Rural Level III centers in an inclusive trauma system reduce the need for interfacility transfer

System-Level Variability in Trauma Center Utilization for Seriously Injured Older Adults

INTRODUCTION

Many seriously injured older adults are not transported to trauma centers (TCs), a phenomenon known as undertriage. System-level factors that contribute to undertriage are poorly understood. One important system-level factor is the regional supply of TCs. We hypothesized that regions with greater supply of TCs would have higher rates of transport to a TC for seriously injured older adults.

METHODS

In this retrospective cross-sectional study using Medicare data from 2014 to 2015, we measured the proportion of seriously injured (injury severity score > 15) older adults (age ≥ 65 y) who were transported to a level I or level II TC within trauma service areas (TSAs), which consist of United States counties aggregated into contiguous geographic regions based on the most frequent hospital destinations for emergency conditions. Patients residing in rural regions were excluded. The primary outcome was transported to a level I or level II TC. The exposure was the supply of TCs within TSAs, grouped into terciles based on the number of TCs per capita. We performed a multivariable hierarchical logistic regression for the odds of TC transport with a random intercept for TSA and fixed effects for TC supply, patient demographics, and injury characteristics.

RESULTS

Our study included 68,128 seriously injured older adults residing in 309 TSAs. The tercile of TSAs with the lowest supply of TCs had 1.13 TCs per 1,000,000 population, and 38.8% of seriously injured older adults were transported to a TC. In contrast, the tercile with the highest supply of TCs had 4.15 TCs per 1,000,000 population, and 68.5% were transported to a TC. On multivariable hierarchical logistic regression, TSAs with the highest supply of TCs had four times higher odds of transport to a TC compared to TSAs with the lowest supply of TCs (odds ratio 4.23; 95% confidence interval: 3.32-5.38; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with serious injuries are more likely to be transported to a TC in TSAs with greater supply of TCs. Ensuring an appropriate supply of TCs within TSA regions may help to reduce rates of undertriage for seriously injured older adults.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Level III Trauma Centers Achieve Comparable Outcomes in Blunt Splenic Injury as Level I Centers

INTRODUCTION

Identifying patients who can be safely managed in lower-level trauma centers is critical to avoid overburdening level I centers. This study examines the transfer patterns and outcomes of blunt splenic injury (BSI) patients cared for at 2 regional level III trauma centers as compared to an associated level I center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including all trauma patients with BSI admitted to 2 level III trauma centers (TC3) and a level I center (TC1) between 2012 and 2022. Patients were broken into 3 categories: TC1, TC3, and transfer patients (transferred from TC3 to TC1).

RESULTS

A total of 1480 patients were admitted to TC1, 208 patients to TC3, and 128 were transferred. 22.7% of transfer patients were children. No difference in splenic injury grade was seen between patients managed at TC1 and TC3. Patients presenting to TC1 had more severe concomitant injuries. Patients underwent urgent splenectomy at similar rates at TC1 and TC3 (15.1 vs 18.7%, P = .1). Successful nonoperative management was achieved at similar rates (81.3 vs 75.5%, P = .1). When controlling for ISS and ED disposition, there was no significant difference in length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and inpatient mortality between TC1 and TC3.

CONCLUSION

Level III centers effectively managed BSI achieving comparable outcomes to the level 1 center. Transfers commonly occurred in pediatric and multisystem trauma patients, though high-grade splenic injuries were not predictive of transfer. High-grade BSI can be safely managed at level III centers without need for transfer.

Association of rurality with short-term outcomes of peripheral vascular trauma

BACKGROUND

Peripheral vascular trauma is a major contributing factor to long-term disability and mortality among patients with traumatic injuries. However, an analysis focusing on individuals at a high risk of experiencing limb loss due to rural and urban peripheral vascular trauma is lacking.

METHOD

This was a retrospective analysis of the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients (≥18 years) undergoing open or endovascular procedures after admission for peripheral vascular trauma were identified using the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients from rural regions were considered Rural, whereas the remainder comprised Urban. The primary outcome of the study was primary amputation. Multivariable regression models were developed to evaluate rurality with outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 29,083 patients, 4,486 (15.6%) were Rural. Rural were older (41 [28-59] vs 37 [27-54] years, P < .001), with a similar distribution of female sex (23.0 vs 21.3%, P = .09) and transfers from other facilities (2.8 vs 2.5%, P = .34). After adjustment, Rural status was not associated with the odds of mortality (P = .82), with urban as reference. Rural status was, however, associated with greater odds of limb amputation (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.47-2.32) and reduced index hospitalization cost by $7,100 (95% confidence interval $3,500-10,800). Additionally, compared to patients from urban locations, rurality was associated with similar odds of non-home discharge and 30-day readmission. Over the study period, the marginal effect of rurality on the risk-adjusted rates of amputation significantly increased (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo peripheral vascular trauma management in rural areas appear to increasingly exhibit a higher likelihood of amputation, with lower incremental costs and a lower risk of 30-day readmission. These findings underscore disparities in access to optimal trauma vascular care as well as limited resources in rural regions.

