Impact of a statewide trauma system on the triage, transfer, and inpatient mortality of injured patients

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.

Geographic Disparities in Re-triage Destinations Among Seriously Injured Californians

Objective

To quantify geographic disparities in sub-optimal re-triage of seriously injured patients in California.

Summary of Background Data

Re-triage is the emergent transfer of seriously injured patients from the emergency departments of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers to, ideally, high-level trauma centers. Some patients are re-triaged to a second non-trauma or low-level trauma center (sub-optimal) instead of a high-level trauma center (optimal).

Methods

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of seriously injured patients, defined by an Injury Severity Score > 15, re-triaged in California (2009-2018). Re-triages within one day of presentation to the sending center were considered. The sub-optimal re-triage rate was quantified at the state, regional trauma coordinating committees (RTCC), local emergency medical service agencies, and sending center level. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression quantified the association of sub-optimality with the RTCC of the sending center. Geospatial analyses demonstrated geographic variations in sub-optimal re-triage rates and calculated alternative re-triage destinations.

Results

There were 8,882 re-triages of seriously injured patients and 2,680 (30.2 %) were sub-optimal. Sub-optimally re-triaged patients had 1.5 higher odds of transfer to a third short-term acute care hospital and 1.25 increased odds of re-admission within 60 days from discharge. The sub-optimal re-triage rates increased from 29.3 % in 2009 to 38.6 % in 2018. 56.0 % of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers had at least one sub-optimal re-triage. The Southwest RTCC accounted for the largest proportion (39.8 %) of all sub-optimal re-triages in California.

Conclusion

High population density geographic areas experienced higher sub-optimal re-triage rates.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development.

METHOD

A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69-0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10-1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37-1.55]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142842 .

Influence of Oral Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Drugs on Outcome of Elderly Severely Injured Patients

Introduction: Severely injured elderly patients have a poorer prognosis and higher mortality rates after severe trauma compared with younger patients. The aim of this study was to correlate the influence of pre-existing oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet drugs (PAI) on the outcome of severely injured elderly patients. Methods: Using a prospective cohort study model over an 11-year period, severely injured elderly patients (≥65 years and ISS ≥ 16) were divided into two groups (no anticoagulation/platelet inhibitors: nAP and OAC/PAI). A comparison of the groups was conducted regarding injury frequency, trauma mechanism, severity of head injuries, and medication-related mortality. Results: In total, 254 out of 301 patients were analyzed (nAP: n = 145; OAC/PAI: n = 109, unknown data: n = 47). The most relevant injury was falling from low heights (<3 m), which led to a significantly higher number of severe injuries in patients with OAC/PAI. Patients with pre-existing OAC/PAI showed a significantly higher overall mortality rate compared to the group without (38.5% vs. 24.8%; p = 0.019). The severity of head injuries in OAC/PAI was also higher on average (AIS 3.7 ± 1.6 vs. 2.8 ± 1.9; p = 0.000). Conclusion: Pre-existing oral anticoagulation and/or platelet aggregation inhibitors are related to a higher mortality rate in elderly polytrauma patients. Low-energy trauma can lead to even more severe head injuries due to pre-existing medication than is already the case in elderly patients without OAC/PAI.

The Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Undergoing Interfacility Transfer

BACKGROUND

Previous literature demonstrates increased mortality for traumatic brain injury (TBI) with transfer to a Level II versus Level I trauma center. Our objective was to determine the effect of the most recent American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) "Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient" resources manual ("The Orange Book") on outcomes after severe TBI after interfacility transfer to Level I versus Level II center.

METHODS

Utilizing the Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons admission year 2017, we identified patients with isolated TBI undergoing interfacility transfer to either Level I or Level II trauma center. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations with mortality.

