scholarly journals Collecting data on organizational structures of trauma centers: the CAFE web service

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000473
Author(s):  
Mathias Brochhausen ◽  
Jane W Ball ◽  
Nels D Sanddal ◽  
Jimm Dodd ◽  
Naomi Braun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Organizational Attributes ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Verification Process

BackgroundDuring the past several decades, the American College of Surgeons has led efforts to standardize trauma care through their trauma center verification process and Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Despite these endeavors, great variability remains among trauma centers functioning at the same level. Little research has been conducted on the correlation between trauma center organizational structure and patient outcomes. We are attempting to close this knowledge gap with the Comparative Assessment Framework for Environments of Trauma Care (CAFE) project.MethodsOur first action was to establish a shared terminology that we then used to build the Ontology of Organizational Structures of Trauma centers and Trauma systems (OOSTT). OOSTT underpins the web-based CAFE questionnaire that collects detailed information on the particular organizational attributes of trauma centers and trauma systems. This tool allows users to compare their organizations to an aggregate of other organizations of the same type, while collecting their data.ResultsIn collaboration with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, we tested the system by entering data from three trauma centers and four trauma systems. We also tested retrieval of answers to competency questions.DiscussionThe data we gather will be made available to public health and implementation science researchers using visualizations. In the next phase of our project, we plan to link the gathered data about trauma center attributes to clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Effect of American College of Surgeons Level 1 Trauma Center Designation on Management of Adult Severe TBI Patients

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Helton ◽  
Austin Porter ◽  
Kevin Thomas ◽  
Jeffrey C Henson ◽  
Mason Sifford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Cranial Surgery ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Abstract INTRODUCTION Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There is a wide variability in treatment paradigm for patients with severe TBI. American College of Surgeons (ACS) level 1 trauma centers have access to 24 h neurosurgical coverage. In this study, we use the National Trauma Database (NTDB) to evaluate if ACS trauma center designation correlates with the management and outcomes of severe TBI in adults. METHODS Adult patients (<65 yr) with a severe isolated nonpenetrating TBI were identified in the NTDB from years 2007 to 2014. ICD-9 procedure codes were used to identify primary treatment approaches: intracranial pressure monitoring and cranial surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the impact of ACS designation on procedures and patient outcomes. Patient and injury characteristics were included in the analysis. RESULTS A total of 54 769 TBI patients were identified. Among those, 22 316 (42%) were treated at an ACS level 1 trauma center and 31 835 (58%) were treated elsewhere. Level 1 designated patients had significantly more intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors placed (12.3% vs10.8%; P < .0001) and more cranial surgeries performed (17.7% vs 15.7%; P < .0001). A greater percentage of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; 89.9% vs 83.9%; P < .0001) and had a longer hospital stay (16.1 vs 15.2; P < .0001) at ACS level 1 trauma centers. In a regression analysis, patients at level 1 centers were associated with a 14% and 17% increased odds of obtaining a cranial surgery or ICP monitor, respectively. Patients treated at a level 1 center were associated with a 6% decrease in odds of mortality (P = .01). CONCLUSION ACS level 1 designation did correlate with increased rates of neurosurgical intervention and ICU admissions. This translated into patient outcomes as those treated at level 1 facilities were associated with lower rates of mortality.

Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Blunt Abdominal Injury in Level-I and II Pediatric Trauma Centers

2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110335
Author(s):  
Aryan Haratian ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Karan Rajalingam ◽  
Matthew Dolich ◽  
Sebastian Schubl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Blunt Abdominal Injury ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I

Introduction An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers. Methods The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed. Results 970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05). Conclusion While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals Management of severe trauma worldwide: implementation of trauma systems in emerging countries: China, Russia and South Africa

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Zhou ◽  
Tianbing Wang ◽  
Igor Belenkiy ◽  
Timothy Craig Hardcastle ◽  
Jean-Jacques Rouby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Trauma Care ◽  
Hospital Care ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Trauma Registry ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Emerging Countries ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
National Trauma

