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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2001

Mortality among seriously injured patients treated in remote rural trauma centers before and after implementation of a statewide trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Injury mortality in rural regions remains high with little evidence that trauma system implementation has benefited rural populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk-adjusted mortality in remote regions of Oregon before and after implementation of a statewide trauma system. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study assessing injury mortality through 30 days after hospital discharge. SETTING: Nine rural Oregon hospitals serving counties with populations <18 persons per square mile. SUBJECTS: Severely injured patients presenting to four level-3 and five level-4 trauma hospitals 3 years before and 3 years after trauma system implementation. MEASURES: Interhospital transfer, hospital death, and demise within 30 days following hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 940 patients were analyzed. After trauma system implementation, patients presenting to level-4 hospitals were more likely transferred to level-2 facilities (P <0.001). Interhospital transfer times from level-3 hospitals lengthened significantly after system implementation (P <0.001). Overall mortality rates were higher in the postsystem period (8.3%) than the presystem period (6.7%), but not significantly. Controlling for covariates, no additional benefit to risk-adjusted mortality was associated with trauma system implementation. Additional deaths, occurring after trauma system implementation, included head-injured patients transferred from rural hospitals to nonlevel-1 trauma center hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Increased injury survival after Oregon trauma system implementation, demonstrated in urban and statewide analyses, was not confirmed in remote regions of the state. Efforts to improve trauma systems in rural areas should focus on the processes of care for head-injured patients transferred to higher designation trauma centers.

Adult↗

PubMed1981

Trauma centers: an idea whose time has come.

Major trauma is a preventable entity. Illustrations are used to discuss the differences between major trauma centers. Requirements for a trauma center are enumerated and the impact of residency training programs is discussed relative to trauma care. The development of trauma centers is examined and reference is made to Boyd's article on trauma centers. Priorities to develop a National Trauma System as well as educational programs are explained. Finally, a discussion of the teaching of advanced trauma life supports (ATLS) is presented.The ongoing need for the development of trauma centers is detailed.

Accidents, Traffic↗

PubMed2006

Do trauma centers improve functional outcomes: a national trauma databank analysis?

BACKGROUND: The development of a tiered trauma care system has lead to improved survival for the critically injured. The question as to whether the increased survival associated with the establishment of tiered levels of trauma care is paralleled by an improved functional outcome has not, however, been addressed. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank from 1994 to 2001 was performed with functional independence measure (FIM) as the primary outcome. Trauma centers were dichotomized as Level II or above versus Level III or below. Blunt and penetrating trauma patients were analyzed separately. Other covariates included age, gender, shock, comorbidities, alcohol, drugs, as well as head, chest, abdominal, spine, and lower extremity injury. Confidence intervals were set at an alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 474,024 patients were analyzed. Among minimally injured penetrating trauma patients, those receiving care at a higher tiered center had a higher likelihood of total independence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0, 2.0). Among minimal, moderate and severely injured blunt trauma patients those receiving care at a higher tiered center had a higher likelihood of total independence (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0, 1.4, OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1, 1.6, OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.3, 1.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the complex care delivered by advanced level trauma centers is associated with improved functional outcomes. Further investigations to identify the reasons for differences in these outcomes are necessary to improve care at lower tiered hospitals particularly for minimally injured patients.

Activities of Daily Living↗

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↗

PubMed1995

Cause of temporary closure of an inner-city trauma center.

The number of trauma admissions, types of injury, and reasons for temporary closure were studied. Trauma patients admitted numbered 1120 in 1991, 989 in 1992, and 1164 in 1993; blunt trauma accounted for 77 percent, 74 percent, and 80 percent, whereas penetrating trauma accounted for 23 percent, 26 percent, and 20 percent of the admissions by year, respectively. A mean of 81 percent of the blunt trauma studies were for head injuries. The trauma center closed for a total of 260 hours in 1991, 211 hours in 1992, and 240 hours during 1993. Of the total hours closed, the unavailability of computed tomography (CT) scanning due to mechanical reasons was the leading cause for closure, accounting for 59 percent of hours closed. Other reasons for closure included operating (OR) unavailability (33%), acute care beds full (3.4%), blood bank stock shortage (1.4%), insufficient OR nursing teams (0.6%), unavailability of anesthesiologists (0.5%), unavailability of surgical team (1.4%), and hospital water problems (1.4%). It is concluded that designated major trauma centers may need two available CT scanners if they have a greater than 75 percent blunt trauma admission rate, or greater than 500 blunt trauma patient admissions.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

