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.

The G60 Trauma Center: A Future Consideration?

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 547-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Bukur ◽  
Joshua Simon ◽  
Joseph Catino ◽  
Margaret Crawford ◽  
Ivan Puente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Head Injuries ◽  
Major Complication ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Failure To Rescue ◽  
Level I

With a considerably increasing elderly population, we sought to determine whether the volume of elderly trauma patients treated impacted outcomes at two different Level I trauma centers. This is a retrospective review of all elderly patients (>60 years) at two state-verified Level I trauma centers over the past five years. The elderly trauma center (ETC) saw a greater proportion (52%) of elderly patients than the reference trauma center (30%, TC). Demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted and stratified into ETC and TC groups for comparison. Primary outcomes were overall postinjury complication and mortality rates, as well as death after major complication (failure to rescue). ETC patients were older (78.6 vs 70.5), more likely to be admitted with severe head injuries (head abbreviated injury score ≥ 3, 50.0% vs 32%), had a greater overall injury burden (injury severity score > 16 41.4% vs 21.1%), and required intensive care unit admission (81.3% vs 64%) than the TC group. Need for operative intervention, mechanism of injury, and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. Overall complications were higher in trauma patients admitted to the TC (21.9% vs 14.3%), as well as failure to rescue (4.0% vs 1.8%). Adjusting for confounding factors, ETC had significantly lower chance of developing a postinjury complication (adjusted odds ratios [AOR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.3, 0.5]), failure to rescue (AOR = 0.3, 95% CI = [0.1, 0.5]), and overall mortality (AOR = 0.3, 95% CI = [0.2, 0.4]). Improved outcomes were demonstrated in the Level I center treating a higher proportion of elderly patients. Exact etiology of these benefits should be determined for quality improvement in care of the injured geriatric patient.

scholarly journals Primary admission and secondary transfer of trauma patients to Dutch level I and level II trauma centers: predictors and outcomes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire R. L. van den Driessche ◽  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Jan C. van Ditshuizen ◽  
Lisa Stocker ◽  
Michiel H. J. Verhofstad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Secondary Transfer ◽  
Level I

Abstract Purpose The importance and impact of determining which trauma patients need to be transferred between hospitals, especially considering prehospital triage systems, is evident. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between mortality and primary admission and secondary transfer of patients to level I and II trauma centers, and to identify predictors of primary and secondary admission to a designated level I trauma center. Methods Data from the Dutch Trauma Registry South West (DTR SW) was obtained. Patients ≥ 18 years who were admitted to a level I or level II trauma center were included. Patients with isolated burn injuries were excluded. In-hospital mortality was compared between patients that were primarily admitted to a level I trauma center, patients that were transferred to a level I trauma center, and patients that were primarily admitted to level II trauma centers. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders. A subgroup analysis was done including major trauma (MT) patients (ISS > 15). Predictors determining whether patients were primarily admitted to level I or level II trauma centers or transferred to a level I trauma center were identified using logistic regression models. Results A total of 17,035 patients were included. Patients admitted primarily to a level I center, did not differ significantly in mortality from patients admitted primarily to level II trauma centers (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–1.06) and patients transferred to level I centers (OR: 0.99; 95%CI 0.57–1.71). Subgroup analyses confirmed these findings for MT patients. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that age (OR: 0.96; 95%CI 0.94–0.97), GCS (OR: 0.81; 95%CI 0.77–0.86), AIS head (OR: 2.30; 95%CI 2.07–2.55), AIS neck (OR: 1.74; 95%CI 1.27–2.45) and AIS spine (OR: 3.22; 95%CI 2.87–3.61) are associated with increased odds of transfers to a level I trauma center. Conclusions This retrospective study showed no differences in in-hospital mortality between general trauma patients admitted primarily and secondarily to level I trauma centers. The most prominent predictors regarding transfer of trauma patients were age and neurotrauma. These findings could have practical implications regarding the triage protocols currently used.

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 Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Absolute Benefit ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Prehospital Triage ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Level 2

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.

scholarly journals Surgical Site Infections at a Level I Trauma Center in India: Data From an Indigenously Developed, e-SSI Surveillance System

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s397-s398
Author(s):  
Ayush Lohiya ◽  
Samarth Mittal ◽  
Vivek Trikha ◽  
Surbhi Khurana ◽  
Sonal Katyal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surveillance System ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Predominant Pathogen ◽  
Level I

Background: Globally, surgical site infections (SSIs) not only complicate the surgeries but also lead to $5–10 billion excess health expenditures, along with the increased length of hospital stay. SSI rates have become a universal measure of quality in hospital-based surgical practice because they are probably the most preventable of all healthcare-associated infections. Although, many national regulatory bodies have made it mandatory to report SSI rates, the burden of SSI is still likely to be significant underestimated due to truncated SSI surveillance as well as underestimated postdischarge SSIs. A WHO survey found that in low- to middle-income countries, the incidence of SSIs ranged from 1.2 to 23.6 per 100 surgical procedures. This contrasted with rates between 1.2% and 5.2% in high-income countries. Objectives: We aimed to leverage the existing surveillance capacities at our tertiary-care hospital to estimate the incidence of SSIs in a cohort of trauma patients and to develop and validate an indigenously developed, electronic SSI surveillance system. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a 248-bed apex trauma center for 18 months. This project was a part of an ongoing multicenter study. The demographic details were recorded, and all the patients who underwent surgery (n = 770) were followed up until 90 days after discharge. The associations of occurrence of SSI and various clinico-microbiological variables were studied. Results: In total, 32 (4.2%) patients developed SSI. S. aureus (28.6%) were the predominant pathogen causing SSI, followed by E. coli (14.3%) and K. pneumoniae (14.3%). Among the patients who had SSI, higher SSI rates were associated in patients who were referred from other facilities (P = .03), had wound class-CC (P < .001), were on HBOT (P = .001), were not administered surgical antibiotics (P = .04), were not given antimicrobial coated sutures (P = .03) or advanced dressings (P = .02), had a resurgery (P < .001), had a higher duration of stay in hospital from admission to discharge (P = .002), as well as from procedure to discharge (P = .002). SSI was cured in only 16 patients (50%) by 90 days. SSI data collection, validation, and analyses are essential in developing countries like India. Thus, it is very crucial to implement a surveillance system and a system for reporting SSI rates to surgeons and conduct a robust postdischarge surveillance using trained and committed personnel to generate, apply, and report accurate SSI data.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Usefulness of Pelvic Radiographs in the Initial Trauma Evaluation with Concurrent CT: Is Additional Radiation Exposure Necessary?

