scholarly journals Models of care for traumatically injured patients at trauma centres in British Columbia: variability and sustainability

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Tuyp ◽  
Kasra Hassani ◽  
Lisa Constable ◽  
Joseph Haegert
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Short Stay ◽  
Trauma Centres ◽  
Trauma Unit ◽  
Trauma Service ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

AbstractBackgroundSuccessful trauma systems employ a network of variably-resourced hospitals, staffed by experienced providers, to deliver optimal care for injured patients. The “model of care”—the manner by which inpatients are admitted and overseen, is an important determinant of patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo describe the models of inpatient trauma care at British Columbia’s (BC’s) ten adult trauma centres, their sustainability, and their compatibility with accreditation guidelines.MethodsQuestionnaires were distributed to the trauma medical directors at BC’s ten Level I-III adult trauma centres. Follow-up semi-structured interviews clarified responses.ResultsThree different models of inpatient trauma care exist within BC. The “admitting trauma service” was a multidisciplinary team providing exclusive care for injured patients. The “on-call consultant” assisted with Emergency Department (ED) resuscitation before transferring patients to a non-trauma admitting service. The single “short-stay trauma unit” employed on-call consultants who also oversaw a 48-hour short-stay ward.Both level I trauma centres utilized the admitting trauma service model (2/2). All Level II sites employed an on-call consultant model (3/3), deviating from Level II trauma centre accreditation standards. Level III sites employed all three models in similar proportions. None of the on-call consultant sites believed their current care model was sustainable. Inadequate compensation, insufficient resources, and difficulty recruiting physicians were cited barriers to sustainability and accreditation compliance.ConclusionsThree distinct models of care are distributed inconsistently across BC’s Level I-III trauma hospitals. Greater use of admitting trauma service and short-stay trauma unit models may improve the sustainability and accreditation compliance of our trauma system.

scholarly journals Trauma Specialist Centres

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (7) ◽  
pp. 252-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim Brohi
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Trauma Service ◽  
Specialist Centre ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
First Time

In 2011 it will be 50 years since the Osmond-Clarke report first proposed a network of specialist units to care for injured patients across England and Wales. Since that time there have been multiple aborted attempts to implement regionalisation of trauma care. For the first time in half a century the clinical imperative now appears to be supported by a political recognition of the importance of a national trauma system to UK citizens. With this in mind, this paper aims to describe the role of a trauma specialist centre within its regional trauma system; the capabilities, resources and infrastructure required; and the functions of a specialist trauma service.

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

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. 

scholarly journals The evolution of trauma care in the Netherlands over 20 years

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falco Hietbrink ◽  
Roderick M. Houwert ◽  
Karlijn J. P. van Wessem ◽  
Rogier K. J. Simmermacher ◽  
Geertje A. M. Govaert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Surgeon ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
The Past ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Trauma Surgeons ◽  
Injured Patients

Abstract Introduction In 1999 an inclusive trauma system was initiated in the Netherlands and a nationwide trauma registry, including all admitted trauma patients to every hospital, was started. The Dutch trauma system is run by trauma surgeons who treat both the truncal (visceral) and extremity injuries (fractures). Materials and Methods In this comprehensive review based on previous published studies, data over the past 20 years from the central region of the Netherlands (Utrecht) was evaluated. Results It is demonstrated that the initiation of the trauma systems and the governance by the trauma surgeons led to a region-wide mortality reduction of 50% and a mortality reduction for the most severely injured of 75% in the level 1 trauma centre. Furthermore, major improvements were found in terms of efficiency, demonstrating the quality of the current system and its constructs such as the type of surgeon. Due to the major reduction in mortality over the past few years, the emphasis of trauma care evaluation shifts towards functional outcome of severely injured patients. For the upcoming years, centralisation of severely injured patients should also aim at the balance between skills in primary resuscitation and surgical stabilization versus longitudinal surgical involvement. Conclusion Further centralisation to a limited number of level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands is necessary to consolidate experience and knowledge for the trauma surgeon. The future trauma surgeon, as specialist for injured patients, should be able to provide the vast majority of trauma care in this system. For the remaining part, intramural, regional and national collaboration is essential