PubMed2003

Organized trauma care: does volume matter and do trauma centers save lives?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Trauma is the leading cause of death during the first four decades of life. Since the 1970s, organized systems for trauma care, including a prehospital emergency medical system and a network of hospitals designated as trauma centers, have been developed. The model of the trauma system and its efficacy have been reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Fundamental to the trauma system is its recognition in the field and the transportation to a trauma center of patients with more serious injuries. Each trauma center has to treat at least 240 severe trauma patients per year to increase experience. It is cost-effective that less severely injured patients be treated in nontrauma center's acute care facilities, according to the inclusive system model. The effectiveness of trauma systems has been investigated by comparing postsystem with presystem trauma care with three methods: panel evaluation of preventable death rates, comparison of observed survival with expected probability of survival derived from large trauma registries, and evaluation of population-based general databases. These studies have demonstrated a decrease in preventable death rate and an increase in survival after system implementation. All these studies have been classified as providing weak class III evidence. However, with a large sample size and when properly designed, they generate important information regarding appropriateness of care delivered. SUMMARY: Concentration of severely injured patients in trauma centers is associated with better outcomes. Population-based investigations provide the strongest evidence regarding effects of the trauma system on patient outcomes, other than survival outcome measures because long-term functional status may be more appropriate.

Bed Occupancy↗

PubMed1994

Alcohol and other drugs: an assessment of testing and clinical practices in U.S. trauma centers.

INTRODUCTION: The American College of Surgeons' (ACS) Committee on Trauma recommends drug and alcohol screening as "essential" for level I and II or "desirable" for level III trauma centers. METHODS: Trauma centers were surveyed concerning alcohol and other drug testing policies and clinical practices during fiscal year 1989. RESULTS: Surveys were returned from 125 level I, 153 level II, and 38 other centers (n = 316; 47 states and the District of Columbia). Resources to measure blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) and perform urine drug screens were available in 99.4% and 96.8% of centers, respectively. In 63.7% of level I and level II and 47.4% of other centers, BACs were "routinely" obtained. The 63.7% testing rate for level I and level II centers was not significantly higher than a 55.2% rate for such centers documented in a survey conducted 5 years earlier. In 40.0% of level I and level II and 26.3% of other centers, drug screens were obtained routinely. The higher overall BAC testing policy compared with that for other drugs was significant (p < 0.001). Substance abuse counselors were employed at 59.3% of the trauma centers, a rate significantly higher than the 31.8% rate identified in a previous survey (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite available resources and repeated ACS recommendations, measurements of BACs and drug screens are routine in only 63.7% of level I and 40.0% of level II trauma centers.

Alcoholism↗

PubMed1993

Is 24-hour operating room staff absolutely necessary for level II trauma center designation?

Recent papers from established trauma centers reported average elapsed times from emergency department (ED) admission to the operating room (OR) of greater than 100 minutes for patients judged to be in immediate need of surgery. This study was undertaken to determine whether patients treated at an institution desiring level II trauma center designation in a geographic area with a low incidence of penetrating trauma suffered any adverse effects because of lack of a 24-hour in-house OR staff. Trauma registry data at The Stamford Hospital, a suburban community teaching hospital without OR nursing staff in-house at night, were reviewed and compared with data from three affiliated level I trauma centers and with established national standards using TRISS methodology. Of 659 major trauma patients, 86 (44 blunt, 42 penetrating) underwent surgery within 12 hours of admission. Patients' injuries were similar in severity to those seen at the affiliated trauma centers and to the Major Trauma Outcome Study population. Mortality rates were also similar. No statistically significant differences were seen in elapsed times from ED arrival to OR arrival even in the subgroup of patients with systolic blood pressure values of < or = 90 mm Hg. No unexpected adverse outcomes could be ascribed to the lack of 24-hour OR staffing in this setting. The estimated cost of providing additional OR staffing is $145,000 per year. Since times to the OR and outcomes were similar to those at level I centers, this expense may not be warranted.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma systems.

BACKGROUND: The establishment of trauma systems was anticipated to improve overall survival for the severely injured patient. We systematically reviewed the published literature to assess if outcome from severe traumatic injury is improved for patients following the establishment of a trauma system. METHODS: A systematic literature review of all population-based studies that evaluated trauma system performance was conducted. A qualitative analysis of each study's design and methodology and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the evidence to date of trauma system effectiveness. RESULTS: A search of the literature yielded 14 published articles. Trauma systems demonstrated improved odds of survival in 8 of the 14 reports. The overall quality-weighted odds ratio was 0.85 lower mortality following trauma system implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis showed a 15% reduction in mortality in favor of the presence of a trauma system. Evaluation of trauma system effectiveness must remain an uncompromising commitment to optimal outcome for the injured patient.

