurologic trauma were examined in detail.

RESULTS

A total of 24,392 patients from 26 trauma centers were examined, including all eight Level III centers. Acuity and severity of injuries were higher at Level I and II centers. A total of 2,910 patients were seen at the 8 Level III centers. Overall deaths were significantly lower at Level III centers (Level I, 4% versus Level II, 4% versus Level III, 2%, p < 0.001). Numbers of patients dying within 24 hours were no different among levels of trauma care (Level I, 37% versus Level II, 30% versus Level III, 32%). Among Level III centers 45 (1.5%) patients were admitted in shock, and 48 (2%) had a Glasgow Coma Scale score <9. Twenty-six patients had a surgical head injury (7 epidural, 19 subdural hematomas). Twenty-eight patients (1%) needed a chest or abdominal operation. There were 15 spleen and 12 liver injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Score of 4 or 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Level III trauma centers performed as expected in a state trauma system. Acuity and severity were less as was corresponding mortality. There were a paucity of life-threatening head, chest, and abdominal injuries, which provide a challenge to the rural trauma surgeon to maintain necessary skills in management of these critical injuries.

Improving outcomes in a regional trauma system: impact of a level III trauma center

BACKGROUND

Trauma systems decrease morbidity and mortality of injured populations, and each component contributes to the final outcome. This study evaluated the association between a referring hospital's trauma designation and the survival and resource utilization of patients transferred to a level I trauma center.

METHODS

Data from the Registry of the American College of Surgeons on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during a 7-year period were subdivided into 3 categories: group 1 = level III-designated trauma center; group 2 = potential level III trauma centers; and group 3 = other transferring hospitals. Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology was used to provide a probability estimate of survival adjusted for the effect related to injury severity, physiologic host factors, and age. A W statistic was calculated for each type of referring hospital so that comparisons between observed survival and predicted survival could be measured. Differences in W, length of stay, intensive care unit days, and ventilator days were examined using general linear models.

RESULTS

Patients transferred to a level I from a level III trauma center (group 1) were more seriously injured (P < .0001) and had improved survival (P < .0018) compared with those transferred from nondesignated hospitals (groups 2 and 3). Patients transferred from large nondesignated hospitals (group 2) had outcomes similar to patients transferred from all other hospitals (group 3). Level I hospital resource utilization did not show significant differences based on referring hospital type.

COMMENTS

Outcomes of patients in a trauma system are associated with trauma-center designation of the referring hospitals.

An outcome analysis of patients transferred to a regional burn center: transfer status does not impact survival

BACKGROUND

Optimal burn care is provided at specialized burn centers. Given the geographic location of these centers, many burn patients receive initial treatment at local emergency departments prior to transfer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients transferred from other facilities have worse outcomes than those admitted directly from the field.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing the outcomes of patients admitted to our burn center directly from the field with patients requiring transfer from a preliminary care facility. The outcomes of interest were mortality, length of stay, length of stay/TBSA burned, number of operations and hospital charges. Poisson regression or Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate differences in outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2003 a total of 1877 patients were admitted to our burn center and 953 (51%) were transferred from a preliminary care facility. No difference (p<0.05) was found in length of stay, number of operations, hospital charges and mortality between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients transferred to a regional burn center from local hospitals have equivalent mortality, length of stay and hospital charges as those admitted directly from the field.

Variability of trauma transfer practices among non-tertiary care hospital emergency departments

OBJECTIVES

To assess both the variability of interhospital trauma transfer practices and nonclinical factors associated with the transfer of injured patients from emergency departments (EDs) of non-tertiary care hospitals.

METHODS

The authors analyzed a retrospective cohort of trauma patients initially presenting to one of 42 non-tertiary care hospitals (Level 3 or 4 hospitals) and requiring admission or transfer from January 1998 to December 2003. Twenty-one clinical, demographic, and hospital-level variables were included in multivariable logistic regression models (outcome = ED transfer to a tertiary care hospital), with hospital and year included as fixed effects to adjust for clustering. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to determine the importance of different covariates in predicting whether or not a patient was transferred from the ED.

RESULTS

Included in the analysis were 10,176 persons, of whom 3,785 (37%) were transferred to a tertiary care hospital from the ED. The hospital of initial presentation was the factor of greatest importance in predicting transfer, and there was substantial variability in transfer practices between hospitals. Several additional nonclinical variables were independently associated with transfer, including type and level of hospital, patient age, increasing distance from the nearest higher-level hospital (a measure of geographic isolation), and the patient's insurance status (particularly among Level 3 hospitals).

CONCLUSIONS

The non-tertiary care hospital of initial presentation is the strongest predictor for whether an injured patient is transferred to a tertiary center from the ED. There is substantial variability in transfer practices between hospitals after accounting for important clinical factors, and several nonclinical variables are independently associated with transfer.

Inclusive Trauma Systems: Do They Improve Triage or Outcomes of the Severely Injured?

