Characteristics of ACS-verified Level I and Level II trauma centers: A study linking trauma center verification review data and the National Trauma Data Bank of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

Beyond American College of Surgeons Verification: Quality Metrics Associated with High Performance at Level I and II Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma has established a framework for trauma center quality improvement. Despite efforts, recent studies show persistent variation in patient outcomes across national trauma centers. We aimed to investigate whether risk-adjusted mortality varies at the hospital level and if high-performing centers demonstrate better adherence to ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation (VRC) program quality measures.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed data from the 2018 to 2021 ACS TQIP Participant Use Files, focusing on adult admissions at ACS-verified level I or II trauma centers for blunt, penetrating, or isolated traumatic brain injury. We used mixed-effects models to assess center-specific risk-adjusted mortality and identified high-performing centers (HPTCs), defined as those with the lowest decile of overall risk-adjusted mortality. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, outcomes, and adherence to ACS-VRC quality measures between HPTC and non-HPTC.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,498,602 patients across 442 level I and II trauma centers met inclusion criteria: 65.3% presenting with blunt injury, 9.3% with penetrating injury, and 25.4% with isolated TBI. Management at HPTC was associated with lower odds of major complications, failure to rescue, and takeback. Additionally, HPTC status was associated with increased odds of adherence to several ACS-VRC quality measures, including balanced resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51), appropriate pediatric admissions (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.68), and substance abuse screening (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in risk-adjusted mortality persists across trauma centers. Given the association between adherence to quality measures and high performance, multidisciplinary efforts to refine and implement guidelines are warranted.

Predictors of initial management failure in traumatic hemothorax: A prospective multicenter cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic hemothorax is common, and management failure leads to worse outcomes. We sought to determine predictive factors and understand the role of trauma center performance in hemothorax management failure.

METHODS

We prospectively examined initial hemothorax management (observation, pleural drainage, surgery) and failure requiring secondary intervention in 17 trauma centers. We defined hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention as thrombolytic administration, tube thoracostomy, image-guided drainage, or surgery after failure of the initial management strategy at the discretion of the treating trauma surgeon. Patient-level predictors of hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention were identified for 2 subgroups: initial observation and immediate pleural drainage. Trauma centers were divided into quartiles by hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention rate and hierarchical logistic regression quantified variation.

RESULTS

Of 995 hemothoraces in 967 patients, 186 (19%) developed hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention. The frequency of hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention increased from observation to pleural drainage to surgical intervention (12%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). The number of ribs fractured (odds ratio 1.12 per fracture; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.26) and pulmonary contusion (odds ratio 2.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.91) predicted hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention in the observation subgroup, whereas chest injury severity (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.17-2.12) and initial hemothorax volume evacuated (odds ratio 1.10 per 100 mL; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.16) predicted hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention after pleural drainage. After adjusting for patient characteristics in the logistic regression model for hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention, patients treated at high hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention trauma centers were 6 times more likely to undergo an intervention after initial hemothorax management failure than patients treated in low hemothorax management failure requiring secondary intervention trauma centers (odds ratio 6.18, 95% confidence interval 3.41-11.21).

CONCLUSION

Failure of initial management of traumatic hemothorax is common and highly variable across trauma centers. Assessing patient selection for a given management strategy and center-level practices represent opportunities to improve outcomes from traumatic hemothorax.

Disparities in trauma care education: An observational study of the ATLS course within a national trauma system

BACKGROUND

Disparities in trauma systems, including gaps between trauma center levels, affect patient outcomes. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) is a standard method of care that improves the performance of lower-level trauma systems. We sought to study potential gaps in ATLS education within a national trauma system.

METHODS

This prospective observational study examined the characteristics of 588 surgical board residents and fellows taking the ATLS course. The course is required for board certification in adult trauma specialties (general surgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology), pediatric trauma specialties (pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric surgery), and trauma consulting specialties (all other surgical board specialties). We compared the differences in course accessibility and success rates within a national trauma system which includes seven level 1 trauma centers (L1TC) and twenty-three non-level 1 hospitals (NL1H).

RESULTS

Resident and fellow students were 53% male, 46% employed in L1TC, and 86% were in the final stages of their specialty program. Only 32% were enrolled in adult trauma specialty programs. Students from L1TC had a 10% higher ATLS course pass rate than NL1H (p = 0.003). Trauma center level was associated with higher odds to pass the ATLS course, even after adjustment to other variables (OR = 1.925 [95% CI = 1.151 to 3.219]). Compared to NL1H, the course was two-three times more accessible to students from L1TC and 9% more accessible to adult trauma specialty programs (p = 0.035). The course was more accessible to students at early levels of training in NL1H (p < 0.001). Female students and trauma consulting specialties enrolled in L1TC programs were more likely to pass the course (OR = 2.557 [95% CI = 1.242 to 5.264] and 2.578 [95% CI = 1.385 to 4.800], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Passing the ATLS course is affected by trauma center level, independent of other student factors. Educational disparities between L1TC and NL1H include ATLS course access for core trauma residency programs at early training stages. Some gaps are more pronounced among consulting trauma specialties and female surgeons. Educational resources should be planned to favor lower-level trauma centers, specialties dealing in trauma care, and residents early in their postgraduate training.

