Current patterns of trauma center proliferation have not led to proportionate improvements in access to care or mortality after injury: An ecologic study

Pediatric Readiness and Trauma Center Access for Children

Importance

Children initially treated in a timely fashion at trauma centers with high levels of pediatric readiness have been shown to have improved survival, but children historically have had geographically disparate access to pediatric trauma center care. Considerable effort has been invested in improving pediatric readiness nationally, including the implementation of new standards to improve emergency department pediatric readiness at all trauma centers.

Objective

To assess current access to US pediatric-ready trauma center care and to estimate potential improvement in access if all high-level trauma centers had optimal pediatric readiness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This descriptive cross-sectional study collated trauma centers from national organizational lists, state government websites, and online searches. A geospatial analysis was performed of access by pediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) to trauma centers by ground or air ambulance within 60 minutes, stratified by trauma center type and pediatric readiness status. Population density was estimated using 2020 US census data. Weighted pediatric readiness scores (wPRS) were obtained from the 2021 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment. The data analysis was performed between April 1 and June 30, 2023.

Exposure

Access times to trauma centers.

Main Outcome and Measure

The main outcome of interest was access to a pediatric-ready trauma center, defined as a high-level pediatric trauma center (level I-II) or high-level adult trauma center (level I-III) with a wPRS of at least 93 (out of 100). Access times were calculated using previously validated methods and service network model analysis for each trauma center to census block group centroid.

Results

The analysis included 148 pediatric and 1075 high-level adult trauma centers. A total of 273 adult centers (25%) were pediatric ready. Pediatric trauma center access within 60 minutes by ground or air ambulance was available for 65% of all 74 090 665 children; 73% of children had access to a pediatric-ready trauma center within 60 minutes, and 92% had access to any high-level trauma center within 60 minutes.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that access to pediatric trauma center care is limited, even with air ambulance transport. Ensuring pediatric readiness at all high-level adult trauma centers may substantially improve access to early high-quality initial resuscitative trauma care for children.

Using Teletrauma to Improve Access to Trauma Care in the US: A Call for Action

Nearly 30 million, mostly rurally located Americans lack timely access to level I or II trauma center care, resulting in inefficient resource use and potentially preventable death. Although significant progress has been made in the care of the injured patient during the last few decades, rural trauma patients continue to face significant challenges in accessing high-quality trauma care with resultant outcomes disparities and increased expenditures associated with potentially avoidable interfacility transfers. Current mitigation strategies have not sufficiently improved access to trauma care among this population, necessitating a search for alternative strategies such as integration of telehealth for trauma care or teletrauma. Telehealth is well-established in several healthcare areas resulting in improved patient- and system-level outcomes. Although telehealth has been used in trauma with some success, it remains underused. Members of a 2023 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Spotlight Session on the role of teletrauma present an introduction to the applications, potential benefits, and future directions for telehealth use in trauma care.

A Systematic Literature Review of Trauma Systems: An Operations Management Perspective

Background

Trauma systems provide comprehensive care across various settings, from prehospital services to rehabilitation, integrating clinical and social care aspects. Established in the 1970s, these systems are pivotal yet under-researched in their operational management. This study aims to fill this gap by focussing on the integration of operations management (OM) techniques to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of trauma systems. By leveraging proven OM strategies from other healthcare sectors, we seek to improve patient outcomes and optimise system performance, addressing a crucial need for innovation in trauma care operations.

Methodology

A systematic literature review was conducted using the PICOTS framework to explore operational aspects of trauma systems across varied settings, from emergency departments to specialised centres. Searches were performed in 5 databases, focussing on articles published from 2006 to 2024. Keywords related to operational research and management targeted both trauma systems and emergency management services. Our method involved identifying, synthesising, and summarising studies to evaluate operational performance, with a specific emphasis on articles that applied operational research/management techniques in trauma care. All eligible articles were critically appraised using 2 quality assessment tools.

Results

Employing Donabedian's framework to analyse the quality of trauma systems through structure, process, and outcome dimensions, our systematic review included 160 studies. Of these, 5 studies discussed the application of the Donabedian evaluation framework to trauma systems, and 14 studies examined structural elements, focussing on the location of healthcare facilities, trauma resource management, and EMS logistics. The 63 studies on process indicators primarily assessed triage procedures, with some exploring the timeliness of trauma care. Meanwhile, the 78 outcome-oriented studies predominantly evaluated mortality rates, alongside a smaller number assessing functional outcomes.