Effect of trauma quality improvement initiatives on outcomes and costs at community hospitals: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Due to complex geography and resource constraints, trauma patients are often initially transported to community or rural facilities rather than a larger Level I or II trauma center. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize evidence on interventions that improved the quality of trauma care and/or reduced healthcare costs at non-Level I or II facilities.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed to identify studies implementing a Quality Improvement (QI) initiative at a non-major trauma center (i.e., non-Level I or II trauma center [or equivalent]). We searched 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL) and the grey literature (relevant networks, organizations/associations). Methodological quality was evaluated using NIH and JBI study quality assessment tools. Studies were included if they evaluated the effect of implementing a trauma care QI initiative on one or more of the following: 1) trauma outcomes (mortality, morbidity); 2) system outcomes (e.g., length of stay [LOS], transfer times, provider factors); 3) provider knowledge or perception; or 4) healthcare costs. Pediatric trauma, pre-hospital and tele-trauma specific studies were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 1046 data sources screened, 36 were included for full review (29 journal articles, 7 abstracts/posters without full text). Educational initiatives including the Rural Trauma Team Development Course and the Advanced Trauma Life Support course were the most common QI interventions investigated. Study outcomes included process metrics such as transfer time to tertiary care and hospital LOS, along with measures of provider perception and knowledge. Improvement in mortality was reported in a single study evaluating the impact of establishing a dedicated trauma service at a community hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review captured a broad spectrum of trauma QI projects implemented at non-major trauma centers. Educational interventions did result in process outcome improvements and high rates of self-reported improvements in trauma care. Given the heterogeneous capabilities of community and rural hospitals, there is no panacea for trauma QI at these facilities. Future research should focus on patient outcomes like mortality and morbidity, and locally relevant initiatives.

Impact of lower level trauma center proliferation on patient outcomes

Background

In attempt to increase trauma system coverage, our state added 21 level 3 (L3TC) and level 4 trauma centers (L4TC) to the existing 7 level 1 trauma centers from 2008 to 2012. This study examined the impact of adding these lower-level trauma centers (LLTC) on patient outcomes.

Methods

Patients in the state trauma registry age ≥ 15 from 2007 to 2012 were queried for demographic, injury, and outcome variables. These were compared between 2007 (PRE) and 2008-2012 (POST) cohorts. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess independent predictors of mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥15, age ≥ 65, and trauma mechanisms.

Results

143,919 adults were evaluated. POST had significantly more female, geriatric, and blunt traumas (all p < 0.001). ISS was similar. Interfacility transfers increased by 10.2 %. Overall mortality decreased by 0.6 % (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that being in POST was not associated with survival (OR: 1.07, CI: 0.96-1.18, p = 0.227). Subgroup analyses showed small reductions in mortality, except for geriatric patients. After adjusting for covariates, POST was not associated with survival in any subgroup, and trended toward being a predictor for death in penetrating traumas (OR: 1.23; 1.00-1.53, p = 0.059).

Conclusions

Unregulated proliferation of LLTCs was associated with increased interfacility transfers without significant increase in trauma patients treated. LLTC proliferation was not an independent protector against mortality in the overall cohort and may worsen mortality for penetrating trauma patients. Rather than simply increasing the number of LLTCs within a region, perhaps more planned approaches are needed.

Key message

This is, to our knowledge, the first work to study the effect of rapid lower level trauma center proliferation on patient outcomes. The findings of our analysis have implications for strategic planning of future trauma systems.

Pediatric Trauma Care Standardization: A Statewide Survey of Trauma Providers and Program Managers

INTRODUCTION

Rural-urban disparities in pediatric trauma outcomes are well documented. However, few studies examine how differences in setting and resources impact rural providers' approach to trauma. We sought to understand the provider experience in managing injured children across our state and assess the potential for standardization of care.

METHODS

A statewide cross-sectional survey was distributed to trauma providers and program managers through the American College of Surgeons, the Oregon Medical Board lists, and the State Trauma Advisory Board. Topics included pediatric management processes, challenges, and transfer or admission procedures. Rural-urban commuting codes were used to categorize responses.

