PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gregory J Jurkovich

Publications and source records attributed to Gregory J Jurkovich.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Environmental cold-induced injury.

More than 650 deaths from hypothermia occur each year in the United States. Even minor deviation from normal temperature leads to important symptoms and disability. The most significant risk factors are advanced age, mental impairment, substance abuse, and injury. This article examines the incidence of hypothermia, its detrimental effect on trauma patients, and methods of rewarming the hypothermic patient. It also looks at the controversial protective role hypothermia might play in shock, organ transplantation, cardiac arrest, and brain injury. Finally, it examines cold injuries, including frostbite, chilblain, and trench foot, and makes recommendations for their treatment.

Cold Temperature↗
PubMed2007

Practice patterns and outcomes of retrievable vena cava filters in trauma patients: an AAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to describe practice patterns and outcomes of posttraumatic retrievable inferior vena caval filters (R-IVCF). METHODS: A retrospective review of R-IVCFs placed during 2004 at 21 participating centers with follow up to July 1, 2005 was performed. Primary outcomes included major complications (migration, pulmonary embolism [PE], and symptomatic caval occlusion) and reasons for failure to retrieve. RESULTS: Of 446 patients (69% male, 92% blunt trauma) receiving R-IVCFs, 76% for prophylactic indications and 79% were placed by interventional radiology. Excluding 33 deaths, 152 were Gunter-Tulip (G-T), 224 Recovery (R), and 37 Optease (Opt). Placement occurred 6 +/- 8 days after admission and retrieval at 50 +/- 61 days. Follow up after discharge (5.7 +/- 4.3 months) was reported in 51%. Only 22% of R-IVCFs were retrieved. Of 115 patients in whom retrieval was attempted, retrieval failed as a result of technical issues in 15 patients (10% of G-T, 14% of R, 27% of Opt) and because of significant residual thrombus within the filter in 10 patients (6% of G-T, 4% of R, 46% Opt). The primary reason R-IVCFs were not removed was because of loss to follow up (31%), which was sixfold higher (6% to 44%, p = 0.001) when the service placing the R-IVCF was not directly responsible for follow up. Complications did not correlate with mechanism, injury severity, service placing the R-IVCF, trauma volume, use of anticoagulation, age, or sex. Three cases of migration were recorded (all among R, 1.3%), two breakthrough PE (G-T 0.6% and R 0.4%) and six symptomatic caval occlusions (G-T 0, R 1%, Opt 11%) (p < 0.05 Opt versus both G-T and R). CONCLUSION: Most R-IVCFs are not retrieved. The service placing the R-IVCF should be responsible for follow up. The Optease was associated with the greatest incidence of residual thrombus and symptomatic caval occlusion. The practice patterns of R-IVCF placement and retrieval should be re-examined.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Sixteen-slice CT angiography in patients with suspected blunt carotid and vertebral artery injuries.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether 16-slice multidetector CT angiography (CTA) has sufficient negative predictive value for use as the initial imaging examination for patients with suspected blunt carotid and vertebral artery injury (BCVI) and to estimate the positive predictive value of different screening criteria in assessing BCVI. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who were imaged for suspected BCVI at a Level I trauma center during 2004. The policy at our center was to evaluate all patients with specific indications with CTA, and at the discretion of the clinical service, four-vessel digital subtraction angiography (DSA) if the CTA was normal. We recorded injury grade, location, and diagnostic certainty from the imaging report. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with normal CTA who also had normal DSA. RESULTS: Of 372 patients imaged with CTA for suspected BCVI, 271 had normal studies. Eighty-two (30%) of those with normal initial CTA were further examined with DSA, which was normal or equivocal in 75 of these 82 patients (CTA negative predictive value, 92% [95% CI, 83% to 97%]). The aggregate positive predictive value of BCVI screening criteria was 19% (95% CI, 14% to 23%). Lateral element cervical vertebral fractures and skull base fractures were the most predictive criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Multidetector CTA misses relatively few injuries and adequately supplants DSA as a screening study in patients with risk factors for BCVI. Radiologists should maintain a high degree of suspicion in patients who meet screening criteria. Optimal imaging strategies should focus on the most predictive criteria.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