Benchmarking↗

PubMed2004

Incidence and management of penetrating renal trauma in patients with multiorgan injury: extended experience at an inner city trauma center.

PURPOSE: Patients with penetrating trauma often have multiorgan involvement that may complicate the management of any single organ system. Here we review the incidence of associated injuries in patients with penetrating renal trauma and our extended experience treating these patients at a busy inner city trauma center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All trauma cases presenting to Temple University Trauma Center during a 6-year period were identified through our institutional databases and were reviewed (5,276). Penetrating trauma represented 41% of all cases (2,163). Of these we identified 123 patients with penetrating renal trauma (5.7%). A total of 93 cases were available for review. Multiorgan injury was staged in the operating room if patients were hemodynamically unstable or radiographically if they were stable. Renal injuries were staged by high dose, single shot excretory urogram in patients taken immediately to surgery or by computerized tomography if stable. Renal injuries were classified using the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading system. AAST classifications were subcategorized for purposes of streamlining. Grade 1 and 2 injuries were grouped as low grade, grades 3 and 4 nonvascular injuries were grouped as intermediate grade, and AAST grade 4 vascular and grade 5 injuries were grouped as high grade. Demographic, clinical and intraoperative variables, as well as number and severity of associated injuries, were then assessed to determine the relationship with various renal surgical outcomes including the requirement of surgical intervention, type of surgical intervention, need for nephrectomy and associated adverse outcomes. RESULTS: The median age of injured patients was 28 years (range 14 to 80). The majority of victims were male (93%). The mechanism of injury was predominantly gunshot wound (GSW, 86%) while 14% were due to stab wounds. Renal injuries were low grade (19%), intermediate grade (44%) and high grade (37%). Nearly all patients with penetrating renal injury had associated multiorgan injury (94.6%). Associated injuries for penetrating renal trauma on the right side predominately involved the liver, small bowel and vertebra while injury to the left kidney was most often associated with trauma to the stomach, colon and spleen. Patients suffered extensive renal injury as evidenced by the high rate of intraoperative urinomas (30.1%) and hematomas (97.5%) identified. In the absence of an expanding hematoma and/or hemodynamic instability, associated injuries by themselves did not increase the risk of nephrectomy. Despite multiorgan penetrating injury 54% of kidneys were salvageable. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated penetrating trauma to the kidney is rare. The majority of patients with penetrating renal trauma have associated adjacent organ injuries that may complicate treatment. In the absence of an expanding hematoma with hemodynamic instability, associated multiorgan injuries did not increase the risk of nephrectomy. With appropriate radiographic and/or surgical staging, it is possible to repair and salvage many of these kidneys despite extensive associated intraabdominal trauma.

Abdominal Injuries↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The non-use of 9-1-1. Private transport of trauma patients to a trauma center.

HYPOTHESIS: Privately transported, major trauma patients made up approximately 4% of the total trauma patients population at a major, regional trauma center which treats over 90% of all major trauma victims in the geographic area. This study was undertaken to evaluate the patient profile of those individuals who did not access 9-1-1 for transport to a trauma center, including their reasons for such non-use. METHODS: Data on all major trauma occurring within Dade County, Florida, were collected by the county trauma registry. RESULTS: In the last six months of 1989, 1,672 patients were entered into the trauma registry. One-thousand-six-hundred-thirteen (1,613) were transported by professional ground or air services, 59 by private vehicle. For those patients transported directly from the Emergency Department to the Operating Room, only 35% of private vehicle patients entered surgery within 90 minutes of presentation compared to 57% of those who gained access to the 9-1-1 system and used emergency medical services (EMS). One-half of those patients who did not use 9-1-1 did not have telephone access. Patient acuity was similar for those transported by private vehicle compared to those transported by basic or advanced life support units. Private vehicle transport often delayed patient triage and assessment. Thus, for a number of lower income patients, 9-1-1 access was difficult. CONCLUSION: Underestimation of the severity of the injury or fear of delay in rescue response were prominent reasons for non-use of 9-1-1. While educational efforts should concentrate on decreasing inappropriate 9-1-1 use for non-emergencies, the causes of underutilization should not be ignored.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

An analysis of the critical problem of trauma center reimbursement.

