PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17018680

Determining objective injury prevention priorities.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Finite injury prevention resources make the establishment of prevention priorities essential. Toward this end, the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for 2000 to 2004 was accessed and four injury prevention priority scores (one previously defined and three new scores) were computed. METHODS: An injury prevention priority score (IPPS) was calculated based on the frequency of an injury mechanism and the median injury severity score. In addition, a mortality priority score (Mort-PS), a hospital charge priority score (Charge-PS), and a years of potential life lost (YPLL-PS) priority score were calculated for the 13 most common injury mechanisms. RESULTS: There was variability across the four scores, but motor vehicle traffic, firearm related, and fall injuries ranked high on all four of the priority criteria. Multiple criteria should be considered when assessing injury burden. CONCLUSIONS: The methods presented here can help prioritize injuries and support more objective public policies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D J Wiebe, M L Nance, C C Branas. 2006. Determining objective injury prevention priorities.. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2006.011494

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Matrix support and reference team: a methodology for interdisciplinary health work management].

The authors discuss a theoretical and conceptual management methodology based on reference teams and matrix support. Reference team is a structural organization intended to combine managerial power and interdisciplinary work. Matrix support changes the way traditional health systems work, with specialists organically linked to other teams who periodically require specialized consultation. Besides care support, there is another goal: to build new knowledge for each health professional through a continuing education process. The article analyzes the structural, political, cultural, theoretical, and subjective obstacles to this new model.

Health Policy↗