American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers outcomes do not correlate with patients’ perception of hospital experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 722-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bellal Joseph ◽  
Asad Azim ◽  
Terence O’Keeffe ◽  
Kareem Ibraheem ◽  
Narong Kulvatunyou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Hospital Experience ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I

Mass Casualty Incident Management Preparedness: A Survey of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. 1227-1231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Lewis ◽  
Salvador Sordo ◽  
Leonard J. Weireter ◽  
Michelle A. Price ◽  
Leopoldo Cancio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Transportation ◽  
Mass Casualty Incident ◽  
Mass Casualty ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are events resulting in more injured patients than hospital systems can handle with standard protocols. Several studies have assessed hospital preparedness during MCIs. However, physicians and trauma surgeons need to be familiar with their hospital's MCI Plan. The purpose of this survey was to assess hospitals’ and trauma surgeon's preparedness for MCIs. Online surveys were e-mailed to members of the American College of Surgeons committee on Trauma Ad Hoc Committee on Disaster and Mass Casualty Management before the March 2012 meeting. Eighty surveys were analyzed (of 258). About 76 per cent were American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers, 18 per cent were Level II trauma centers. Fifty-seven per cent of Level I and 21 per cent of Level II trauma centers had experienced an MCI. A total of 98 per cent of respondents thought it was likely their hospital would see a future MCI. Severe weather storm was the most likely event (95%), followed by public transportation incident (86%), then explosion (85%). About 83 per cent of hospitals had mechanisms to request additional physician/surgeons, and 80 per cent reported plans for operative triage. The majority of trauma surgeons felt prepared for an MCI and believed an event was likely to occur in the future. The survey was limited by the highly select group of respondents and future surveys will be necessary.

Are All Level I Trauma Centers Created Equal? A Comparison of American College of Surgeons and State-Verified Centers

2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (10) ◽  
pp. 1334-1336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Smith ◽  
David Plurad ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Peep Talving ◽  
Lydia Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
National Trauma Data Bank ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Outcome Differences ◽  
Level I ◽  
Facility Size

Scant literature investigates potential outcome differences between Level I trauma centers. We compared overall survival and survival after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients admitted to American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified versus state-verified Level I trauma centers. Using the National Trauma Data Bank Version 7.0, incident codes associated with admission to an ACS-verified facility were extracted and compared with the group admitted to state-verified centers. Overall, there were 382,801 (73.7%) patients admitted to ACS and 136,601 (26.3%) admitted to state centers. There was no adjusted survival advantage after admission to either type (4.9% for ACS vs 4.8% for state centers; 1.014 [95% CI, 0.987 to 1.042], P = 0.311). However, in the 3,088 cases of ARDS, mortality for admission to the ACS centers was 20.3 per cent (451 of 2,220) versus 27.1 per cent (235 of 868) for state centers. Adjusting for injury severity and facility size, admission to an ACS center was associated with a significantly greater survival after ARDS (0.75 [0.654 to 0.860]; P < 0.001). Level I verification does not necessarily imply similar outcomes in all subgroups. Federal oversight may become necessary to ensure uniformity of care, maximizing outcomes across all United States trauma systems. Further study is needed.

Injury and Mortality Profiles in Level II and III Trauma Centers

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482096629
Author(s):  
Ali Farhat ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Ahmed Farhat ◽  
Theresa L. Chin ◽  
Megan Donnelly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Median Length ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I

Background While the benefit of admission to trauma centers compared to non-trauma centers is well-documented and differences in outcomes between Level-I and Level-II trauma centers are well-studied, data on the differences in outcomes between Level-II trauma centers (L2TCs) and Level-III trauma centers (L3TCs) are scarce. Objectives We sought to compare mortality risk between patients admitted to L2TCs and L3TCs, hypothesizing no difference in mortality risk for patients treated at L3TCs compared to L2TCs. Methods A retrospective analysis of the 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was performed. Patients aged 18+ years were divided into 2 groups, those treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified L2TCs and L3TCs. Results From 74,486 patients included in this study, 74,187 (99.6%) were treated at L2TCs and 299 (.4%) at L3TCs. Both groups had similar median injury severity scores (ISSs) (10 vs 10, P < .001); however, L2TCs had a higher mean ISS (14.6 vs 11.9). There was a higher mortality rate for L2TC patients (6.0% vs 1.7%, P = .002) but no difference in associated risk of mortality between the 2 groups (OR .46, CI .14-1.50, P = .199) after adjusting predictors of mortality. L2TC patients had a longer median length of stay (5.0 vs 3.5 days, P < .001). There was no difference in other outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) ( P > .05). Discussion Patients treated at L2TCs had a longer LOS compared to L3TCs. However, after controlling for covariates, there was no difference in associated mortality risk between L2TC and L3TC patients.