There is a widespread perception that many trauma centers are poorly reimbursed, and many hospitals that once cared for trauma victims no longer do so, primarily for financial reasons. The problem is blamed on both uninsured and underinsured patients, but data supporting this perception are lacking. To determine the validity of these perceptions and to better understand the nature of trauma center reimbursement, a survey was conducted. A questionnaire on the volume of trauma seen annually and the reimbursement experience for trauma center (TC) and hospital (HO) patient populations was mailed to representative but nonrandomly chosen trauma centers. Seventy-one surveys were mailed and 25 were returned (35%). There were 15 Level I and 10 Level II centers; 16 were urban, seven were suburban, and two were rural. Eighteen centers (72%) reported significant underfunding of the TC in contrast to the HO, and 11 indicated that they would not be able to continue their current level of TC services with present reimbursement. For Medicare patients, HO cost recovery rates averaged 93%, but recovery rates were only 64% for TCs. For Medicaid beneficiaries, the HO cost recovery rate averaged 85%, but it was only 49% for TCs. Thirty-one percent of TC patients had no insurance coverage at all, in contrast to only 9% of HO patients. An aggregate loss equal to 19.9% of total costs was reported by respondents. This survey, while not representative of trauma centers as a whole throughout the United States, does suggest that there is a basis for the perception of underfunding of trauma care and indicates that such underfunding results from the combination of adverse selection and disproportionate share. We also describe a new method for assessing and comparing trauma center reimbursement.

Data Collection↗

PubMed2001

The 15-year evolution of an urban trauma center: what does the future hold for the trauma surgeon?

BACKGROUND: Safer cars, decreased violence, and nonoperative management have changed the trauma patient's nature. We evaluated changes in a Level I trauma center over 15 years and considered their effect on trauma surgeons. METHODS: From January 1985 through August 1999, 16,799 trauma registry patients were analyzed for mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, and procedures. RESULTS: Mean Injury Severity Score decreased from 15.9 to 10.7 and length of stay fell from 8.0 days to 5.9 days. There were significant decreases in penetrating trauma admissions and percentage of patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale score > 3 for head, chest, and abdomen. Frequency of craniotomy, thoracotomy, and laparotomy dropped dramatically. CONCLUSION: Significant decreases in injury severity, penetrating violence, and operations have occurred over 15 years. These changes will have profound effects on the practice of trauma surgeons and on surgical education.

Abdominal Injuries↗

PubMed1994

A critical analysis of acutely injured children managed in an adult level I trauma center.

The triage of all injured children to regional pediatric trauma centers may be impractical and unnecessarily exclude adult level I trauma centers from the care of the acutely injured child. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the outcome of injured children treated in an adult level I trauma center by adult trauma surgeons. The records of 410 consecutively treated children (age < or = 15 years) and 188 young adults (age 16 to 18 years) admitted to the trauma service during a 2-year period (ending December 1991) were studied. The probability of survival was calculated using TRISS methodology. Results were analyzed using the Z statistic, permitting objective comparison with national norms (Major Trauma Outcome Study). Severity of injury (RTS and ISS) was equivalent (P > .05) in children and young adults. The observed survival (98.0%) in children compared favorably with the predicted survival (TRISS) of 97.7%. Calculation of the Z statistic showed no difference in outcomes of acutely injured children (+0.47) relative to young adults (+0.45) or national norms (MTOS). The triage of injured children to an adult level I trauma center does not adversely affect outcome. Subset analysis of injured children showed no differences in observed outcome relative to predicted outcome (national control) or outcome in young adults (institutional control). These data support the continued triage of acutely injured children to regional trauma centers regardless of pediatric or adult designation.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2005

Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether head-injured patients transferred to level I trauma centers have reduced mortality relative to transfers to level II trauma centers. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of 542 patients with head injury who initially presented to 1 of 31 rural trauma centers in Oregon and Washington, and were transferred from the emergency department to 1 of 15 level I or level II trauma centers, between 1991 and 1994. STUDY DESIGN: A bivariate probit, instrumental variables model was used to estimate the effect of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers on 30-day postdischarge mortality. Independent variables included age, gender, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), other indicators of injury severity, and a dichotomous variable indicating transfer to a level I trauma center. The differential distance between the nearest level I and level II trauma centers was used as an instrument. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients transferred to level I trauma centers differ in unmeasured ways from patients transferred to level II trauma centers, biasing estimates based on standard statistical methods. Transfer to a level I trauma center reduced absolute mortality risk by 10.1% (95% confidence interval 0.3%, 22.2%) compared with transfer to level II trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe head injuries transferred from rural trauma centers to level I centers are likely to have improved survival relative to transfer to level II centers.

Catchment Area, Health↗

PubMed2005

Access to trauma centers in the United States.