Nationwide Analysis of the Distribution of Level 1 and Level 2 Trauma Centers Per Population Growth and Motor Vehicle Collision Injuries/Fatalities Utilizing Geographic Information Systems Mapping Technology: Toward Optimizing Access to Trauma Care

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers (TCs) improve patient outcomes. Few investigations detail the US geographical distribution of Level 1 and 2 TCs (L1TCs, L2TCs) regarding motor vehicle collision (MVC) injuries/fatalities.

OBJECTIVE

We utilized Geographic Information Systems mapping to investigate the distribution of L1TCs and L2TCs in relation to population growth, MVC injuries, and MVC fatalities at the county and regional level to identify any disparities in access to trauma care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of L1TC and L2TC distribution, MVC injuries/fatalities, and population growth from 2010 to 2018. Information was gathered at the county and region level for young adults (aged 15-44), middle-aged adults (45-64), and elderly (≥65).

RESULTS

A total of 263 L1TCs across 46 states and 156 counties and 357 L2TCs across 44 states and 255 counties were identified. The mean distance between L1TCs and L2TCs is 28.3 miles and 31.1 miles, respectively. Seven counties were identified as being at-risk, all in the Western and Southern US regions that experienced ≥10% increase in population size, upward trends in MVC injuries, and upward trends MVC fatalities across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven US counties containing ≤2 ACSCOT-verified and/or state-designated L1TCs or L2TCs experienced a 10% increase in population, MVC injuries, and MVC fatalities across young, middle-aged and elderly adults from 2010 to 2018. This study highlights chronic disparities in access to trauma care for MVC patients. Evaluation of state limitations regarding the distribution of L1TCs and L2TCs, frequent evaluation of local and regional trauma care needs, and strategic interventions to improve access to trauma care may improve patient outcomes for heavily burdened counties.

Use of angioembolization in pediatric polytrauma patients: WITH BLUNT SPLENIC INJURYAngioembolization in Pediatric Blunt Splenic Injury

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We sought to analyze the use of angioembolization (AE) after pediatric splenic injuries at adult and pediatric trauma centers (ATCs/PTCs).

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank (2010-2015) was queried for patients (<18 years) who experienced blunt splenic trauma. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of AE with splenectomy. Propensity score matching was used to explore the relationship between trauma center designation and AE utilization.

RESULTS

14,027 encounters met inclusion criteria. 514 (3.7%) patients underwent AE. When compared to PTCs, patients were older, had a higher ISS, and more often presented in shock at ATCs (p<0.001 for all). Regression models demonstrated no difference in mortality between cohorts. Odds of splenectomy were lower for patients undergoing AE (OR 0.16 [CI: 0.08-0.31]), however this effect was mostly driven by utilization at ATCs. Using a 1:1 propensity score matching model, patients treated at ATCs were 4 times more likely to undergo AE and 7 times more likely to require a splenectomy compared to PTCs (p<0.001). Over 6 years, PTCs performed only 27 splenectomies and 23 AEs (1.1% and 0.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

AE was associated with improved splenic salvage at ATCs in select patients but appeared overutilized when compared to outcomes at PTCs. PTCs accomplished a higher splenic salvage rate with a lower AE utilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III - Retrospective cohort study.

Are trauma research programs in academic and non-academic centers measured by equal standards? A survey of 137 level I trauma centers in the United States

Background

American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.

Methods

A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020–1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.

Results

The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).

Conclusions

Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13037-021-00309-2.

Trauma outcomes for blunt and penetrating injuries by mode of transportation and day/night shift

BACKGROUND

Effective management of trauma patients is dependent on pre-hospital triage systems and proper in-hospital treatment regardless of time of admission. We aim to investigate any differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between day vs. night arrival for adult trauma patients who were transported to the hospital via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and to determine if care/outcomes are inferior when admitted during the night shift as compared to the day shift.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of adult blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring full team trauma activation at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT)-verified Level 1 trauma center from 2011 to 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square analyses, independent-sample t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests were performed. Primary measurement outcome was adjusted observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios utilizing TRISS methodology.

RESULTS

8370 patients with blunt injuries and 1216 patients with penetrating injuries were analyzed. There were no significant differences in day vs. night O/Es overall (blunt 0.65 vs. 0.59; p = 0.46) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.87; p = 0.97). There also were no significant differences when stratified by GEMS (blunt 0.64 vs. 0.55; p = 0.08) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 1.10; p = 0.09) and HEMS admissions (blunt 0.76 vs. 0.75; p = 0.91) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.91; p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

At an ACSCOT-verified Level 1 Trauma Center, care/outcomes of patients admitted during the night shift were not inferior to those admitted during the day shift. Trauma Center verification by the ACSCOT and multidisciplinary collaboration may allow for consistent care despite injury type and time of day.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of level 1 trauma centers to meet American College of Surgeons research requirements

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has had major effects on hospitals' ability to perform scientific research while providing patient care and minimizing virus exposure and spread. Many non-COVID-19 research has been halted, and funding has been diverted to COVID-19 research and away from other areas.

