PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Trauma Centers”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Improving outcomes in a regional trauma system: impact of a level III trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems decrease morbidity and mortality of injured populations, and each component contributes to the final outcome. This study evaluated the association between a referring hospital's trauma designation and the survival and resource utilization of patients transferred to a level I trauma center. METHODS: Data from the Registry of the American College of Surgeons on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during a 7-year period were subdivided into 3 categories: group 1 = level III-designated trauma center; group 2 = potential level III trauma centers; and group 3 = other transferring hospitals. Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology was used to provide a probability estimate of survival adjusted for the effect related to injury severity, physiologic host factors, and age. A W statistic was calculated for each type of referring hospital so that comparisons between observed survival and predicted survival could be measured. Differences in W, length of stay, intensive care unit days, and ventilator days were examined using general linear models. RESULTS: Patients transferred to a level I from a level III trauma center (group 1) were more seriously injured (P < .0001) and had improved survival (P < .0018) compared with those transferred from nondesignated hospitals (groups 2 and 3). Patients transferred from large nondesignated hospitals (group 2) had outcomes similar to patients transferred from all other hospitals (group 3). Level I hospital resource utilization did not show significant differences based on referring hospital type. COMMENTS: Outcomes of patients in a trauma system are associated with trauma-center designation of the referring hospitals.

Health Resources↗
PubMed1998

The impact of true partnership between a university Level I trauma center and a community Level II trauma center on patient transfer practices.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a clinical and administrative partnership with an academic urban Level I trauma center on the patient transfer practices at a suburban/rural Level II center. METHODS: Data for 2 years before affiliation (PRE) abstracted from inpatient charts and the trauma registry were compared with that for 2 years after (POST). The following data were collected: number of, reason for, and destination and demographics of transfers. Chi(2) test and t test analyses were used; p < 0.05 defined significance; data are mean +/- SEM. RESULTS: Transfer rate increased from 4% PRE to 6.9% (p = 0.001) POST with no significant difference in age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Injury Severity Score, or Revised Trauma Score. Repatriation occurred in 12.8% POST (none PRE). The current Level I facility accepted 1.8% of all transfers PRE and 36.4% POST (p = 0.0001). PRE/POST rates by reason are as follows: pediatric, 14.6%/9.0% (p = 0.04); intensive care unit, 0.4%/1.7% (p = 0.13); complex orthopedic, 100%/0% (p = 0.005); vascular, 50%/0% (p = 0.008); spinal cord injury, 100%/100%; and ophthalmologic, 0%/100% (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this experience of Level I/II partnership (1) transfer patterns were altered, (2) select patient cohort transfers decreased (pediatric, complex orthopedic, vascular), whereas others increased (aortic work-up), and (3) repatriation rates were low.

Hospitals, Community↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Admission patterns of an urban level I trauma center.

Because trauma admission and hospitalization patterns have profound effects on the organization and utilization of urban trauma-care systems, the objective of this study was to identify and analyze these patterns. As an example, admissions to an urban Level I trauma center were reviewed. Retrospective review of all 2029 trauma admissions to a Level I trauma center was conducted from 1993 to 1996. The result was that most trauma patients were young (40% < 30 years of age) and male (74%). Mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accident (36%), fall (27%), gunshot (17%), stab (7%), assault (6%), and swimming or diving accident (3%). Half of the patients were directly admitted from the scene. Injury Severity Score, length of stay, and mortality were 14.1 +/- 0.3, 10.5 +/- 0.3 days, and 5.1%, respectively. Admissions tended to occur more frequently between 4:00 PM and midnight (46%), between Friday and Sunday (52%), and between July and October (41%). The following patterns were identified: admissions per year decreased (-21%) because of reduced penetrating trauma (-43%, P < .01); pediatric patients (< 15 years) had similar incidence of penetrating trauma as adults (ages 15-45). Length of stay for all mechanisms of injury was not statistically different; most mortalities occurred within the first day (33%, P < .01) or after 6 days (36%, P < .01); early mortality was mainly due to penetrating injury (74%, P < .01), whereas late mortality was related to blunt trauma (92%, P < .01). The conclusion was that admission and demographic patterns were identified, which may be useful in the utilization, modification, and future design of trauma systems.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

Multivariate population-based analysis of the association of county trauma centers with per capita county trauma death rates.

