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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

PubMed1997

Direct transport to tertiary trauma centers versus transfer from lower level facilities: impact on mortality and morbidity among patients with major trauma.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to compare the outcome of severely injured patients who were transported directly to a Level I, tertiary trauma center with those who were transferred after being first transported to less specialized hospitals. METHODS: The data were based on all patients treated at three tertiary trauma centers in Quebec between April 1, 1993, and December 31, 1995. There were 1,608 patients (37%) transferred and 2,756 patients (63%) transported directly. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was approximately 45 years, and more than 60% were males. The predominant mechanisms of injury were falls and motor vehicle crashes. The transfer and direct transport groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and mechanism of injury. Body regions injured were also similar with the exception of head or neck injuries (transfer, 56%; direct, 28%; p < 0.0001). The mean Injury Severity Score was 14, the mean Pre-Hospital Index score was 5.5, and the mean Revised Trauma Score was 7.5. The two groups were similar with respect to these injury severity measures. The primary outcome of interest was mortality described as overall death rate, death rate in the emergency room, and death rate after admission. Other outcomes studied were hospital length of stay and duration of treatment in an intensive care unit. When compared with the direct transport group, transferred patients were at increased risk for overall mortality (transfer, 8.9%; direct, 4.8%; odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.53-2.50), emergency room mortality (transfer, 3.4%; direct, 1.2%; odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.90-4.6), and mortality after admission (transfer, 5.5%; direct, 3.6%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% CI = 1.17-2.11). All of these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.003). Stratified and multiple logistic regression analysis did not alter these results and failed to identify a patient subgroup for which transfer was associated with a reduced risk of mortality. After adjusting for patient age, Injury Severity Score, and presence of injuries to the head or neck and extremities, transferred patients stayed significantly longer in the hospital and the intensive care unit as indicated by the mean length of stay (transfer, 16.0 days; direct, 13.2 days; p = 0.02) and the mean intensive care unit stay (transfer, 2.0 days; direct, 0.95 days; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study have shown that transportation of severely injured patients from the scene directly to Level I trauma centers is associated with a reduction in mortality and morbidity. Further studies are required for the evaluation of transport protocols for rural trauma. Economic and cost-effectiveness considerations of patient triage are also essential.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Effect of surgical panel composition on patient outcome at a level I trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of staffing with general surgeons vs trauma specialists on patient outcome at a trauma center. DESIGN: The care of injured patients at a level I urban trauma center serving a population of 2.5 million was the responsibility of 12 surgeons (10 general surgeons and 2 trauma specialists) between January 1 and June 30, 1996 (group 1). Between July 1 and December 31, 1996 (group 2), trauma was the responsibility solely of 4 trauma specialists. An additional comparison was made with those patients in group 1 who were admitted to the general surgeons (group 1A). The outcomes and quality of care for these periods, as determined by the quality assurance screens, were retrospectively analyzed and compared. SETTING: Urban, tertiary care, level I trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Each trauma and burn patient admitted during the study periods is included in this study. Upon the patient's discharge from the hospital, specially trained nurses completed a review of the patient's stay and entered it into the TraumaOne database (Lancet Technology Inc, Cambridge, Mass). There were 693 trauma patients in group 1 (472 in group 1A) and 734 patients in group 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, length of stay, and 16 quality assurance screens were quantified and compared using chi(2) analyses and t tests. RESULTS: The age and sex of the 2 groups were similar. The mortality rate was 6.2% (43/693) in group 1, 6.1% (29/472) in group 1A, and 6.5% (48/734) in group 2 (P = .80 and P = .78, respectively). When stratified by injury severity score (ISS), lengths of stay were statistically similar, except for patients with an ISS of 0 to 7. Patients with an ISS of 0 to 7 in groups 1 and 1A stayed a mean of 2.6 days, compared with 3.2 days for group 2 (P = .01 and P = .02, respectively). The results of quality assurance screens (missed injury, wound infection, readmission, and 13 others) were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transitions in staffing afforded the opportunity to examine patient outcomes by surgeon specialization and frequency of call. In our sample, 12 well-trained surgeons taking call less frequently managed a trauma service as efficiently as a group of 4 trauma specialists, without any differences in morbidity and mortality.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Pediatric trauma management in a rural Wisconsin trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the results of pediatric trauma care managed with a cooperative effort by general surgeons and pediatric intensivists in comparison to national standards. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Referral level II trauma center in rural Wisconsin. PATIENTS: All pediatric trauma patients age 16 and younger admitted to the hospital from 1990 to 1993. METHODS: Demographics, mechanisms of injury, revised trauma score (RTS), injury severity score (ISS), surgical procedures, need for intensive care, and outcome were examined. All patients were primarily managed by the trauma surgery service. Those patients requiring intensive care were managed jointly by the trauma surgery service and pediatric intensivists. Outcome was predicted by TRISS analysis; patients identified as "unexpected deaths" underwent critical clinical review to determine potential for survival. RESULTS: There were 531 pediatric trauma admissions. The mean age was 9.0 +/- 6.2 (SEM) years and two thirds of the patients were boys. Over half of all injuries were from falls, recreational activities, and motor vehicle crashes. There were few penetrating injuries. The mean RTS was 7.58 +/- 0.05, and the majority of patients had an ISS below 10. Sixty-two percent of patients required surgical procedures, most of which were orthopedic. Fourteen percent of patients were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. There were 13 deaths for a mortality rate of 2.4%. TRISS analysis identified six deaths as unexpected. Four drownings were not included in TRISS analysis, and there were no unexpected survivors. Of the six unexpected deaths, there were no significant management errors identified on careful review. CONCLUSIONS: Cooperation between general surgeons and pediatric intensivists can result in excellent pediatric trauma care in a rural level II trauma center.