National variability in out-of-hospital treatment after traumatic injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The optimal out-of-hospital treatment for trauma patients remains a subject of national debate. Researchers designing future studies to address these issues must understand the variability in treatment that exists across the United States. We define the variability in the out-of-hospital treatment provided to trauma patients in the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for a cohort study of trauma outcomes. The study was conducted at 15 urban or suburban regions across the United States, 18 Level I trauma centers and 51 nontrauma centers. We used a weighted population sample based on data from all hospital trauma deaths and a sample of patients discharged between January 2001 and December 2002. Entry criteria included at least 1 body region with an Abbreviated Injury Score greater than 3 and age between 18 and 84 years. Exclusion criteria were patient age greater than 65 years and isolated hip fractures and patients with burns. RESULTS: Complete out-of-hospital data were available for 3,357 patients, representing a weighted population sample of 9,929 patients. Out-of-hospital treatment varied substantially among the regions, including out-of-hospital intubation (5% to 48%), use of neuromuscular blocking agents or sedatives to facilitate intubation (0% to 100%), surgical airway access (0.1% to 3.5%), peripheral and central intravenous access (22% to 95%), and needle thoracentesis (0% to 5%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable national variability in out-of-hospital procedures performed for trauma patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). METHODS: Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Variations in rates of tracheostomy in the critically ill trauma patient.

OBJECTIVE: The utility of tracheostomy to expedite weaning and prevent complications in patients with acute respiratory failure is actively debated, with many physicians holding strong opinions regarding the value and timing of this intervention. We postulated that these opinions would be reflected in significant variation in tracheostomy rates across centers. Thus, we set out explore the extent and potential sources of this variation among injured patients cared for in trauma centers in the United States. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. We used stratification and hierarchical multivariate analysis to evaluate the effect of patient and institutional characteristics on tracheostomy rates and variance decomposition to determine the proportion of variance across institutions explained by patient characteristics. SETTING: Intensive care units within trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Databank. PATIENTS: Injured patients admitted over the years 2001-2003, age >/=16 yrs, with an Injury Severity Score >/=9 and a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, excluding patients with burn injuries and those with a severe injury to the face or neck who might require tracheostomy for maintenance of an airway. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 17,523 patients meeting inclusion criteria: 4,146 (24%) underwent tracheostomy. The mean tracheostomy rate across centers was 19.6 per 100 hospital admissions with a range of 0-59. This variation persisted after stratification by age, injury mechanism, and severity. Although several patient and injury characteristics were predictive of tracheostomy, there were no identifiable institutional characteristics associated with tracheostomy. Patient characteristics accounted for only 14% of the variance across centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant unexplained variation in the rates of tracheostomy in critically injured patients with acute respiratory failure. This variation might reflect preconceived notions of efficacy among physicians practicing in the absence of evidence to guide care. The variation provides evidence of equipoise and emphasizes the need for a well-conducted randomized controlled trial to evaluate the utility of this procedure.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

Patterns of errors contributing to trauma mortality: lessons learned from 2,594 deaths.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patterns of errors contributing to inpatient trauma deaths. METHODS: All inpatient trauma deaths at a high-volume level I trauma center from 1996 to 2004 inclusive were audited. Data were collected with daily trauma registry chart abstraction, weekly morbidity and mortality reports, hospital quality assurance reports, and annual trauma registry analyses of risk of death using TRISS and HARM methodology. Deaths that met criteria for low to medium probability of mortality or those with quality of care concerns were analyzed for errors and then subjected to 3-stage peer review at weekly departmental, monthly hospital, and annual regional forums. Patterns of errors were constructed from the compiled longitudinal data. RESULTS: In 9 years, there were 44,401 trauma patient admissions and 2,594 deaths (5.8%), of which 601 met low to medium mortality risks. Sixty-four patients (0.14% admissions, 2.47% deaths) had recognized errors in care that contributed to their death. Important error patterns included: failure to successfully intubate, secure or protect an airway (16%), delayed operative or angiographic control of acute abdominal/pelvic hemorrhage (16%), delayed intervention for ongoing intrathoracic hemorrhage (9%), inadequate DVT or gastrointestinal prophylaxis (9%), lengthy initial operative procedures rather than damage control surgery in unstable patients (8%), over-resuscitation with fluids (5%), and complications of feeding tubes (5%). Resulting data-directed institutional and regional trauma system policy changes have demonstrably reduced the incidence of associated error-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Preventable deaths will occur even in mature trauma systems. This review has identified error patterns that are likely common in all trauma systems, and for which policy interventions can be effectively targeted.