Conclusion

Existing evaluation metrics primarily focussed on triage accuracy and mortality are inadequate. We propose expanding these metrics to include patient length of stay (LOS) and rehabilitation trajectory analyses. There is a critical gap in understanding patient flow management and long-term outcomes, necessitating focussed research on LOS modelling and improved rehabilitation data collection. Addressing these areas is essential for optimising trauma care and improving patient recovery outcomes.

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.

Trauma Activation Fees Vary Widely Across US Trauma Centers

Trauma activation fees are intended to help trauma centers cover the costs of providing lifesaving care at all times, but they have fallen under greater scrutiny because of a lack of regulation and wide variability in charges. We leveraged the federal Hospital Price Transparency rule to systematically describe trauma activation fees as captured in the Turquoise Health database for all Level I-III trauma centers nationally and across payer types. As of April 18, 2023, a total of 38 percent of US trauma centers published trauma activation fees. These fees varied widely by payer type. The minimum fee charged was $40 (for a Medicaid contract); the maximum fees charged were $28,356 (self-pay) and $28,893 (commercial payers). Trauma centers that were larger, metropolitan, located in the West, and associated with proprietary (investor-owned, for-profit) hospitals had higher trauma activation fees. Proprietary hospitals posted fees that were 60 percent higher than those published by public, nonfederal hospitals. Unmerited variation in trauma activation fees may suggest that the current funding strategy is equitable neither for trauma centers nor for the severely injured patients who rely on them for lifesaving care.

Changes in payer mix of new and established trauma centers: the new trauma center money grab?

Background

Although timely access to trauma center (TC) care for injured patients is essential, the proliferation of new TCs does not always improve outcomes. Hospitals may seek TC accreditation for financial reasons, rather than to address community or geographic need. Introducing new TCs risks degrading case and payer mix at established TCs. We hypothesized that newly accredited TCs would see a disproportionate share of commercially insured patients.

Study design

We collected data from all accredited adult TCs in Pennsylvania using the state trauma registry from 1999 to 2018. As state policy regarding supplemental reimbursement for underinsured patients changed in 2004, we compared patient characteristics and payer mix between TCs established before and after 2004. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship between payer and presentation to a new versus established TC in recent years.

Results

Over time, there was a 40% increase in the number of TCs from 23 to 38. Of 326 204 patients from 2010 to 2018, a total of 43 621 (13.4%) were treated at 15 new TCs. New TCs treated more blunt trauma and less severely injured patients (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, patients presenting to new TCs were more likely to have Medicare (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.9 to 2.1) and commercial insurance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.6) compared with Medicaid. Over time, fewer patients at established TCs and more patients at new TCs had private insurance.

Conclusions

With the opening of new centers, payer mix changed unfavorably at established TCs. Trauma system development should consider community and regional needs, as well as impact on existing centers to ensure financial sustainability of TCs caring for vulnerable patients.

Level of evidence

Level III, prognostic/epidemiological.

Level One Trauma Center Proliferation May Worsen Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

From 2013 to 2020, Arizona state trauma system expanded from seven to thirteen level 1 trauma centers (L1TCs). This study utilized the state trauma registry to analyze the effect of L1TC proliferation on patient outcomes.

METHODS

Adult patients age≥15 in the state trauma registry from 2007-2020 were queried for demographic, injury, and outcome variables. These variables were compared across the 2 time periods: 2007-2012 as pre-proliferation (PRE) and 2013-2020 as post-proliferation (POST). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess independent predictors of mortality. Subgroup analyses were done for Injury Severity Score (ISS)≥15, age≥65, and trauma mechanisms.

RESULTS

A total of 482,896 trauma patients were included in this study. 40% were female, 29% were geriatric patients, and 8.6% sustained penetrating trauma. The median ISS was 4. Inpatient mortality overall was 2.7%. POST consisted of more female, geriatric, and blunt trauma patients (P < .001). Both periods had similar median ISS. POST had more interfacility transfers (14.5% vs 10.3%, P < .001). Inpatient, unadjusted mortality decreased by .5% in POST (P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and trauma mechanism, being in POST was predictive of death (OR: 1.4, CI:1.3-1.5, P < .001). This was consistent across all subgroups except for geriatric subgroup, which there was no significant correlation.

DISCUSSION

Despite advances in trauma care and almost doubling of L1TCs, POST had minimal reduction of unadjusted mortality and was an independent predictor of death. Results suggest increasing number of L1TCs alone may not improve mortality. Alternative approaches should be sought with future regional trauma system design and implementation.