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

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.

scholarly journals An inventory of Canadian trauma systems: opportunities for improving access to trauma care

CJEM ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (03) ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C.D. Evans ◽  
J.M. Tallon ◽  
Jennifer Bridge ◽  
Avery B. Nathens
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
System Development ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Mail Survey ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Trauma Centres ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
System Components ◽  
Trauma Surgeons ◽  
Future Work

ABSTRACT Objective: Despite evidence that patients suffering major traumatic injuries have improved outcomes when cared for within an organized system, the extent of trauma system development in Canada is limited. We sought to compile a detailed inventory of trauma systems in Canada as a first step toward identifying opportunities for improving access to trauma care. Methods: We distributed a nationwide online and mail survey to stakeholders intended to evaluate the extent of implementation of specific trauma system components. Targeted stakeholders included emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, trauma program medical directors and program managers, prehospital providers, and decision makers at the regional and provincial levels. A “snowball” approach was used to expand the sample base of the survey. Descriptive statistics were generated to quantify the nature and extent of trauma system development by region. Results: The overall response rate was 38.7%, and all levels of stakeholders and all provinces/territories were represented. All provinces were found to have designated trauma centres; however, only 60% were found to have been accredited within the past 10 years. Components present in 50% or fewer provinces included an inclusive trauma system model, interfacility transfer agreements, and a mechanism to track bed availability within the system. Conclusion: There is significant variability in the extent of trauma system development in Canada. Although all provinces have designated trauma centres, opportunities exist in many systems to implement additional components to improve the inclusiveness of care. In future work, we intend to quantify the strength of the relationship between different trauma system components and access to definitive trauma care.

Initial Approach to the Management of Multisystem Trauma

2019 ◽  
pp. 397-401
Author(s):  
David S. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Nonfatal Injuries ◽  
Injured Patients

Nearly 200,000 people die of injury-related causes in the United States each year, and injury is the leading cause of death for all patients aged 1 to 44 years. Approximately 30 million people sustain nonfatal injuries each year, which results in about 29 million emergency department visits and 3 million hospital admissions. Management of severely injured patients, typically defined as having an Injury Severity Score greater than 15 is best managed in a level I or level II trauma center. Any physician who provides care for critically ill patients should have a basic familiarity with the fundamentals of trauma care.

A national plan for trauma services

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (9) ◽  
pp. 306-307
Author(s):  
John Stanley ◽  
Jo Cripps
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
National Plan ◽  
David Cameron ◽  
General Hospitals ◽  
Trauma Centres ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
Service Change ◽  
Service Closure

The reconfiguration debate has dominated the NHS over the summer with Conservative leader David Cameron promising a 'bare knuckle fight' over district general hospitals under threat from service closure. With the focus clearly on the need for service change, it is timely for the College to restate its policy on the provision of trauma care. We are calling for a critical examination of those centres currently providing trauma care and a national plan for the identification of major specialist trauma centres to provide the best care to injured patients.

Treatment of Liver Injuries at Level I and Level II Centers in a Multi-Institutional Metropolitan Trauma System

1997 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1091-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Helling ◽  
Ginger Morse ◽  
W. Kendall McNabney ◽  
Charles W. Beggs ◽  
Steven H. Behrends ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma System ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Liver Injuries ◽  
Level I

scholarly journals Mortality Benefit of Transfer to Level I versus Level II Trauma Centers for Head-Injured Patients

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Craig D. Newgard ◽  
Richard J. Mullins ◽  
Melanie Arthur ◽  
Jerris R. Hedges
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Mortality Benefit ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Head Injured ◽  
Versus Level ◽  
Level I ◽  
Injured Patients

Analysis of Hospital Ability to Provide Trauma Services: A Comparison between Teaching and Community Hospitals

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith W. Neely ◽  
Robert L. Norton ◽  
Ed Bartkus ◽  
John A. Schiver
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Ct Scanner ◽  
Community Hospitals ◽  
Availability Analysis ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
American College Of Surgeons

AbstractHypothesis:Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH).Methods:A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiogaphy (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry.Results:With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p<.01).Conclusions:In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability analysis can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document