Female↗
PubMed2006

The impact of an intensivist-model ICU on trauma-related mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an intensivist-model of critical care delivery on the risk of death following injury. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: An intensivist-model of ICU care is associated with improved outcomes and less resource utilization in mixed medical and surgical ICUs. The process of trauma center verification assures a relatively high standard of care and quality assurance; thus, it is unclear what the effect of a specific model of ICU care delivery might have on trauma-related mortality. METHODS: Using data from a large multicenter (68 centers) prospective cohort study, we evaluated the relationship between the model of ICU care (open vs. intensivist-model) and in-hospital mortality following severe injury. An intensivist-model was defined as an ICU where critically ill trauma patients were either on a distinct ICU service (led by an intensivist) or were comanaged with an intensivist (a physician board-certified in critical care). RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the relative risk of death in intensivist-model ICUs was 0.78 (0.58-1.04) compared with an open ICU model. The effect was greatest in the elderly [RR, 0.55 (0.39-0.77)], in units led by surgical intensivists [RR, 0.67 (0.50-0.90)], and in designated trauma centers 0.64 (0.46-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Care in an intensivist-model ICU is associated with a large reduction in in-hospital mortality following trauma, particularly in elderly patients who might have limited physiologic reserve and extensive comorbidity. That the effect is greatest in trauma centers and in units led by surgical intensivists suggests the importance of content expertise in the care of the critically injured. Injured patients are best cared for using an intensivist-model of dedicated critical care delivery, a criterion that should be considered in the verification of trauma centers.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

The delivery of critical care services in US trauma centers: is the standard being met?

BACKGROUND: Although there is substantial evidence supporting the benefits of an intensivist model of critical care delivery, the extent to which this model has been adopted by trauma centers across the United States is unknown. We set out to evaluate how critical care is delivered in Level I and II trauma centers and the extent to which these centers implement evidence-based patient care practices known to improve outcome. METHODS: All Level I and Level II trauma centers in the United States were surveyed using a previously validated questionnaire pertaining to the organizational characteristics of critical care units. Questions identifying the impediments to the implementation of an intensivist model of critical care delivery were added to the original survey. An intensivist model intensive care unit (ICU) was defined as one meeting all of the following criteria: a) the physician director was board certified in critical care; b) >50% of physicians responsible for care were board certified in critical care; c) an intensivist made daily rounds on the patients; and d) an intensive care team had the authority to write orders on the patients. The survey respondents were also queried regarding the extent to which they complied with evidence-based guidelines for care in the ICU. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 65% (295 centers). Only 61% of Level I centers and 22% of Level II centers provided an intensivist model of critical care delivery. Sixty-nine percent of centers had a form of collaborative care with an intensivist, but few centers had dedicated intensivists without responsibilities outside the ICU. The most common reason cited for not involving an intensivist in the delivery of critical care services was a concern regarding a loss of continuity of care. There was limited implementation of evidence-based practices in the ICU; the model of critical care delivery had no effect on rates of implementation of these practices. CONCLUSION: The process of trauma center verification and designation should assure a high quality of trauma care. In keeping with these expectations of quality, the delivery of critical care services in trauma centers should evolve to a model that both includes the trauma surgeon in the care of the injured and allows for collaboration with a dedicated intensivist, who may or may not be a surgeon. The benefits of an intensivist model might be distinct from the utilization of evidence-based practices, suggesting that there might be incremental benefit in using these practices as markers of quality.

Critical Care↗
PubMed2006

The shape of things to come: results from a national survey of trauma surgeons on issues concerning their future.

