Unequal Burden of Injury at Level I Trauma Centers: The Case for Efficiency in Resource Allocation for Optimal Trauma Care

BackgroundUncompensated care (UC) is healthcare provided with no payment from the patient or an insurance provider. UC directly contributes to escalating healthcare costs in the USA and potentially impacts patient care. In Texas, there has been a steady increase in the number of trauma centers and UC volumes without an increase in trauma funding of UC. The method of calculating UC trauma funds in Texas is imprecise as it is driven by Medicaid volumes and not actual trauma care costs.MethodsFive years of annual trauma UC disbursement reports from the Texas Department of State Health Services were used to determine changes in UC economic considerations for level I, II, and III trauma centers in the largest urban trauma service areas (TSAs). Data for UC costs, compensation, and TSA demographics were used to assess variations. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s pairwise comparison post-hoc analysis and logistic regression.ResultsTSA-E (Dallas-Fort Worth area) has 33% of the level I trauma centers in Texas (n=6) and yet serves only 27% of the total state population across 14 metropolitan and 5 non-metropolitan counties. Since 2015, TSA-E has shown higher UC costs (p<0.02) and lower reimbursement (p<0.01) than the second largest urban hub, TSA-Q (Houston area). TSA-E level I trauma centers trended towards decreased UC reimbursements.DiscussionThe unregulated expansion of trauma centers in Texas has led to an unprecedented increase in hospitals participating in trauma care. The unbalanced allocation of UC funding could lead to further economic instability, compromise resource allocation, and negatively impact patient care in an already fragile healthcare environment.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Retrospective economic analysis and evaluation.

Download Full-text

Processes for Trauma Care at Six Level I Trauma Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal for Healthcare Quality ◽

10.1097/jhq.0000000000000285 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 3-12

Author(s):

Laura Harwood ◽

Stephanie Jarvis ◽

Kristin Salottolo ◽

Diane Redmond ◽

Gina M. Berg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Trauma Care ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Level I

Download Full-text

An Overview of Trauma Center Levels and Disparities in Rural Trauma Care

Reconstructive Review ◽

10.15438/rr.10.1.234 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

Author(s):

Udit Dave ◽

Brandon Gosine ◽

Ashwin Palaniappan

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Trauma Care ◽

Rural Areas ◽

The United States ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Traumatic Injuries ◽

Level Ii ◽

Level I ◽

Injured Patients

Trauma centers in the United States focus on providing care to patients who have suffered injuries and may require critical care. These trauma centers are classified into five different levels: Level I to Level V. Level V trauma centers are the least comprehensive, providing minimal 24-hour care and resuscitation, and Level I trauma centers are the most comprehensive, accepting the most severely injured patients and always delivering care through the use of an attending surgeon. However, there is a major inequity in access to trauma centers across the United States, especially amongst rural residents. Level III to Level V trauma centers tend to be dominantly situated in rural and underserved areas. Furthermore, trauma centers tend to be widely dispersed with respect to rural areas. Therefore, these areas tend to have a greater mortality rate in relation to traumatic injuries. Improvements in access to high-tier traumatic care must occur in order to reduce mortality due to traumatic injuries in underserved rural areas. Possible improvements to rural trauma care include bolstering the quality of care in Level III trauma centers, increasing Level II center efficiency through the involvement of orthopedic traumatologists, placing medical helicopter bases in more strategic locations that enable transport teams to reach other trauma centers faster, building more Level I and Level II trauma centers, and converting Level III centers into either Level I or Level II centers.

Download Full-text

Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of approaches to nasogastric tube insertion during trauma care

American Journal of Critical Care ◽

10.4037/ajcc2000.9.5.325 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 325-333 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

JM Morse ◽

J Penrod ◽

C Kassab ◽

C Dellasega

Keyword(s):

Nasogastric Tube ◽

Trauma Care ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Tube Insertion ◽

Technical Aspects ◽

Qualitative And Quantitative ◽

Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽

Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽

Level I ◽

Nasogastric Tube Insertion

BACKGROUND: Numerous invasive, uncomfortable, and discomforting procedures are implemented almost routinely during trauma care. Previous research has shown that trauma care practitioners use comforting strategies during this care. Yet little is known of the effect of these comforting strategies on the effectiveness and efficiency of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the caregiver's approach on the efficient and effective completion of a discomforting procedure (nasogastric tube insertion) on conscious patients during trauma care. METHODS: Ethology was used to analyze 32 attempts at nasogastric tube insertion from 193 videotaped trauma cases from 3 level I trauma centers in North America. Both qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques were used. RESULTS: The practitioner's approach was associated with the outcome of the treatment. Overall, practitioners who balanced the technical aspects of the procedure with use of comforting strategies to minimize the patient's discomfort (the blended approach) were most efficient and most effective in completing this procedure. Practitioners who were most attentive to procedural technique (with little respect to patients' discomfort) or who were overly attentive to comforting strategies (termed the technical and affective approaches, respectively) took longer and/or were less successful at completing the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Four patterned, standardized approaches to care were found: technical, affective, blended, and mixed. This study has implications for further research into the effect of the practitioner's approach on the patient's behavioral state in trauma care.

