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.

Pediatric Trauma System Evaluation before and after Level II Verification

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (11) ◽  
pp. 1281-1287
Author(s):  
Michael D. Dixon ◽  
Scott Engum
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

ACS-verified trauma centers show higher survival and improved mortality rates in states with ACS-verified Level I pediatric trauma centers. However, few significant changes are appreciated in the first two years after verification. Minimal research exists examining verification of ACS Level II pediatric trauma centers. We analyzed ACS Level II pediatric trauma verification at our institution. In 2014, Sanford Medical Center Fargo became the only Level II pediatric trauma center in North Dakota, as well as the only center between Spokane and Minneapolis. A retrospective review of the institution's pre-existing trauma database one year pre- and postverification was performed. Patients aged <18 years were included in the study ( P < 0.05). Patient number increased by 23 per cent, from 167 to 205 patients. A statistically significant increase occured in the three to six year old age group ( P = 0.0002); motorized recreational vehicle ( P = 0.028), violent ( P = 0.009), and other ( P = 0.0374) mechanism of injury categories; ambulance ( P = 0.0124), fixed wing ( P = 0.0028), and personal-owned vehicle ( P = 0.0112) modes of transportation. Decreased public injuries ( P = 0.0071) and advanced life support ambulance transportation ( P = 0.0397). The study showed a nonstatistically significant increase in mean Injury Severity Score (from 6.3 to 7) and Native American trauma (from 14 to 20 per cent). Whereas prolonged ACS Level I pediatric trauma center verification was found to benefit patients, minimal data exist on ACS Level II verification. Our findings are consistent with current Level I ACS pediatric trauma center data. Future benefits will require continued analysis because our Level II pediatric trauma center continues to mature and affect our rural and large Native American community.

What are the Costs of Trauma Center Readiness? Defining and Standardizing Readiness Costs for Trauma Centers Statewide

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (9) ◽  
pp. 979-985 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dennis W. Ashley ◽  
Robert F. Mullins ◽  
Christopher J. Dente ◽  
Laura Garlow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injured Patient ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Conference Calls ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
One Year ◽  
Patient Guidelines

Trauma center readiness costs are incurred to maintain essential infrastructure and capacity to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. These costs are not captured by traditional hospital cost accounting, and no national consensus exists on appropriate definitions for each cost. Therefore, in 2010, stakeholders from all Level I and II trauma centers developed a survey tool standardizing and defining trauma center readiness costs. The survey tool underwent minor revisions to provide further clarity, and the survey was repeated in 2013. The purpose of this study was to provide a follow-up analysis of readiness costs for Georgia's Level I and Level II trauma centers. Using the American College of Surgeons Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient guidelines, four readiness cost categories were identified: Administrative, Clinical Medical Staff, Operating Room, and Education/Outreach. Through conference calls, webinars and face-to-face meetings with financial officers, trauma medical directors, and program managers from all trauma centers, standardized definitions for reporting readiness costs within each category were developed. This resulted in a survey tool for centers to report their individual readiness costs for one year. The total readiness cost for all Level I trauma centers was $34,105,318 (avg $6,821,064) and all Level II trauma centers was $20,998,019 (avg $2,333,113). Methodology to standardize and define readiness costs for all trauma centers within the state was developed. Average costs for Level I and Level II trauma centers were identified. This model may be used to help other states define and standardize their trauma readiness costs.

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 Impact of the first COVID-19 shutdown on patient volumes and surgical procedures of a Level I trauma center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolin A. Kreis ◽  
Birte Ortmann ◽  
Moritz Freistuehler ◽  
René Hartensuer ◽  
Hugo Van Aken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Open Fractures ◽  
Injury Patterns ◽  
Emergency Patient ◽  
Emergency Operations ◽  
Incidence Proportion ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Purpose In Dec 2019, COVID-19 was first recognized and led to a worldwide pandemic. The German government implemented a shutdown in Mar 2020, affecting outpatient and hospital care. The aim of the present article was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on patient volumes and surgical procedures of a Level I trauma center in Germany. Methods All emergency patients were recorded retrospectively during the shutdown and compared to a calendar-matched control period (CTRL). Total emergency patient contacts including trauma mechanisms, injury patterns and operation numbers were recorded including absolute numbers, incidence proportions and risk ratios. Results During the shutdown period, we observed a decrease of emergency patient cases (417) compared to CTRL (575), a decrease of elective cases (42 vs. 13) and of the total number of operations (397 vs. 325). Incidence proportions of emergency operations increased from 8.2 to 12.2% (shutdown) and elective surgical cases decreased (11.1 vs. 4.3%). As we observed a decrease for most trauma mechanisms and injury patterns, we found an increasing incidence proportion for severe open fractures. Household-related injuries were reported with an increasing incidence proportion from 26.8 to 47.5% (shutdown). We found an increasing tendency of trauma and injuries related to psychological disorders. Conclusion This analysis shows a decrease of total patient numbers in an emergency department of a Level I trauma center and a decrease of the total number of operations during the shutdown period. Concurrently, we observed an increase of severe open fractures and emergency operations. Furthermore, trauma mechanism changed with less traffic, work and sports-related accidents.