BACKGROUND: This study seeks to characterize the opinions of practicing surgeons as a basis for formulating a plan to restructure the discipline of trauma surgery and its training path. METHODS: A 52-item questionnaire was administered to the membership of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the Western Trauma Association. The survey tool investigated issues related to current and future practice. RESULTS: Response rate was 60%. Mean age was 49 years and 88% were male. The average time in practice is 15 years. The average workweek is 80 hours with 48% of that time devoted to clinical practice. About half take in-house call and about one-third receive an on-call stipend. The median annual number of major trauma cases was 50. The most important disincentives to entering the field were felt to be lifestyle issues and a limited scope of practice. Almost 90% felt their work as trauma surgeons was undervalued by society and the health care system. The great majority (88%) responded that the discipline of trauma surgery must change. Respondents feel this restructuring should include broader general surgery (83%) as well as limited orthopedic (60%) and neurosurgical trauma-related procedures (59%). About one-half of respondents favored in-house call (54%) and a practice model similar to emergency medicine (55%). Factors that would most enhance practice were thought to be guaranteed appropriate salary and guaranteed time away from work. Training in a broad range of skills was felt to be essential or useful to the trauma surgeon of the future, although few currently employ such a wide breadth of skills. CONCLUSIONS: Current practicing trauma surgeons feel that the discipline must change to remain viable. This change should entail broader training to allow more procedures in trauma, emergency surgery, critical care, and elective general surgery. The preferred practice model is a large, hospital-based, diversified group practice with a predictable lifestyle and guaranteed salary commensurate with effort. Inclusion of selected emergency orthopedic and neurosurgical procedures are viewed favorably, as is in-house call. Efforts to increase public perception of trauma surgery's value to society and its impending demise are warranted.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2006

Prospective payments in a regional trauma center: the case for recognition of the transfer patient in diagnostic related groups.

BACKGROUND: Transfer patients (TP) differ from patients transported directly from the field (DP) by virtue of their complexity and delays to definitive care, factors that might impact on costs and resource utilization and aggravate the adverse selection that already threatens TC reimbursement. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study where patients admitted to a Level I trauma center were classified as a TP or DP. Crude and adjusted total costs, complications, length of stay, and proportion of DRG outliers were compared across the two cohorts. RESULTS: Among 8,665 patients, 40% were transferred. TP were more likely to be DRG outliers (15% versus 10%, p < 0.001). Costs in 65% of the DRGs were higher in the TP. Rates of complications and length of stay were significantly greater in the TP. CONCLUSION: There are systematic differences in resource consumption between transferred patients and patients transported directly from the field. These differences render conventional DRG-based mechanisms of reimbursement inadequate, suggesting a need for recognition of the transfer patient as a distinct entity by payers.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

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.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Do trauma centers have the capacity to respond to disasters?

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised about the capacity of trauma centers to absorb large numbers of additional patients from mass casualty events. Our objective was to examine the capacity of current centers to handle an increased load from a mass casualty disaster. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of Level I and II trauma centers. They were contacted by mail and asked to respond to questions about their surge capacity as of July 4, 2005. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 133 centers. On July 4, 2005 there were a median of 77 beds available in Level I and 84 in Level II trauma centers. Fifteen percent of the Level I and 12.2% of the Level II centers had a census at 95% capacity or greater. In the first 6 hours, each Level I center would be able to operate on 38 patients, while each Level II center would be able to operate on 22 patients. Based on available data, there are 10 trauma centers available to an average American within 60 minutes. Given the available bed capacity, a total of 812 beds would be available within a 60-minute transport distance in a mass casualty event. CONCLUSIONS: There is capacity to care for the number of serious non-fatally injured patients resulting from the types of mass casualties recently experienced. If there is a further continued shift of uninsured patients to and fiscally driven closure of trauma centers, the surge capacity could be severely compromised.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2006

Trauma surgery in the era of nonoperative management: the Dutch model.

BACKGROUND: Falling operative experience and diminished job satisfaction of trauma surgeons appears to be in part the result of nonoperative management of many blunt injuries. In The Netherlands, the responsibility of trauma surgeons includes the operative treatment of most pelvic and extremity injures, as well as the overall coordination of care. This study describes the type and number of operative procedures performed by a group of trauma surgeons at a trauma center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. METHODS: The study was conducted in a university Level I trauma center with 1,250 annual trauma admissions (90% blunt trauma), of which 125 had an Injury Severity Score of 16 or above. During a 3-year period (2001-2003), all operative interventions performed by or under direct supervision of the trauma surgeons were retrospectively analyzed and categorized into eight groups. RESULTS: During the 3-year period, 2,011 operations were performed by the trauma surgeon group. Of these, 1,459 were single procedures and 552 were multiple interventions leading to a total of 2,784 procedures. Nonurgent procedures (n = 915) constituted 45% of the operations, whereas acute procedures (n = 1,096) accounted for 55% of the operations. Of the acute operations, almost 60% were performed during office hours; the remaining operations were performed outside office hours (evening 37%, night 13%, weekend 50%). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the addition of (non)operative fracture care results in a viable mix of surgical and nonsurgical management. This leads to broad skills and could enhance job satisfaction. These data could be of interest for the current discussion on the future of trauma surgery in North America and might give a lead to increase the attractiveness of our profession for future trauma surgeons.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗
PubMed2006