CONTEXT: Previous studies have reported that the number and distribution of trauma centers are uneven across states, suggesting large differences in access to trauma center care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of US residents having access to trauma centers within 45 and 60 minutes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study using data from 2 national databases as part of the Trauma Resource Allocation Model for Ambulances and Hospitals (TRAMAH) project. Trauma centers, base helipads, and block group population were counted for all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of January 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of national, regional, and state populations having access to all 703 level I, II, and III trauma centers in the United States by either ground ambulance or helicopter within 45 and 60 minutes. RESULTS: An estimated 69.2% and 84.1% of all US residents had access to a level I or II trauma center within 45 and 60 minutes, respectively. The 46.7 million Americans who had no access within an hour lived mostly in rural areas, whereas the 42.8 million Americans who had access to 20 or more level I or II trauma centers within an hour lived mostly in urban areas. Within 45 and 60 minutes, respectively, 26.7% and 27.7% of US residents had access to level I or II trauma centers by helicopter only and 1.9% and 3.1% of US residents had access to level I or II centers only from trauma centers or base helipads outside their home states. CONCLUSION: Selecting trauma centers based on geographic need, appropriately locating medical helicopter bases, and establishing formal agreements for sharing trauma care resources across states should be considered to improve access to trauma care in the United States.

Air Ambulances↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Requiring on-line medical command for helicopter request prolongs computer-modeled transport time to the nearest trauma center.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid transport from scene to closest trauma center requires optimal use of public safety first responder (FR), basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS), and transport resources (ground or air). In some parts of this regional emergency medical services (EMS) system, on-scene ALS requires contact with on-line medical command (OLMC) to obtain authorization for air medical helicopter (AMH) dispatch, because some EMS medical directors believe that this may decrease overutilization of AMH services. HYPOTHESIS: The hypothesis of this study was that requiring prior OLMC for AMH dispatch prolongs mean time to a trauma center versus either FR or BLS request for AMH. METHODS: Computer mapping programs were used to model the most rapid driving time to the closest trauma center from 167 actual AMH responses to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. In an OLMC-ALS model, only OLMC-ALS can request an AMH. In a BLS model, BLS units arrive on the scene and the crew requests simultaneous dispatch of an ALS response and an AMH. In the FR model, on arrival at the scene, a FR requests simultaneous dispatch of a BLS unit, an ALS unit, and an AMH. RESULTS: The OLMC-ALS model resulted in a longer mean value for time to trauma center by an AMH than did the computer model for all ground transport settings. The FR model yielded a shorter mean time for AMH compared with the mean values for time to trauma center for all settings. Differences in mean values for time in urban settings were small (ground: 42 minutes, air: 36 minutes), whereas those for the suburban (ground: 52 minutes, air: 41 minutes), and those for rural (ground: 69 minutes, air: 47 minutes) were significant clinically. For the BLS model, these differences persisted, but were significant clinically only in the rural setting (ground: 68 minutes, air: 53 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal use of AMH requires balancing the need for early helicopter dispatch to fully exploit its speed advantage with the disadvantage of expensive overutilization. This computer model indicates that the best person to request AMH varies by venue: in urban settings, the OLMC physician should request AMH dispatch; in suburban venues, BLS should request AMH dispatch; and in rural venues, FRs should request AMH dispatch.

Air Ambulances↗

PubMed2007

Preventable deaths from hemorrhage at a level I Canadian trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Studies of trauma deaths have had a tremendous impact on the quality of contemporary trauma care. We studied causes of trauma death at a Level I Canadian trauma center, and tabulated preventable deaths from hemorrhage using explicit criteria. METHODS: Trauma registry data were used to identify all trauma deaths at our institution from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. Demographics, mechanism, and time or location of death were recorded. Registry data analysis and selective chart or autopsy review were then performed to assign causes of death. RESULTS: A total of 558 consecutive trauma deaths were reviewed. Mean age was 48.7 (46.7-50.6), and mean Injury Severity Score was 38.8 (37.6-40.0); 29% were females. Blunt trauma represented 87% of all cases; penetrating injuries were only 13%. Central nervous system (CNS) injuries were the most frequent cause of death (60%), followed by hemorrhage (15%), and then combination CNS and hemorrhagic injuries (11%). Multiple organ failure caused 5% of deaths and 9% of deaths were from other causes. Of hemorrhagic deaths, 48% (n = 41) were from blunt injury, and 52% (n = 45) were from a penetrating mechanism. Of these hemorrhagic deaths, 16% were judged to be preventable because of significant delays in identifying the major source of hemorrhage. Hemorrhage from blunt pelvic injury was the major cause of exsanguination in 12 of 14 of these preventable deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Blunt injury is the major mechanism leading to trauma deaths. Massive bleeding from blunt pelvic injury is the major cause of preventable hemorrhagic deaths in our study.

Adult↗