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to utilize a large population-based data base to determine the association of trauma centers with per capita county trauma death rates. METHODS: Per capita county trauma death rate, the dependent variable in the model, was obtained from a well-validated state Medical Examiner's data base. Over 200 county demographic, prehospital, and hospital trauma care resource variables were obtained from a variety of sources for multivariate modeling. Bivariate analysis identified candidate variables for multivariate modeling, excluding highly correlated independent variables to avoid problems of collinearity. Multivariate linear regression, logistic regression, and stepwise discriminant analysis were used to determine the relative association of the candidate variables with per capita county trauma death rates. RESULTS: Bivariate analysis identified multiple factors associated with per capita county trauma death rates. These included, among others: county rurality, percentage of unemployment, percentage nonwhite, 911 access, and ALS certified EMS. Per capita trauma death rates were significantly lower in counties with trauma centers compared with counties without trauma centers (4.0 +/- 0.5 and 5.0 +/- 1.1 deaths per 10,000 population, p = 0.0001, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the presence of a trauma center in the county and ALS were the best medical system factors predicting decreased per capita county trauma death rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in utilizing a regional population-based data base of all trauma deaths in a large state to analyze the association of trauma centers and trauma death rates. Multivariate modeling controlling for other county variables demonstrated that the presence of a trauma center and Advanced Life Support training were the best predictors of per capita county trauma death rates. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that trauma centers decrease trauma death rates.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Impact on process of trauma care delivery 1 year after the introduction of a trauma program in a provincial trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Trauma care delivery in Canada, even in major trauma centers, usually devolves to the most involved service. For patients with multisystem injuries, this is not always optimal and aspects of care outside the domain of the primary service are apt to be overlooked. Trauma care is necessarily multidisciplinary, and to be optimal, appropriate integration of the care process and prioritization are required. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact on care in a busy provincial trauma center, after the introduction of a trauma program with a clinical trauma service, revised trauma protocols, and a dedicated trauma unit. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively before and during the introduction of the program. Aspects of care studied included trauma patient volume, compliance with trauma team activation and trauma consultation protocols, delays to the operating room for hypotension or open fractures, delays in disposition to the unit, average length of stay, and mortality based on Trauma and Injury Severity Score analysis. Data are presented summarized by quarter, one before and four after the introduction of the program. Variance tracking was introduced before the last quarter. Differences between preprogram and postprogram performance were assessed by using analysis of variance (asterisks indicates p < 0.05 compared with preprogram performance). RESULTS: Trauma unit average length of stay decreased from 10.15 days initially to 9.66 and 9.14* days at 6 and 12 months, reducing costs. Improved survival was demonstrated by Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology with z score achieving significance compared with Major Trauma Outcome Study outcomes after program implementation. CONCLUSION: Trauma care improvement can be achieved by a multidisciplinary team focusing on the process of care, developing a dedicated trauma service to manage the more seriously injured patients, collecting them onto a single unit, and initiating program management.

British Columbia↗
PubMed2004

The cost of trauma center readiness.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers and the services they provide are a unique and necessary component of our health system. By design trauma centers treat all injured patients regardless of their clinical or economic needs. The purpose of this study was to quantify the costs associated with the preparation of the capacity to provide trauma care at trauma centers within the State of Florida. METHODS: Utilizing a survey tool and multiple retreats, we assessed the capability of 20 verified trauma centers throughout the State of Florida. The survey focused on general attributes of each hospital, the costs associated with physician on call coverage, costs associated with verification, and lastly the costs associated with administration, outreach, and prevention. RESULTS: Data were acquired from 10 trauma centers. Ninety percent of the respondents pay on-call coverage. The median annual physician compensation for on-call coverage was approximately 2.1 million US dollars. The total medial cost of readiness for each trauma center approximated 2.7 million US dollars annually. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centers like fire departments and police services are required to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This level of commitment by trauma centers and the reciprocal expectation from the community force trauma centers to make considerable investments in readiness. This cost of readiness is expended regardless of the patient volume or insurance status. Thus trauma centers have a large component of costs that are not captured by the traditional billing and cost accounting mechanisms within health systems and this fixed expense is extraordinarily difficult to recover given the current reimbursement environment.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2006

Outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: the "halo effect" of trauma center designation.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers have an array of services available around the clock that help reduce mortality in injured patients. Having such services available can benefit patients other than those who are injured. We set out to determine whether patients hospitalized with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms experience lower morbidity and mortality at regional trauma centers than at other acute care hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with the exposure being care at a trauma center and outcomes either mortality or organ failure. We evaluated all patients 40 to 84 years of age with a diagnosis of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent operation during 2001 in 20 US states with organized systems of trauma care. We determined the relative risk of either death or organ failure at regional trauma centers compared with nondesignated centers. RESULTS: Of 2,450 patients hospitalized for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, 867 (35%) hospitalizations occurred at regional trauma centers. At trauma centers, 41.4% of patients died before hospital discharge, compared with 45.2% of patients at nondesignated hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.02). After adjusting for payor, hospital beds, annual hospital admissions, annual inpatient operations, affiliation with a vascular surgery fellowship, and comorbid illnesses, the likelihood of death or organ failure was lower at trauma centers (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Care at regional trauma centers after operative repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with improved outcomes. We postulate that these benefits reflect the ability of both vascular and general surgeons to immediately mobilize resources for care of the patient requiring urgent operative intervention. The beneficial effects of trauma center designation might extend beyond caring for the critically injured.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

The role of a substance abuse consultation team in a trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S., and substance abuse makes an enormous contribution to this problem as well as to the increased cost of health care. A substance abuse consultation (SAC) team was developed to evaluate and intervene with trauma victims who are suspected of having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. This study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of this service. METHOD: This study is a retrospective review of 100 consecutive trauma admissions who were felt to be at high risk for substance abuse and were referred to the SAC team for evaluation and intervention. This study was undertaken in a tertiary care teaching hospital in a cooperative effort between the trauma center and the addictions program. RESULTS: All 100 patients were diagnosed with psychoactive substance use disorders and 78 were referred for alcohol and other drug rehabilitation. Of these patients, 62% accepted a referral for drug and alcohol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: From these preliminary data, it appears that a SAC team may be effective in intervening with hospitalized trauma patients who have alcohol and other drug problems.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed2002

Relative importance of designation and accreditation of trauma centers during evolution of a regional trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Improved survival after injury has been demonstrated with trauma system implementation and designation of trauma centers. Local designating health authorities or national verification (United States) or accreditation (Canada) programs audit trauma center performance. The relative importance of designation versus accreditation with respect to improved outcomes is not clear. The purpose of this study was to measure outcomes within a single regional trauma system after designation of trauma centers and to compare outcomes in the one accredited center to the nonaccredited centers. METHODS: Data from three trauma centers were studied. All were large, university-affiliated regional medical centers, integrated into a regional trauma system and served by a single ambulance service. The study period was 1992 to 1999, immediately after trauma center designation in 1991. The British Columbia Trauma Registry was used to identify trauma patients, mechanism of injury, length of stay, case mix, case volume, acuity, pediatric caseload, and proportion of transfers at each center. A questionnaire was circulated to each hospital to determine the level of institutional support and programmatic development for trauma. The Trauma Registry was used to calculate z scores (TRISS methodology) for each center and TRISS-adjusted mortality odds ratios between institutions. Differences in covariables were controlled for in subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Two centers (hospitals A and C) had a high trauma caseload; one (hospital B) had a small and diminishing caseload. Only one center (hospital A) developed a trauma program consistent with Canadian accreditation criteria; z scores for center A were consistently better than at hospital B or C and survival odds ratios were significant. This finding applied to the total trauma population, blunt adult trauma patients (whether or not transfers and hip fracture patients were excluded), and in the more severely injured blunt trauma subgroups. There were no differences between hospitals for the relatively small number of patients with penetrating trauma. CONCLUSION: Differences between hospitals were apparent from the outset of the trauma system. However, designation as a trauma center does not appear to necessarily improve survival in large regional medical centers. Development of a trauma program and commitment to meeting national guidelines through the accreditation process does appear to be associated with improved outcome after injury.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1995