Predicting major hemorrhage in patients with pelvic fracture.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic fractures can be an important source of major hemorrhage in victims of blunt trauma. However, no rapid and reliable noninvasive method exists for predicting which subjects will have major hemorrhage. The objective of this study is to use information available upon presentation to the trauma center to develop a clinical prediction rule to identify subjects with pelvic fracture who are at high risk of major hemorrhage. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on all subjects with pelvic fracture from blunt force mechanism at a single level one trauma center during a 4.3 year period. Chart review identified findings from initial pelvic radiographs and from emergency department care including mechanism of injury, and hemodynamic status. Major hemorrhage was defined by angiographic findings, transfusion requirement and pelvic hemorrhage volume. Logistic regression was used to formulate a clinical prediction rule to stratify subjects based on probability of major hemorrhage. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 627 of 783 eligible subjects. Predictors of major hemorrhage included emergency department hematocrit 30 or less, pulse rate of 130 or greater, displaced obturator ring fracture and pubic symphyseal wide diastasis. Combinations of predictors defined groups with probability of major hemorrhage from 1.6% to 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Probability of major pelvic fracture related hemorrhage can be estimated from initial pelvic radiograph, pulse, and hematocrit.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Failure of nonoperative management of splenic injuries: causes and consequences.

HYPOTHESIS: Presenting patient characteristics can predict which patients will fail nonoperative therapy of blunt splenic injuries. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive population study. SETTING: All patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma were identified from a statewide trauma registry between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2001. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were characterized as requiring immediate intervention or successful or failed nonoperative management based on time from emergency department arrival to intervention (surgery or angioembolectomy). Injury and patient characteristics included age, the presence of hypotension, Injury Severity Score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale score. Risk factors for the failure of nonoperative management were evaluated using the chi(2) statistic. The failure of nonoperative management associated with the admitting hospital's trauma designation level was evaluated using logistic regression. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Determine factors associated with failure of nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred forty-three patients met criteria for inclusion in the study. Six hundred ten patients (27%) underwent immediate splenectomy, splenorrhaphy, or splenic embolization (within 4 hours). Of the remaining 1633 patients who were admitted with planned nonoperative management, 252 patients (15%) failed. Of the injury and patient characteristics reviewed, being older than 55 years and having an ISS higher than 25 were significantly associated with failure. Risk of failure also increased with admission to a level III or IV trauma hospital compared with a level I trauma hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Being older than 55 years and having an ISS higher than 25 along with admission to a level III or IV trauma hospital were associated with a significant risk of failure of nonoperative management of splenic injuries. The Glasgow Coma Scale score, associated injuries, and presenting hemodynamics were not predictive of failure in this large retrospective review.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The association between trauma system and trauma center components and outcome in a mature regionalized trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Regionalized trauma systems have been shown repeatedly to improve the outcome of seriously injured patients. However, we do not have data regarding which components of these systems have the most impact on outcome and to what degree. The objective of this study was to understand the association between various components that make up a trauma system and outcome. METHODS: Surveys were administered to trauma directors at 59 hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. Data from the surveys were then linked with specific outcome variables obtained from a regionalized trauma database. Specific outcomes were assigned to trauma system- and in-hospital-based components after controlling for injury severity. RESULTS: Over 4.8 years, 72,073 patients met inclusion criteria. Components found to affect survival after risk adjustment were prehospital notification (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) and the presence of a performance improvement program in that hospital (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94). Increased patient volume was associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). Tertiary trauma centers were also associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with both secondary and primary centers (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcome in a regionalized trauma system are secondary to a combination of elements, as well as to the interplay of these elements on each other. Prehospital notification protocols and performance improvement programs appear to be most associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of death.

Emergency Medical Service Communication Systems↗