BACKGROUND

Trauma systems decrease injury-related mortality, but not all systems have the same configuration. In some systems, nearly all acute care hospitals participate to the extent that their resources allow (inclusive systems), whereas in others, relatively few high-level centers participate (exclusive systems). We postulate that inclusive systems assure that severely injured patients are more likely to be triaged to a level I or II regional trauma center, and this greater degree of participation would lead to lower mortality.

METHODS

We used administrative discharge data for 2001 in 24 states with formal systems, and we included all urgently hospitalized adults with an Injury Severity Score>or=16. We categorized states by trauma system configuration ("exclusive", "more inclusive", "most inclusive") based on the proportion of all hospitals designated as a Level I through V trauma center (0-13%, 14-37%, 38-100%, respectively). We compared the rates of triage to a regional trauma center and inpatient death in inclusive states relative to exclusive states, while adjusting for patient- and state-level factors.

RESULTS

Out of 61,496 patients, 40,706 (66.2%) were hospitalized at regional trauma centers. Inpatient mortality was 14.7%. After adjusting for patient age, primary payer status, and system maturity, the odds of triage to a regional trauma center were similar in inclusive and exclusive systems. After adjusting for primary payer status, mechanism of injury, and system maturity, the odds of death were similar in more inclusive and exclusive systems (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.08) but were significantly lower in the most inclusive systems (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Severely injured trauma patients have greater inpatient survival in inclusive trauma systems even though they are no more likely to be hospitalized at a regional trauma center. Consideration should be given to continuing implementation of systems with an inclusive configuration, especially in light of other theoretical benefits of these systems, such as better dispersing of trauma care resources in the event of natural disasters or terrorist events.

Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether head-injured patients transferred to level I trauma centers have reduced mortality relative to transfers to level II trauma centers.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

Retrospective cohort study of 542 patients with head injury who initially presented to 1 of 31 rural trauma centers in Oregon and Washington, and were transferred from the emergency department to 1 of 15 level I or level II trauma centers, between 1991 and 1994.

STUDY DESIGN

A bivariate probit, instrumental variables model was used to estimate the effect of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers on 30-day postdischarge mortality. Independent variables included age, gender, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), other indicators of injury severity, and a dichotomous variable indicating transfer to a level I trauma center. The differential distance between the nearest level I and level II trauma centers was used as an instrument.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Patients transferred to level I trauma centers differ in unmeasured ways from patients transferred to level II trauma centers, biasing estimates based on standard statistical methods. Transfer to a level I trauma center reduced absolute mortality risk by 10.1% (95% confidence interval 0.3%, 22.2%) compared with transfer to level II trauma centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe head injuries transferred from rural trauma centers to level I centers are likely to have improved survival relative to transfer to level II centers.

Advanced statistics: the propensity score--a method for estimating treatment effect in observational research

Observational studies assessing the effect of a particular treatment or exposure may be subject to bias, which can be difficult to eliminate using standard analytic techniques. Multivariable models are commonly used in observational research to assess the relationship between a certain exposure or treatment and an outcome, while adjusting for important variables necessary to ensure comparability between the groups. Large differences in the observed covariates between two study groups may exist in observational studies in which the investigator has no control over who was allocated to each treatment group, and these differences may lead to biased estimates of treatment effect. When there are large differences in important prognostic characteristics between the treatment groups, adjusting for these differences with conventional multivariable techniques may not adequately balance the groups, and the remaining bias may limit valid causal inference. Use of a propensity score, described as a conditional probability that a subject will be "treated" based on an observed group of covariates, may better adjust covariates between the groups and reduce bias. The purpose of this article is to describe the use of propensity scores to adjust for bias when estimating treatment effects in observational research and to compare use of this technique with conventional multivariable regression. The authors present three methods for integrating propensity scores into observational analyses using a database collected on head-injured trauma patients. The article details the methods for creating a propensity score, analyzing data with the score, and explores differences between propensity score methods and conventional multivariable methods, including potential benefits and limitations. Graphical representations of the analyses are provided as well.

Telemedicine reduces discrepancies in rural trauma care

Patients injured in rural areas die at roughly twice the rate of those patients with similar injuries in urban areas. A multitude of explanations have been suggested for higher mortality rates from trauma in the rural areas of the United States. Since rural emergency room (ER) staff see far fewer traumas than ER staff at large metropolitan trauma centers, their lack of exposure to this low-volume problem certainly contributes to the problem. To address discrepancies in trauma education and the delivery of care in our rural region, a telemedicine system was utilized to provide rapid consultation from surgeons at the level 1 trauma center and to provide enhanced educational opportunities for rural ambulance emergency first responders. Clinical outcome measures and evaluation questionnaires were designed in advance of implementation. Forty-one "tele-trauma consults" were performed over the first 30 months of the project, all for major, multi-system trauma. Though many clinical recommendations were made, the system was judged to be life saving in three instances, and both rural and trauma center providers felt the system enhanced clinical care. In addition, educational sessions for rural first responders were well attended and favorably reviewed. Early results of a telemedicine system provide encouragement as a means to address discrepancies in the outcomes after major trauma in rural areas, although more work needs to be completed and evaluated.