Download Full-text

Role of Plastic Surgeons in the Trauma Center: National Level I Trauma Center Startup Experience in South Korea

10.21203/rs.3.rs-53327/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Il Jae Lee ◽

Bo Hwan Cha ◽

Hyung Min Hahn

Keyword(s):

Soft Tissue ◽

Surgical Procedures ◽

Trauma Care ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Regional Level ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Acute Trauma ◽

Level I ◽

Anatomical Area

Abstract Background: Although it is well-recognized that other surgical specialties perform various procedures related to trauma care, there is a lack of analyses focusing on the role of plastic surgical management in trauma centers in Korea. This retrospective study was designed to investigate the scope of plastic surgery services in acute trauma care, using clinical data obtained from a single, regional, level I, trauma center.Methods: This study included patients who presented to a single, regional, level I, trauma center in March 2016. Of them, patients with acute trauma to the facial soft tissue and skeleton, soft tissue of the upper and lower limbs, trunk and perineum, and other areas requiring plastic surgical procedures were included in the analysis. Data on patients’ demographics and detailed surgical procedures were acquired from electric medical records.Results: A total of 1,544 patients underwent surgery, and 2,217 procedures were recorded during the 2-year study period. In 2016, 1,062 procedures on 690 patients, and, in 2017, 1,155 procedures on 787 patients were registered. The head and neck region was the most commonly observed anatomical area that was operated on. The facial bone requiring the largest degree of surgical intervention was the mandible, followed by the zygomatic bone, nasal bones, orbital floor, and maxilla. Microsurgical procedures, such as flap surgery and microsurgery, were performed in 121 cases. Conclusion: Plastic surgeons work alongside experts from various specialties to restore the appearance and function of a specific anatomical area. Thus, plastic surgeons are an essential part of trauma centers.Trial registration: Not applicable.

Download Full-text

Does Gender Matter: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Viscoelastic Profiles for 1565 Trauma Patients With Severe Hemorrhage

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/00031348211033542 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 000313482110335

Author(s):

Alison Smith ◽

Juan Duchesne ◽

Matthew Marturano ◽

Shaun Lawicki ◽

Kevin Sexton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Alpha Angle ◽

Reaction Times ◽

Maximum Amplitude ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Survival Difference ◽

Severe Hemorrhage ◽

Male Patients ◽

Level I ◽

Clot Formation Time

Background Viscoelastic tests including thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are being used in patients with severe hemorrhage at trauma centers to guide resuscitation. Several recent studies demonstrated hypercoagulability in female trauma patients that was associated with a survival advantage. The objective of our study was to elucidate the effects of gender differences in TEG/ROTEM values on survival in trauma patients with severe hemorrhage. Methods A retrospective review of consecutive adult patients receiving massive transfusion protocol (MTP) at 7 Level I trauma centers was performed from 2013 to 2018. Data were stratified by gender and then further examined by TEG or ROTEM parameters. Results were analyzed using univariate and multi-variate analyses. Results A total of 1565 patients were included with 70.9% male gender (n = 1110/1565). Female trauma patients were older than male patients (43.5 ± .9 vs 41.1 ± .6 years, P = .01). On TEG, females had longer reaction times (6.1 ± .9 min vs 4.8 ± .2 min, P = .03), increased alpha angle (68.6 ± .8 vs 65.7 ± .4, P < .001), and higher maximum amplitude (59.8 ± .8 vs 56.3 ± .4, P < .001). On ROTEM, females had significantly longer clot time (99.2 ± 13.7 vs 75.1 ± 2.6 sec, P = .09) and clot formation time (153.6 ± 10.6 sec vs 106.9 ± 3.8 sec, P < .001). When comparing by gender, no difference for in-hospital mortality was found for patients in the TEG or ROTEM group ( P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no survival difference for female patients (OR 1.11, 95% CI .83-1.50, P = .48). Conclusions Although a difference between male and females was found on TEG/ROTEM for certain clotting parameters, no difference in mortality was observed. Prospective multi-institutional studies are needed.

Download Full-text

The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00068-021-01615-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Suzan Dijkink ◽

Erik W. van Zwet ◽

Pieta Krijnen ◽

Luke P. H. Leenen ◽

Frank W. Bloemers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Trauma Care ◽

Trauma System ◽

Future Research ◽

Severely Injured ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Severely Injured Patients ◽

The Right ◽

Injured Patients ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008–2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63–74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.

Download Full-text