Accidental Falls↗

PubMed2004

Secondary triage of the injured pediatric patient within the trauma center: support for a selective resource-sparing two-stage system.

OBJECTIVES: While it is generally agreed that pediatric trauma patients exposed to high-risk injury mechanisms should be sent to trauma centers, many patients seen with full trauma alerts are determined to have minimal injury. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a clinical tool to safely triage a group of pediatric trauma patients for initial evaluation by the emergency department (ED) within the trauma center. METHODS: The pediatric trauma score (PTS) was used as the basis for development of a simplified, user-friendly assessment tool called the modified pediatric trauma score (mPTS). It used basic physiologic and anatomic signs identified at ED triage. This tool was retrospectively tested against the outcomes of 1112 pediatric trauma patients as determined by their final injury severity scores (ISS) and the need for urgent interventions. RESULTS: Our tool would have triaged 58% of patients to ED preevaluaton resulting in significant resource savings. Concurrently, 99% of patients with an ISS greater than 10 and all patients who needed urgent interventions would have remained full trauma alert patients. The positive predictive value of our tool was only 0.32. indicating that a safe level of overtriage was maintained. CONCLUSION: This study serves as further support for the concept of multitiered triage systems within trauma centers. In such settings, initial evaluations of select pediatric patients can be safely performed by emergency medicine staff with deferral of full trauma team alerts.

Child↗

PubMed2004

Increasing organ recovery from level I trauma centers: the in-house coordinator intervention.

PURPOSE: Daily presence of organ procurement organization staff in level I trauma centers combined with early family contact and interaction can increase donation rates. METHODS: A successful in-house coordinator program already in place at 2 level I trauma centers in Houston was replicated in 6 other level I trauma centers in New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Organ procurement organization staff were placed inside the 8 trauma centers to provide early family support in potential donor situations and day-to-day donation system management. Comparison data were obtained on 83 level I trauma centers nationally. Data from 1999 to 2000 were compared with data from 2001 to 2002. RESULTS: Despite demographic differences, the 8 centers with in-house coordinators had higher consent rates (60% vs 53%) and conversion rates (55% vs 45%) than centers without them. Conversion of potential to actual donors was 22% higher in centers with in-house coordinators than in centers without them. Donation rates were affected by donor age, ethnicity, previous family discussion of donation, the family's initial reaction to the request (favorable, unfavorable, undecided), amount of time family spent with the in-house coordinator, presence of the in-house coordinator during explanation of brain death, whether the request was made at the same time as the brain-death explanation, and, in cases where donation was mentioned to the family before the formal request, who first mentioned donation to the family. CONCLUSIONS: In-house coordinators improve the donation process by interacting with families and staff earlier and more often during potential organ donations and improving donation systems through closer relationships with hospital staff.

Case Management↗

PubMed1983

A rural regional trauma center.

New developments in the organization of trauma care management at the Mayo Clinic are presented along with a review of the first 4 years' experience of a Regional Trauma Center at the Mayo Clinic-affiliated Saint Marys Hospital. Application of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in the analysis of blunt traumatic deaths has permitted an internal evaluation of trauma care, as well as comparison with other reported emergency trauma care delivery systems. Although additional challenges remain, results indicate that the trauma center concept can be applied just as effectively in a rurally located tertiary facility as in a large metropolitan area.

Accidents, Traffic↗

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↗

PubMed1992

Impact of minimal injuries on a level I trauma center.