scholarly journals Evaluation of RFID Technology to Capture Surgeon Arrival Time to Meet American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Verification Guidelines

ACI Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
pp. e13-e17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Lyu ◽  
Nicholas Faoro ◽  
Meghan McDonald ◽  
Molly Jarman ◽  
Kevin Kreitzman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Surgeon ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Rfid Technology ◽  
Nursing Documentation ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Administrative Burden ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
Trauma Activation

Background The presence of an attending surgeon at all highest-level trauma activations is a requirement for American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) verification for level I to III trauma centers. Programs must demonstrate compliance with this criterion at least 80% of the time. Documentation of compliance can increase administrative burden presenting an opportunity for automation. Objectives The aim of this quality improvement project was to compare surgeon arrival documentation rates obtained utilizing radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology with manual documentation. Methods This project was conducted at a single level-I trauma center. RFID badges were distributed to all trauma surgeons. Arrival times for surgeons using manual nursing documentation and RFID activation were collected from October 2017 through March 2018. Presence of appropriate documentation and attending arrival within 15 minutes of trauma activation were compared by documentation method: nursing manual documentation or RFID system. Results There were 98 code trauma activations included in the analysis over the 6-month period. Nursing documentation of trauma surgeon attendance occurred 83% of the time (n = 81), with 81% (n = 79) in compliance within 15 minutes of code trauma activation. RFID badges were activated 91% (n = 89) of the time, with 86% (n = 84) in compliance within 15 minutes. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of nursing documentation and RFID badge activation. Conclusion RFID technology is a reliable, complementary method of documenting compliance for trauma surgeon attendance. Trauma centers searching for technological solutions to address compliance with ACS-COT guidelines and to reduce administrative burden may consider the use of RFID technology.

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

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.

scholarly journals Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of level 1 trauma centers to meet American College of Surgeons research requirements

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000692
Author(s):  
Robert M Madayag ◽  
Erica Sercy ◽  
Gina M Berg ◽  
Kaysie L Banton ◽  
Matthew Carrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Virus Exposure ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Verification Process ◽  
Question Survey

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had major effects on hospitals’ ability to perform scientific research while providing patient care and minimizing virus exposure and spread. Many non-COVID-19 research has been halted, and funding has been diverted to COVID-19 research and away from other areas.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to all level 1 trauma centers in the USA that included questions about how the pandemic affected the trauma centers’ ability to fulfill the volume and research requirements of level 1 verification by the American College of Surgeons (ACS).ResultsThe survey had a 29% response rate (40/137 successful invitations). Over half of respondents (52%) reported reduced trauma admissions during the pandemic, and 7% reported that their admissions dropped below the volume required for level 1 verification. Many centers diverted resources from research during the pandemic (44%), halted ongoing consenting studies (33%), and had difficulty fulfilling research requirements because of competing clinical priorities (40%).DiscussionResults of this study show a need for flexibility in the ACS verification process during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially including reduction of the required admissions and/or research publication volumes.Level of evidenceLevel IV, cross-sectional study.

Efforts to Improve Appropriate Trauma Activation for Patients Transferred to a Level 1 Trauma Center From Outside Hospitals

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 467-475
Author(s):  
Sara Seegert ◽  
Roberta E. Redfern ◽  
Bethany Chapman ◽  
Daniel Benson
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Activation Level ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Trauma Response ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Transferred Patients ◽  
Trauma Activation ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Trauma centers monitor under- and overtriage rates to comply with American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification requirements. Efforts to maintain acceptable rates are often undertaken as part of quality assurance. The purpose of this project was to improve the institutional undertriage rate by focusing on appropriately triaging patients transferred from outside hospitals (OSHs). Trauma physicians received education and pocket cards outlining injury severity score (ISS) calculation to aid in prospectively estimating ISS for patients transferred from OSHs, and activate the trauma response expected for that score. Under- and overtriage rates before and after the intervention were compared. The postintervention period saw a significant decrease in overall overtriage rate, with simultaneous trend toward lower overall undertriage rate, attributable to the significant reduction in undertriage rate of patients transferred from OSHs. Prospectively estimating ISS to assist in determining trauma activation level shows promise in managing appropriate patient triage. However, questions arose regarding the necessity for full trauma activation for transferred patients, regardless of ISS. It may be necessary to reconsider how patients transferred from OSHs are evaluated. Full trauma activation can be a financial and resource burden, and should not be taken lightly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document