Do prehospital trauma center triage criteria identify major trauma victims?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate anatomic, physiologic, and mechanism-of-injury prehospital triage criteria as well as the subjective criterion of provider "gut feeling." DESIGN: Prospective analysis. SETTING: A state without a trauma system or official trauma center designation. PATIENTS: Patients treated by emergency medical services personnel statewide over a 1-year period who were injured and met at least one prehospital triage criterion for treatment at a trauma center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome was analyzed for injury severity using the Injury Severity Score and mortality rates. A major trauma victim (MTV) was defined as a patient having an Injury Severity Score of 16 or greater. The yield of MTV and mortality associated with each criterion was determined. RESULTS: Of 5028 patients entered into the study, 3006 exhibited a singular entry criterion. Triage criteria tended to stratify into high-, intermediate-, and low-yield groups for MTV identification. Physiologic criteria were high yield and anatomic criteria were intermediate yield. Provider gut feeling alone was a low-yield criterion but served to enhance the yield of mechanism of injury criteria when the two criteria were applied in the same patient. CONCLUSIONS: A limited set of high-yield prehospital criteria are acceptable indicators of MTV. Isolated low- and intermediate-yield criteria may not be useful for initiating trauma center triage or full activation of hospital trauma teams.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Mathematical modeling to define optimum operating room staffing needs for trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Level II trauma centers may be verified (1999, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma) with an on-call operating room team if the performance-improvement program shows no adverse outcomes. Using queuing and simulation methodology, this study attempted to add a volume guideline. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 72 previously verified trauma centers identified multiple demographic factors, including specific information about the first trauma-related operation that was done between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM each month for 12 consecutive months. RESULTS: The annual admissions averaged 1,477 for 37 Level I trauma centers, 802 for 28 Level II trauma centers, 481 for 4 Level III trauma centers, and 731 for 3 pediatric trauma centers. The annual admissions correlated with the number of operations done between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM (p < 0.001). These 946 operations were performed by general surgery (39%), neurosurgery (8%), orthopaedic surgery (33%), another specialty (9%), or multiple services (10%). Admission to operation time was within 30 minutes for 12.1% of patients (2.6% for blunt and 24.1% for penetrating injuries). The probability of operation within 30 minutes of arrival varied with the number of admissions and with the percentage of penetrating versus blunt injuries. The likely number of operations from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM would be 19 for 500 annual admissions, 26 for 750 annual admissions, and 34 for 1,000 annual admissions, with 5.83, 7.98, and 10.13 patients, respectively, going to operation within 30 min. The probability that two rooms would be occupied simultaneously was 0.14 and 0.24 for centers admitting 500 and 1,000 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centers performing fewer than six operations between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM per year could conserve resources by using an immediately available on-call team, with responses monitored by the performance-improvement program.

Guidelines as Topic↗
PubMed1986

Trauma center verification.

Sanctioned trauma center designation began in the late 1970's to improve hospital capabilities to care for injured patients. Guided by criteria established by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and led by surgeons dedicated to improving trauma care, many states focused early on the quality of care issue only to later struggle with the political consequences that followed the designation process. Institutional commitment to trauma care was often stated but seldom measured. Unlike the designation process with its strong emphasis on capabilities assessment, the verification process focused on performance documentation. Confirmation was sought in response time of key personnel, completeness of registry database, and trauma death audits. Trauma Committee minutes were reviewed and prehospital personnel interviewed to confirm institutional involvement in paramedic education and overall EMS system design. Other areas of documentation included trauma education at all levels, research, nursing audits, and outreach programs. We conclude that trauma center designation and verification are both essential and complementary. Effective trauma system performance requires trauma center designation plus a verification process to confirm institutional commitment of these resources for optimal care of the injured patient.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1989

Hidden costs make planning critical for trauma centers.