RESULTS

There were 10,268 (71.6%) transferred to a Level I center and 4,025 (28.4%) were transferred to a Level II center. They were mostly male (61.4%) with a mean ± SD age of 61 ± 20.8 years. Mean Injury Severity Score was 16.3 ± 6.3 and most were injured in a single-level fall (51.5%). Patients transferred to a Level I center were less likely to be White (82.3% vs. 84.7%, 0.002) and more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (2.7% vs. 1.6%, <0.001). The incidence of severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] = 3-8) was similar (9.3% vs. 8.3%, 0.068). On logistic regression, severity of TBI predicted death; however, there was no difference in adjusted mortality outcome with admission to a Level II versus a Level I center (0.998 [0.836-1.192], 0.985).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no mortality discrepancy in patients with isolated TBI transferred to a Level II versus Level I center despite previous contrary evidence and thus no reason to bypass a Level II in favor of a Level I. This relative improvement potentially relates to the new requirements as defined in the latest version of the ACS-COT's resources manual.

Are There Any Red Flag Injuries in Severely Injured Patients in Older Age?

Introduction: Severely injured elderly patients pose a significant burden to trauma centers and, compared with younger patients, have worse prognoses and higher mortality rates after major trauma. The objective of this study was to identify the etiological mechanisms that are associated with severe trauma in elderly patients and to detect which injuries correlate with high mortality in elderly patients. Methods: Using a prospect cohort study model over an 11-year period, severely injured patients (ISS ≥ 16) were divided into two age groups (Group 1: 18–64; Group 2: 65–99 years). A comparison of the groups was conducted regarding injury frequency, trauma mechanism, distribution of affected body parts (AIS and ISS regions) and injury related mortality. Results: In total, 1008 patient were included (Group 1: n = 771; Group 2: n = 237). The most relevant injury in elderly patients was falling from low heights (<3 m) in contrast to traffic accident in young patients. Severely injured patients in the older age group showed a significantly higher overall mortality rate compared to the younger group (37.6% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.000). In both groups, the 30-day survival for patients without head injuries was significantly better compared to patients with head injuries (92.7% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.017), especially analyzing elderly patients (86.6% vs. 58.6%; p = 0.003). The relative risk of 30-day mortality in patients who suffered a head injury was also higher in the elderly group (OR: Group 1: 4.905; Group 2: 7.132). Conclusion: In contrast to younger patients, falls from low heights (<3 m) are significant risk factors for severe injuries in the geriatric collective. Additionally, elderly patients with an ISS ≥ 16 had a significantly higher mortality rate compared to severe injured younger patients. Head injuries, even minor head traumata, are associated with a significant increase in mortality. These findings will contribute to the development of more age-related therapy strategies in severely injured patients.

Evaluating the outcomes of blunt thoracic trauma in elderly patients following a fall from a ground level: higher level care institution vs. lower level care institution

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the outcomes of higher level care institutions of elderly patients who sustained a thoracic injury after a ground-level fall (GLF).

HYPOTHESIS

Higher level care institutions have a better survival.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) data set of 2012-2014 was accessed for the study. All patients, 65 years of age and older, who experienced a GLF and sustained a thoracic injury, were included in the study. Patient demography, injury characteristics including injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow coma scale (GCS) motor score, comorbidities, and patient outcomes were compared between the higher level care institution [American College of Surgeon (ACS) level I and level II trauma centers) and lower level care institution (ACS level III and level IV and unranked-trauma centers). On univariate analysis, some significant patient characteristic differences were found; therefore, propensity score matching and paired analyses were performed. All P values are two sided, and a P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Out of the 15,256 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, approximately 52% (7994) of patients were treated at a higher level care institution. On univariate analysis, significant differences were found between the lower level care institution and higher level care institution regarding male gender (44.2% vs.46%, P = 0.03), ISS median [interquartile] (9 [5-12] vs. 9 [5-13], P < 0.001), history of alcohol abuse (4.2% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.007), dementia (8.7% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.02), bleeding disorder or history of anticoagulation use (17% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.03), obesity (5% vs. 6.6%, P < 0.001), and abbreviated injury scale (AIS) thorax (2 [1-3] vs. 3 [2-3], P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the majority of the characteristics were balanced with few exceptions, including ISS, AIS ≥ 3 head and abdomen, and P values < 0.05. The overall in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the higher level care institution vs. the lower level care institution (4.4% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.14). The median hospital length of stay and 95% confidence interval between both groups was (5 [5, 5] and 5 [5, 5], P = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Treating elderly patients with blunt chest trauma in higher level care institutions failed to show any benefit in overall survival or hospital length of stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

STUDY TYPE

Observational cohort.