Methods

A 28-question survey was administered to all level 1 trauma centers in the USA that included questions about how the pandemic affected the trauma centers' ability to fulfill the volume and research requirements of level 1 verification by the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

Results

The survey had a 29% response rate (40/137 successful invitations). Over half of respondents (52%) reported reduced trauma admissions during the pandemic, and 7% reported that their admissions dropped below the volume required for level 1 verification. Many centers diverted resources from research during the pandemic (44%), halted ongoing consenting studies (33%), and had difficulty fulfilling research requirements because of competing clinical priorities (40%).

Discussion

Results of this study show a need for flexibility in the ACS verification process during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially including reduction of the required admissions and/or research publication volumes.

Level of evidence

Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Variability in Current Trauma Systems and Outcomes

Background:

Complication rates may be indicative of trauma center (TC) performance. The complication rates between Level 1 and 2 TCs at the national level are unknown. Our study aimed to determine the relationship between American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified and state-designated TCs and complications.

Study Design and Methods:

This was a cohort review of the National Sample Program (NSP) from the National Trauma Data Bank, the world's largest validated trauma database. TCs were categorized by ACS or state Level 1 or 2. TCs not categorized as Level 1 or 2 were excluded. All 22 complications provided by the NSP were analyzed. Chi-squared analysis was used with statistical significance defined as P < 0.05.

Results:

Of the 94 TCs in the NSP, 67 had ACS and 80 had state designations of Level 1 or 2. There were 38 ACS Level 1 TCs treating 87,340 patients and 29 ACS Level 2 TCs treating 35,763. There were 45 state Level 1 TCs treating 106,640 and 35 state Level 2 TCs treating 43,290. ACS Level 1 TCs had significantly higher complications compared to ACS Level 2 TCs (13.5% [11,776/87,340] vs. 10.1% [3,606/35,763], P < 0.0001). In addition, state Level 1 TCs had significantly more complications compared to state Level 2 TCs (4.4% [4,681/106,640] vs. 1.6% [673/43,290], P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Both ACS and state Level 2 TCs had significantly lower complication rates than ACS and state Level 1 TCs. Further investigations should look for the source and impact of this difference.

What is the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation in adult trauma centres? Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement (QI) is mandatory in trauma centres but there is no prescription for doing successful QI. Considerable variation in implementation strategies and inconsistent use of evidence-based protocols therefore exist across centres. The quality of reporting on these strategies may limit the transferability of successful initiatives across centres. This systematic review will assess the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation within a trauma centre in terms of the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for English language articles published after 2010 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL electronic databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The database search will be supplemented by searching trial registries and grey literature online. Included studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guideline implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or improvement in patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be a global score reporting the proportion of studies respecting at least 80% of the SQUIRE 2.0 criteria and will be obtained based on the 18-items identified in the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Secondary outcome will be the risk of bias assessed with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies- of Interventions tool for observational cohort studies and with the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses will be conducted in randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of guideline implementation if studies are not heterogeneous. If meta-analyses are conducted, we will combine studies according to the risk of bias (low, moderate or high/unclear) in subgroup analyses. All study titles, abstracts and full-text screening will be completed independently and in duplicate by the review team members. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will also be done independently and in duplicate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018084273.

The "mortality ascent": Hourly risk of death for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients at Level II versus Level I trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Severely injured trauma patients have higher in-hospital mortality at Level II versus Level I trauma centers (TCs). To better understand these differences, we sought to determine if there were any periods during which hemodynamically unstable trauma patients are at higher risk of death at Level II versus Level I TCs within the first 24 hours postadmission.

STUDY DESIGN

Trauma patients aged 18 years to 64 years, with Injury Severity Score of 15 or greater, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at admission, and treated at Level II or Level I TCs, were identified using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. Burn patients, transfers, and patients dead on arrival were excluded. Log-binomial regression models, adjusted for patient- and hospital-level confounders, were used to compare mortality at Level II versus Level I TCs over the first 24 hours postadmission.

RESULTS

Of 13,846 hemodynamically unstable patients, 4,212 (30.4%) were treated at 149 Level II TCs, and 9,634 (69.6%) at 116 Level I TCs. Within the first 24 hours, 3,059 (22.1%) patients died. In risk-adjusted models, mortality risk was significantly elevated at Level II versus Level I TCs during the 24 hours postadmission (relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16). Hourly mortality risk was significantly different between Level II and Level I TCs during 4 hours to 7 hours postadmission, with a maximal difference at 7 hours (relative risk, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36) and comparable mortality risk beyond 7 hours postadmission.

CONCLUSION

The 4-hour to 7-hour time window postadmission is critical for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. Variations in available treatment modalities may account for higher relative mortality at Level II TCs during this time. Further investigation to elucidate specific risk factors for mortality during this period may lead to reductions in in-hospital mortality among hemodynamically unstable trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.