Hospitals seek trauma center designation to enhance prestige, improve market share, increase financial return, enhance their teaching function, and support their mission. Unfortunately, for most hospitals, trauma centers create significant increases in capital and operating costs. The best way to determine the direct financial effect of trauma center designation is to focus on the additional patients who will be treated at the hospital and the associated costs and revenue.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1998

Lethal abdominal gunshot wounds at a level I trauma center: analysis of TRISS (Revised Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score) fallouts.

BACKGROUND: The TRISS methodology (composite index of the Revised Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score) has become widely used by trauma centers to assess quality of care. The American College of Surgeons recommends including negative TRISS fallouts (fatally injured patients predicted to survive by the TRISS methodology) as a filter to select patients for peer review. The purpose of this study was to analyze the TRISS fallouts among patients with lethal abdominal gunshot wounds admitted to a level I trauma center. STUDY DESIGN: All patients categorized as TRISS fallouts admitted from January 1995 through December 1996 were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 848 patients with abdominal gunshot wounds were admitted. Of the 108 patients with any sign of life on admission who subsequently died, 39 (36%) were TRISS fallouts. The patients were largely young (mean age, 29 years) and male (87%), received rapid transport (mean scene time, 11 minutes), and had an attending-led trauma-team response (<5 minutes, 87%). Major vascular (80%) and multiple intraabdominal injuries (90%) predominated. The mean Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index was 40.3. The mean TRISS probability of survival was 89%. The peer-review process deemed the deaths to be nonpreventable in 38 patients (97%) and potentially preventable in one patient (3%). CONCLUSIONS: "TRISS fallouts" were predominantly patients who died despite receiving rapid prehospital transport, rapid senior-level trauma-team response, and surgical intervention for a serious complex of injuries. We conclude that without regional adjustment of coefficients used to predict the probability of survival, the TRISS methodology is of limited use in patients with abdominal gunshot wounds.

Abdominal Injuries↗
PubMed1989

HIV infection rates in a trauma center treating predominantly rural blunt trauma victims.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection rates among 1,497 consecutive adult trauma victims triaged from rural and urban sectors to a statewide trauma center in Baltimore were studied. Those studied were 71.7% men, 77.4% whites, 63.2% vehicular trauma victims, 11.2% assault victims, and 25.7% other trauma victims. Non-Baltimoreans predominated (86.0%) and 32.7% were 25 to 39 years of age. Overall, 1.67% of the victims were HIV antibody positive. Significantly higher infection rates were seen in men (1.96% vs. 0.95%; p less than 0.02), non-whites (4.13% vs. 0.95; p less than 0.005), assault victims compared with vehicular and other trauma victims (5.99% vs. 1.06% vs. 1.30%, respectively; p less than 0.001), and Baltimore City residents (3.81% vs. 1.32%; p less than 0.03). Among those 25 to 39 years of age, 68.0% of the HIV infections were noted. Results suggest that HIV infection rates among trauma center patients are a reflection of the patient population served.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

The relation between trauma center outcome and volume in the National Trauma Databank.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of trauma care services aims to improve outcomes by limiting trauma care delivery to a select group of dedicated trauma centers. However, the evidence linking trauma center volume and outcome is not conclusive. The objective of this study was to examine the volume-mortality relation for patients with severe trauma in the National Trauma Databank. METHODS: This study was based on data for adult patients 18 years of age or older in the National Trauma Databank with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 15 or more who sustained either blunt or penetrating trauma. The main outcome measure was in-hospital survival as a function of trauma center volume. Logistic regression modeling was used to analyze the relation between survival and hospital volume for patients sustaining either severe blunt or severe penetrating trauma. RESULTS: For the blunt trauma cohort, model diagnostics showed that the single highest-volume center was an outlier. After exclusion of the patients from this center, no association could be demonstrated between trauma volume and outcome (p = 0.465) for blunt trauma. A separate multivariate analysis of patients with penetrating trauma also could not demonstrate a significant volume-mortality association (p = 0.919). Both regression models exhibited excellent discrimination and acceptable calibration. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study do not support the position that higher trauma center volumes are associated with improved survival. The implication of this study is that the hospital volume criteria established by the American College of Surgeons may need to be reexamined.

Adolescent↗