RESULTS

Of the 350 individuals who sent the survey, 68 responded (response rate 19%), representing 67% of trauma-verified hospitals and 72% of Oregon counties. Fifty-six respondents (82%) care for injured children, with 58% practicing rurally and 22% at critical access hospitals. Rural providers experienced lower trauma volumes (<1 patient/month, 63% versus 0%, P < 0.001), more difficulties obtaining pediatric-appropriate material resources (44% versus 30%), and challenges caring for infants/toddlers (25% versus 17%). Despite 77% of rural providers stating that <10% of patients had multisystem injuries, they described using full-body CT often (41% versus 10%, P = 0.007). Transfer interruptions were common (93%), with 44% having cancelled a transfer. The majority supported admission/transfer (85%) and imaging (82%) protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural providers experience lower pediatric trauma volumes, greater material-resource issues, and discomfort with traumatically injured small children. Lack of care standardization may lead to reliance on full-body CT, and potentially complex/avoidable transfers. Adoption of standardized protocols could facilitate a state-wide collaborative approach to pediatric trauma management.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Helicopter Transport Has Decreased Over Time and Transport From Scene or Hospital Matters

OBJECTIVE

Several reports have found helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) to be associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS); however, most studies did not control for transport time or stratify interfacility versus scene. We hypothesize that the HEMS transport rate has decreased nationally and that the risk of mortality for HEMS is similar to GEMS when adjusting for transport time and stratifying by scene or interfacility.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for adult patients transported by HEMS or GEMS. Multivariable logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

The HEMS transport rate decreased by 38.2% from 2010 to 2016 (P < .001). After controlling for known predictors of mortality and transport time, HEMS was associated with a decreased risk of mortality compared with GEMS for adult trauma patient transports (odds ratio = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.77; P < .001). Compared with GEMS, HEMS transports from the scene were associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66; P < .001), whereas HEMS interfacility transfer was associated with an increased risk of mortality (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of HEMS transports in trauma has decreased by nearly 40% over the past 7 years. Our results suggest that HEMS use for scene transports is beneficial for the survival of trauma patients.

Interfacility patient transfers in Lebanon-A culture-changing initiative to improve patient safety and outcomes

Organizing interfacility transfers is an essential component of regionalized care to improve patient outcomes. This study examines transfer characteristics after establishing a transfer center in a tertiary care center in Beirut Lebanon, and identifies predictors of success in patient transfers.This retrospective observational chart review examined all transfer center requests to and from the tertiary care center over a 4-year period (2013-2017). Descriptive analysis was done, followed by a bivariate analysis comparing transfers based on final decision (accepted yes/no) and by a multivariate logistic regression to identify predictors of successful transfers.A total of 4100 transfer requests were analyzed. Incoming transfer requests were more common than outgoing requests (56.5% vs 43.4%) and were mainly for adult patients (71.0% incoming and 78.7% outgoing). Reasons of transfers were mostly medical (99.4%) for incoming transfers and financial (73.1%) and medical (17.9%) for outgoing transfers. Requested level of care was most commonly intensive care unit for incoming transfers (61.6%) and regular floor for outgoing transfers (48.6%). Outgoing transfers were more successful than incoming transfers (59.9% vs 39.6%). Predictors of success in patient transfers within the healthcare system were identified: These included specific types of financial coverage, diagnoses, levels of care, and medical services for incoming transfers in addition to age groups and receiving hospital location for outgoing transfers.Transfer centers can be implemented successfully in any healthcare system to improve patient care and safety. Identifying facilitators and barriers to successful transfers can help healthcare administrators and policymakers address gaps in the system and improve access to care.

Closing the gap: Improving access to trauma care in New Mexico (2007-2017)

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a major cause of death and disability in the United States, and significant disparities exist in access to care, especially in non-urban settings. From 2007 to 2017 New Mexico expanded its trauma system by focusing on building capacity at the hospital level.

METHODS

We conducted a geospatial analysis at the census block level of access to a trauma center in New Mexico within 1 h by ground or air transportation for the years 2007 and 2017. We then examined the characteristics of the population with access to care. A multiple logistic regression model assessed for remaining disparities in access to trauma centers in 2017.

RESULTS

The proportion of the population in New Mexico with access to a trauma center within 1 h increased from 73.8% in 2007 to 94.8% in 2017. The largest increases in access to trauma care within 1 h were found among American Indian/Alaska Native populations (AI/AN) (35.2%) and people living in suburban areas (62.9%). In 2017, the most rural communities (aOR 58.0), communities on an AI/AN reservation (aOR 25.6), communities with a high proportion of Hispanic/Latino persons (aOR 8.4), and a high proportion of elderly persons (aOR 3.2) were more likely to lack access to a trauma center within 1 h.

CONCLUSION

The New Mexico trauma system expansion significantly increased access to trauma care within 1 h for most of New Mexico, but some notable disparities remain. Barriers persist for very rural parts of the state and for its sizable American Indian community.