Outcome in an Urban Pediatric Trauma System with Unified Prehospital Emergency Medical Services Care

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. VanRooyen ◽  
Edward P. Sloan ◽  
John A. Barrett ◽  
Robert F. Smith ◽  
Hernan M. Reyes
Keyword(s):  
Head Injury ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Field Triage ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

AbstractHypothesis:Pediatric mortality is predicted by age, presence of head trauma, head trauma with a low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, a low Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), and transport directly to a pediatric trauma center.Population:Studied were 1,429 patients younger than 16 years old admitted to or declared dead on arrival (DOA) in a pediatric trauma center from January through October, 1988. The trauma system, which served 3-million persons, included six pediatric trauma centers.Methods:Data were obtained by a retrospective review of summary statistics provided to the Chicago Department of Health by the pediatric trauma centers.Results:Overall mortality was 4.8% (68 of 1429); 32 of the patients who died (47.1%) were DOA. The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%. Head injury was the principal diagnosis in 46.2% of admissions and was a factor in 72.2% of hospital deaths. The mortality rate was 20.3% in children with a GCS≤10 and 0.4% when the GCS was >10 (odds ratio [OR] = 67.0, 95% CI = 15.0–417.4). When the PTS was ≤ 5, mortality was 25.6%; with a PTS > 5, the mortality was 0.2% (OR = 420.7, 95% CI = 99.3–2,520). Although transfers to a pediatric trauma center accounted for 73.6% of admissions, direct field triage to a pediatric trauma center was associated with a 3.2 times greater mortality risk (95% CI = 1.58–6.59). Mortality rates were equal for all age groups. Pediatric trauma center volume did not influence mortality rates.Conclusions:Head injury and death occur in all age groups, suggesting the need for broad prevention strategies. Specific GCS and PTS values that predict mortality can be used in emergency medical services (EMS) triage protocols. Although the high proportion of transfers mandates systemwide transfer protocols, the lower mortality in these patients suggests appropriate EMS field triage. These factors should be considered as states develop pediatric trauma systems.

Is Outcome after Blunt Splenic Injury in Adults Better in High-Volume Trauma Centers?

2005 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. 942-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian G. Harbrecht ◽  
Mazen S. Zenati ◽  
Louis H. Alarcon ◽  
Juan B. Ochoa ◽  
Juan C. Puyana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Case Volume ◽  
Center Volume ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Outcome Differences

An association between outcome and case volume has been demonstrated for selected complex operations. The relationship between trauma center volume and patient outcome has also been examined, but no clear consensus has been established. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) has published recommendations on optimal trauma center volume for level 1 designation. We examined whether this volume criteria was associated with outcome differences for the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries. Using a state trauma database, ACS criteria were used to stratify trauma centers into high-volume centers (>240 patients with Injury Severity Score >15 per year) or low-volume centers, and outcome was evaluated. There were 1,829 patients treated at high-volume centers and 1,040 patients treated at low-volume centers. There was no difference in age, gender, emergency department pulse, emergency department systolic blood pressure, or overall mortality between high- and low-volume centers. Patients at low-volume centers were more likely to be treated operatively, but the overall success rate of nonoperative management between high-and low-volume centers was similar. These data suggest that ACS criteria for trauma centers level designation are not associated with differences in outcome in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries in this regional trauma system.