Overtriage (i.e.; transport of patients with minimal injuries to a trauma center) has been accepted as necessary to avoid missing clinically significant injuries. We reviewed our experience with 344 patients (ISS less than or equal to 4) who were admitted to a level I trauma center during a 2-year period. The trauma team was activated for 209 patients (TA), and emergency department referrals accounted for 135 (ED). One hundred seventy-three patients (TA = 64%, ED = 36%) met American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) field triage criteria (FTC). Mechanism of injury, especially ejection from a motor vehicle, was the most frequently utilized FTC indicator. We found no differences between the TA and ED groups relative to Trauma Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Injury Severity Score, length of stay, or ICU days. Mean total costs were higher for the TA group than for the ED group. The TA group had a higher nursing acuity level than the ED group. Compliance with FTC yields an inherent overtriage of minimally injured patients; however, noncompliance with FTC compounds the overtriage rate. Failure to comply with FTC is costly, labor intensive, and may represent misuse of the trauma system. We propose continual re-education of prehospital personnel, increased responsibility of all hospitals in the trauma center catchment area, and protocols for "downstaging" trauma resuscitation in minimally injured patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

[Trauma centers in Germany. Status report].

BACKGROUND: In Germany, a total of more than 30,000 polytraumatized patients are treated in level I-IV trauma centers. The exact number of hospitals fulfilling the requirements for the treatment of severely injured patients is unknown. We analyzed the number of hospitals in Germany capable of managing polytraumatized patients. We further analyzed the influence of various geographic and infrastructure conditions on the management of severely injured patients in the various Federal States in Germany. METHODS: First we conducted a nationwide research of all hospitals specialized in trauma management. Points of interest were structural and personnel requirements. These data were compared to the data obtained by the Federal Statistical Office. With a special software program we were able to conduct for the first time a geographic visualization of all trauma hospitals. RESULTS: There are 108 level I trauma centers, 209 level II trauma centers, and 431 level III and IV trauma centers in Germany. The geographic concentration of hospitals fulfilling the requirements for the treatment of severely injured patients differs regionally. There is an obvious correlation between trauma deaths and a low hospital concentration and less developed infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Objectively, the number of trauma centers for the treatment of severely injured patients seems to be adequate in Germany. Nevertheless, there are substantial differences between various Federal States in Germany concerning the distribution of hospitals as well as the geographic and infrastructure conditions. To optimize trauma management in Germany we think that the formation of regional trauma networks is mandatory.

Accidents, Traffic↗

PubMed2001

Factors influencing the access of severely injured children and elderly patients involved in motor vehicle collisions to trauma center care.

This study was undertaken to determine factors that influence the access to trauma center care of pediatric and geriatric patients injured in motor vehicle collisions (MVC). Hospital discharge records for 1997 were obtained from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council and were analyzed. Of cases with an Injury Severity Score of > 15, 52.6% of elderly cases and 48.6% of pediatric cases were transported to and received their care in non-trauma center hospitals. These very high "mis-triage" rates could not be explained by differences in injury severity, body region or population density. In order to assess potential out-of-hospital factors, a file containing matched records from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) calls and hospital discharges from MVC cases across Pennsylvania for the year 1996 was constructed and analyzed. There were no significant vital signs differences between trauma center and non-trauma center cases, with the single exception of the Glasgow Coma Scale score, for both the pediatric and geriatric age groups. A reevaluation of out-of-hospital trauma triage is needed.

Accidents, Traffic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Reducing missed injuries at a level II trauma center.

The phenomenon of missed injury in trauma patients has been recognized for some time. Tertiary examination has been proposed as one strategy to decrease the incidence of missed injuries. The tertiary examination is a comprehensive reevaluation that includes a repeated head-to-toe examination and review of all laboratory and radiologic studies, completed within 24 hours of admission. The purpose of this study was to assess the statistical significance of missed injuries discovered through tertiary examinations at a level II trauma center. Over a period of 6 months, a tertiary examination was completed before discharge of admitted patients who met activation criteria. Of the 90 patients, 13 had a missed injury (incidence of 14%), which was significant. The 16 missed injuries represented only 2.7% of the total 589 injuries, which was not significant. The most commonly missed injuries were fractures of the extremities. We propose that tertiary examinations be adopted as a standard of care for patients admitted to level II trauma centers.