AbstractAs emerging countries, China, Russia, and South Africa are establishing and/or improving their trauma systems. China has recently established a trauma system named “the Chinese Regional Trauma Care System” and covered over 200 million populations. It includes paramedic-staffed pre-hospital care, in-hospital care in certified trauma centers, trauma registry, quality assurance, continuous improvement and ongoing coverage of the entire Chinese territory. The Russian trauma system was formed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Pre-hospital care is region-based, with a regional coordination center that determines which team will go to the scene and the nearest hospital where the victim should be transported. Physician-staffed ambulances are organized according to three levels of trauma severity corresponding to three levels of trauma centers where in-hospital care is managed by a trauma team. No national trauma registry exists in Russia. Improvements to the Russian trauma system have been scheduled. There is no unified trauma system in South Africa, and trauma care is organized by public and private emergency medical service in each province. During the pre-hospital care, paramedics provide basic or advanced life support services and transport the patients to the nearest hospital because of the limited number of trauma centers. In-hospital care is inclusive with a limited number of accredited trauma centers. In-hospital care is managed by emergency medicine with multidisciplinary care by the various specialties. There is no national trauma registry in South Africa. The South African trauma system is facing multiple challenges. An increase in financial support, training for primary emergency trauma care, and coordination of private sector, need to be planned.

Successful Incorporation of Performance Based Payments for Trauma Center Readiness Costs into the Georgia Trauma System

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (9) ◽  
pp. 966-971
Author(s):  
◽  
Dennis W. Ashley ◽  
Jeffrey M. Nicholas ◽  
Christopher J. Dente ◽  
Tracy J. Johns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Conference Calls ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

As quality and outcomes have moved to the fore front of medicine in this era of healthcare reform, a state trauma system Performance Based Payments (PBP) program has been incorporated into trauma center readiness funding. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a PBP on trauma center revenue. From 2010 to 2016, a percentage of readiness costs funding to trauma centers was placed in a PBP and withheld until the PBP criteria were completed. To introduce the concept, only three performance criteria and 10 per cent of readiness costs funding were tied to PBP in 2010. The PBP has evolved over the last several years to now include specific criteria by level of designation with an increase to 50 per cent of readiness costs funding being tied to PBP criteria. Final PBP distribution to trauma centers was based on the number of performance criteria completed. During 2016, the PBP criteria for Level I and II trauma centers included participation in official state meetings/conference calls, required attendance to American College of Surgeons state chapter meetings, Trauma Quality Improvement Program, registry reports, and surgeon participation in Peer Review Committee and trauma alert response times. Over the seven-year study period, $36,261,469 was available for readiness funds with $11,534,512 eligible for the PBP. Only $636,383 (6%) was withheld from trauma centers. A performance-based program was successfully incorporated into trauma center readiness funding, supporting state performance measures without adversely affecting the trauma center revenue. Future PBP criteria may be aligned to designation standards and clinical quality performance metrics.

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.

Population Coverage of Trauma Systems: What Do Helicopters Add?

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (9) ◽  
pp. 1073-1078
Author(s):  
W. Andrew Smedley ◽  
K. Lorraine Stone ◽  
John Killian ◽  
Allison Brown ◽  
Paige Farley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Timely Response ◽  
Center Care ◽  
Added Benefit ◽  
Level I ◽  
Time Critical ◽  
Drive Time

Trauma is a time-critical condition. Helicopters are thought to enhance the accessibility to trauma centers, but this benefit is poorly quantified. The aim of this study was to conduct a geographical analysis of the added benefit provided by helicopters, over ground transport. This study uses geospatial analysis. Helicopter bases and Level I and II designated trauma centers were geocoded. 60-minute drive-time and elliptical flight-time isochrones were mapped with ArcGIS™ (Esri, Redlands, CA). Calculations included allowance for mission ground time (MGT). We compared the proportion of the population that could be taken to Level I and II trauma centers, within 60 minutes, by road and by air. Using a 30-minute MGT model, helicopters permit 279,317 additional residents (5.8%) access to a Level I trauma center within 60 minutes. Using the 20-minute MGT model, 1,089,177 more residents (22.8%) would have access to Level I trauma center care. The benefits were marginally greater for access to Level I and II trauma center care. Helicopters enhance access to specialist trauma center care, but the benefit is small and dependent on MGT. Consideration should be given to the siting of helicopters, particularly in relation to trauma patients, MGT, and the timely response of EMS when determining the triage for helicopter transport.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document