The Impact of In-house Attending Surgeon Supervision on the Rates of Preventable and Potentially Preventable Complications and Death at the Start of the New Academic Year

2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (11) ◽  
pp. 1134-1139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Adam Hauch ◽  
Bernardino C. Branco ◽  
Stephen Cohn ◽  
Pedro G. R. Teixeira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
University Of Southern California ◽  
Academic Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Academic Year

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of in-house attending surgeon supervision on the rate of preventable deaths (PD) and complications (PC) at the beginning of the academic year. All trauma patients admitted to the Los Angeles County 1 University of Southern California Medical Center over an 8-year period ending in December 2009 were reviewed. Morbidity and mortality reports were used to extract all PD/PC. Patients admitted in the first 2 months (July/ August) of the academic year were compared with those admitted at the end of the year (May/June) for two distinct time periods: 2002 to 2006 (before in-house attending surgeon supervision) and 2007 to 2009 (after 24-hour/day in-house attending surgeon supervision). During 2002 to 2006, patients admitted at the beginning of the year had significantly higher rates of PC (1.1% for July/ August vs 0.6% for May/June; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 3.2; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in mortality (6.5% for July/August vs 4.6% for May/ June; adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI,0.8 to 1.5; P = 0.179). During 2007 to 2009, after institution of 24-hour/day in-house attending surgeon supervision of fellows and housestaff, there was no significant difference in the rates of PC (0.7% for July/August vs 0.6% for May/June; OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3; P = 0.870) or PD (4.6% for July/August vs 3.7% for May/June; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7; P = 0.250) seen at the beginning of the academic year. At an academic Level I trauma center, the institution of 24-hour/day in-house attending surgeon supervision significantly reduced the spike of preventable complications previously seen at the beginning of the academic year.

Are there Field Triage Criteria that Can Predict Low-Yield Air Medical Transports?

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 596-603
Author(s):  
Hiroko Miyagi ◽  
David C. Evans ◽  
Howard A. Werman
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Field Triage ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Medical Transport ◽  
The Impact

AbstractIntroduction:Air medical transport of trauma patients from the scene of injury plays a critical role in the delivery of severely injured patients to trauma centers. Over-triage of patients to trauma centers reduces the system efficiency and jeopardizes safety of air medical crews.Hypothesis:The objective of this study was to determine which triage factors utilized by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers are strong predictors of early discharge for trauma patients transported by helicopter to a trauma center.Methods:A retrospective chart review over a two-year period was performed for trauma patients flown from the injury site into a Level I trauma center by an air medical transport program. Demographic and clinical data were collected on each patient. Prehospital factors such as Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), intubation status, mechanism of injury, anatomic injuries, physiologic parameters, and any combinations of these factors were investigated to determine which triage criteria accurately predicted early discharge. Hospital factors such as Injury Severity Score (ISS), length-of-stay (LOS), survival, and emergency department disposition were also collected. Early discharge was defined as a hospital stay of less than 24 hours in a patient who survives their injuries. A more stringent definition of appropriate triage was defined as a patient with in-hospital death, an ISS >15, those taken to the operating room (OR) or intensive care unit (ICU), or those receiving blood products. Those patients who failed to meet these criteria were also used to determine over-triage rates.Results:An overall early discharge rate of 35% was found among the study population. Furthermore, when the more stringent definition was applied, over-triage rates were as high as 85%. Positive predictive values indicated that patients who met at least one anatomic and physiologic criteria were appropriately transported by helicopter as 94% of these patients had stays longer than 24 hours. No other criteria or combination of criteria had a high predictive value for early discharge.Conclusions:No individual triage criteria or combination of criteria examined demonstrated the ability to uniformly predict an early discharge. Although helicopter transport and subsequent hospital care is costly and resource consuming, it appears that a significant number of patients will be discharged within 24 hours of their transport to a trauma center. Future studies must determine the impact of eliminating “low-yield” triage criteria on under-triage of scene trauma patients.

Chemoprophylaxis and Venous Thromboembolism in Traumatic Brain Injury at Different Trauma Centers

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
Eric O. Yeates ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Sebastian D. Schubl ◽  
Catherine M. Kuza ◽  
Victor Joe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
Level I

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Because of concerns of worsening intracranial hemorrhage, clinicians are hesitant to start VTE chemoprophylaxis in this population. We hypothesized that ACS Level I trauma centers would be more aggressive with VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with severe TBI than Level II centers. We also predicted that Level I centers would have a lower risk of VTE. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) database for patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4 and 5 of the head and compared them based on treating the hospital trauma level. Of 204,895 patients with severe TBI, 143,818 (70.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 61,077 (29.8%) at Level II centers. The Level I cohort had a higher rate of VTE chemoprophylaxis use (43.2% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001) and a shorter median time to chemoprophylaxis (61.9 vs 85.9 hours, P < 0.001). Although Level I trauma centers started VTE chemoprophylaxis more often and earlier than Level II centers, there was no difference in the risk of VTE ( P = 0.414) after controlling for covariates. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the timing, safety, and efficacy of early VTE chemoprophylaxis in severe TBI patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document