Diagnostic Errors↗

PubMed1999

Detection of acute alcohol intoxication and chronic alcohol dependence by trauma center staff.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients with acute alcohol intoxication or chronic alcohol dependence are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that relying on clinical suspicion to detect acute alcohol intoxication and chronic alcohol dependence in trauma patients is inaccurate, influenced by injury factors, and biased by race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. METHODS: Trauma patients were screened with a blood alcohol concentration and with the Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test and CAGE questionnaire. Before screening, physicians and emergency department nurses were asked whether the patient was acutely intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration > 100 mg/ dL) or had a chronic alcohol problem. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were determined by comparing responses with blood alcohol concentration, Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test, and CAGE questionnaire results, stratified by injury and demographic factors. RESULTS: Clinical evaluations were obtained on 462 patients. Overall, 23% of acutely intoxicated patients were not identified by physicians. The miss rate increased to one third in severely injured, chemically paralyzed, or intubated patients. Specificity was also poor. Patients with a negative blood alcohol concentration were more likely to be falsely suspected of intoxication if they were either young, male, perceived as disheveled, uninsured, or having a low income (p < 0.05). Staff identified < 50% of patients with a positive Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test or CAGE, and falsely identified 26% of patients as alcoholic. CONCLUSIONS: Formal alcohol screening should be routine because clinical detection of acute alcohol intoxication and dependence is inaccurate. Screening should also be routine to avoid discriminatory bias attributable to patient characteristics.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[The Institute of Surgery in Novi Sad as a trauma center--10 years' experience].

UNLABELLED: Trauma is a surgical disease and a leading cause of death in the population in the age of forties. The Institute for Surgery in Novi Sad (trauma center of the first rank) takes care of all injured people brought to the Institute either directly from the place of accident or from other centers. AIM OF THE STUDY: Retrospective analysis of the injured people treated at the Institute for Surgery in the period 1987-1996. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multivariate analysis of the traumas from the register of the Institute for Surgery according to the trauma system elements: number of injured individuals, sex and age structure, categorization of injuries, etiology of injuries, distribution of serious injuries by regions, results obtained from the treatment of serious injuries. RESULTS: They show a global representation of all elements involved with injured people: due to moderately serious, serious and critically serious injuries 21.6% of patients were hospitalized; in the age of 29-30 years men with traumas caused on work or in traffic were predominant, while women with injuries caused by falling were predominant in the age of 60-69 years; drastically increased injuries caused by fire-arms in the period 1991-1993 were directly caused by the state of war and these injuries are still numerous; in case of hospitalized patients isolated trauma (80%) was predominant, multiple trauma was under 20% and polytrauma was registered in 5% of patients; after surgical treatment of injuries approximately 17% of patients were indicated for postoperative prolonged treatment and in intensive care unit at the Institute for Surgery; the average mortality of hospitalized patients was 5-7% but with extremely high mortality rate (< 70%) in the group of patients with polytraumas.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Impact of pediatric trauma centers on mortality in a statewide system.

BACKGROUND: Regional pediatric trauma centers (PTC) were established to optimize the care of injured children. However, because of the relative shortage of PTC, many injured children continue to be treated at adult trauma centers (ATC). As a result, a growing controversy has evolved regarding the impact of PTC and ATC on outcome for injured children. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 13,351 injured children entered in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study between 1993 and 1997 was conducted. Patients were stratified according to mechanism of injury, injury severity, specific organ injury, and type of trauma center: PTC; Level I ATC (ATC I); Level II ATC (ATC II); or ATC with added qualifications to treat children (ATC AQ). Mortality was the major outcome variable measured. RESULTS: Most injured children were treated at a PTC or ATC AQ. The majority of children below 10 years of age were admitted to PTC. Patients treated at PTC and ATC had similar injury severity as determined by median Injury Severity Score, mean Revised Trauma Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Overall survival was significantly better at PTC and ATC AQ compared with ATC I and ATC II. Survival for head, spleen, and liver injuries was significantly better at PTC compared with ATC AQ, ATC I, or ATC II. Children who sustained moderate or severe head injuries were more likely to undergo neurosurgical intervention and have a better outcome when treated at a PTC. Despite similar mean Abbreviated Injury Scores for spleen and liver, significantly more children underwent surgical exploration (especially splenectomy) for spleen and liver injuries at ATC compared with PTC. CONCLUSION: Children treated at PTC or ATC AQ have significantly better outcome compared with those treated at ATC. Severely injured children (Injury Severity Score > 15) with head, spleen, or liver injuries had the best overall outcome when treated at PTC. This difference in outcome may be attributable to the approach to operative and nonoperative management of head, liver, and spleen injuries at PTC.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1990

Utilization of inpatient rehabilitation services among traumatically injured children discharged from pediatric trauma centers.

This paper investigates factors that predict whether or not children treated at pediatric trauma centers are discharged to inpatient rehabilitation. Variables pertaining to functional impairments, injury severity and institutional factors explained over 45% of the variance in discharge disposition. It appears that a good deal of rationality pervades the decision as to whether patients are discharged to home or to rehabilitation. The extent of functional impairments and the severity of injury are closely related to these discharge decisions, as one would expect in a well-functioning discharge planning system. However, there are indications that discharge decisions are also affected by factors that ideally should be external to the decision process. Chief among these is whether or not the trauma center has an onsite rehabilitation unit. Patients treated at trauma centers that have onsite rehabilitation units are significantly more likely to be discharged to rehabilitation than patients treated at trauma centers without onsite rehabilitation.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2001

TRISS methodology: an inappropriate tool for comparing outcomes between trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: The TRISS methodology has been used for comparison of survival outcomes between trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of TRISS in comparing outcomes between a small and a large trauma center and evaluate its usefulness in various groups of patients. STUDY DESIGN: Trauma registry study that compared the survival outcomes between a large academic level I trauma center and a small community level II center. The comparison was made with the standard TRISS probability of survival, M value, and Z score. In the second part of the study the patients from the small center were matched for age, gender, injury severity score, Glasgow Coma Scale, head Abbreviated Injury Score, BP, prehospital respiratory assistance, and transport mode with an equal number of patients from the large center. The Z scores were calculated for each center. In the third part of the study the TRISS usefulness and limitations were evaluated in various subgroups of patients by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and misclassification rate. RESULTS: The Z value of the large center (3,315 patients) was 2.24, indicating a considerably higher mortality than expected when compared with the Major Trauma Outcomes Study population. The Z value of the small center (331 patients) was -0.92, indicating fewer than the Major Trauma Outcomes Study expected deaths. In the second part of the study, 297 patients from the small center were matched with an equal number from the large center. The Z scores were -0.40 and -0.95, respectively, indicating slightly better outcomes than those of the Major Trauma Outcomes Study. Additional evaluation of the TRISS prediction of survival in various subgroups of patients showed a high misclassification rate in severe trauma, in some groups higher than 25%. CONCLUSIONS: The TRISS methodology is not a reliable tool for comparing outcomes between trauma centers and has an unacceptably high misclassification rate in patients with severe trauma.

Benchmarking↗

PubMed1999

In-house versus on-call attending trauma surgeons at comparable level I trauma centers: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare patient outcomes based on the presence of in-house versus on-call attending trauma surgeons at comparable Level I trauma centers. METHODS: Two designated Level I trauma centers agreed to prospectively review trauma admissions over a 6-month period, one institution with 24-hour in-house trauma attending surgeons (IH), and the other with trauma-attending surgeons taking call from home (OC) available to the hospital within 15 minutes of notification. A 6-month prospective study was conducted reviewing all trauma patients admitted to both trauma centers with an Injury Severity Score > or =16. Comparisons were made between institutions utilizing admission demographics, clinical presentation, times to clinical care, and mortality rates. RESULTS: In comparison, OC and IH institutions were distinctly different in geographic environment, size, and number of patients admitted. As a group, IH patients were significantly older, with higher Injury Severity Scores and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores than the OC group. In all comparisons, OC trauma attending surgeons responded to the trauma room with equal speed or more rapidly when compared with IH trauma attending surgeons. There were no other significant differences in either population in times to provision of clinical care or in clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: The ability of the OC institution to be similar to the IH institution in its provision of clinical care and mortality rate is accomplished in an environment where trauma attending surgeons live within a 15-minute response time to the trauma center. Using a voice-paged trauma alert activation with accurate information and sufficient warning, evaluation, provision of care, and clinical outcome of the acutely injured patient can be provided equally by in-house trauma attending surgeons and trauma attending surgeons on-call from home.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Military training at civilian trauma centers: the first year's experience with the Regional Trauma Network.

The Regional Trauma Network was launched in 1996 to provide trauma training opportunities for Army surgeons in the Southeast Regional Medical Command. Training directors at eight civilian level I trauma centers agreed to allow military surgeons to function at the fellowship level of responsibility for up to 30 days at a time. In the first year, 7 surgeons participated in rotations at five different centers and 13 surgeons attended nationally recognized trauma symposia. The response from participating civilian and military participants has been overwhelmingly positive as confidence and enthusiasm for treating seriously injured patients are refreshed. Significant lessons were learned in providing good clinical training experiences, administering a regional program, and measuring the costs and benefits of additional readiness training. Although the data collection processes were devised to capture both the actual and the opportunity costs of training at civilian centers, more participants are needed before a conclusive analysis can be made. A joint services effort on a regional basis and support throughout the chain of command are key to strengthening the surgical readiness training program.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