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne K. Misiura ◽  
Autumn D. Nanassy ◽  
Jacqueline Urbine
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Pelvic Radiographs ◽  
Pelvic Radiograph ◽  
Digital Radiograph ◽  
Urban Level ◽  
Level I ◽  
Pediatric Trauma Center

Trauma patients in a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center may undergo CT of the abdomen and pelvis with concurrent radiograph during initial evaluation in an attempt to diagnose injury. To determine if plain digital radiograph of the pelvis adds additional information in the initial trauma evaluation when CT of the abdomen and pelvis is also performed, trauma patients who presented to an urban Level I Pediatric Trauma Center between 1 January 2010 and 7 February 2017 in whom pelvic radiograph and CT of the abdomen and pelvis were performed within 24 hours of each other were analyzed. A total of 172 trauma patients had pelvic radiograph and CT exams performed within 24 hours of each other. There were 12 cases in which the radiograph missed pelvic fractures seen on CT and 2 cases in which the radiograph suspected a fracture that was not present on subsequent CT. Furthermore, fractures in the pelvis were missed on pelvic radiographs in 12 of 35 cases identified on CT. Sensitivity of pelvic radiograph in detecting fractures seen on CT was 65.7% with a 95% confidence interval of 47.79-80.87%. Results suggest that there is no added diagnostic information gained from a pelvic radiograph when concurrent CT is also obtained, a practice which exposes the pediatric trauma patient to unnecessary radiation.

Experiences of Older Adult Trauma Patients Discharged Home From a Level I Trauma Center

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-192
Author(s):  
Nathalie Rodrigue ◽  
Andréa Maria Laizner ◽  
Nancy Tze ◽  
Maida Sewitch
Keyword(s):  
Older Adult ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Level I

Children and Terror Casualties Receive Preference in ICU Admissions

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kobi Peleg ◽  
Michael Rozenfeld ◽  
Eran Dolev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Accidents ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Severe Injuries ◽  
Level I ◽  
Hospital Emergency Departments ◽  
Trauma Type

ABSTRACTObjective: Trauma casualties caused by terror-related events and children injured as a result of trauma may be given preference in hospital emergency departments (EDs) due to their perceived importance. We investigated whether there are differences in the treatment and hospitalization of terror-related casualties compared to other types of injury events and between children and adults injured in terror-related events.Methods: Retrospective study of 121 608 trauma patients from the Israel Trauma Registry during the period of October 2000-December 2005. Of the 10 hospitals included in the registry, 6 were level I trauma centers and 4 were regional trauma centers. Patients who were hospitalized or died in the ED or were transferred between hospitals were included in the registry.Results: All analyses were controlled for Injury Severity Score (ISS). All patients with ISS 1-24 terror casualties had the highest frequency of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions when compared with patients after road traffic accidents (RTA) and other trauma. Among patients with terror-related casualties, children were admitted to ICU disproportionally to the severity of their injury. Logistic regression adjusted for injury severity and trauma type showed that both terror casualties and children have a higher probability of being admitted to the ICU.Conclusions: Injured children are admitted to ICU more often than other age groups. Also, terror-related casualties are more frequently admitted to the ICU compared to those from other types of injury events. These differences were not directly related to a higher proportion of severe injuries among the preferred groups.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:14–19)

08. Missed Diagnosis of Pneumothorax During Aeromedical Transport

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (S2) ◽  
pp. S38-S38
Author(s):  
SH Thomas ◽  
P DeVellis ◽  
T Harrison ◽  
SK Wedel
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Air Transport ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Missed Diagnosis ◽  
Level I ◽  
Aeromedical Transport ◽  
One Year ◽  
Needle Decompression

Purpose: Difficulties with physical assessment inherent to the helicopter environment have led to suggestion that aeromedical crews may be unable to identify hemo- or pneumothorax (HTX/PTX) while in-flight. This study was conducted to determine the frequency of missed HTX/PTX in trauma patients undergoing air transport.Methods: One year (1994) of an air medical service's trauma transports to a Level I trauma center were analyzed to identify patients undergoing tube thoracostomy (TT) within 2 hours of trauma center arrival. Patients who had received intra-transport needle thoracostomy were excluded. Records were reviewed to determine how HTX/PTX was diagnosed at the trauma center.Results: Only 11 patients who had not received aeromedical needle decompression underwent TT at the receiving center. Two of the 11 were trauma arrests and received TT as part of thoracotomy, without air or blood return on TT. None of the remaining 9 patients had TT on clinical suspicion alone. Four had normal physical examination and underwent TT after chest X-ray (CXR). Remaining patients had no HTX/PTX clues on exam or CXR; one had a small HTX identified on chest computed tomography and the other four received intra-operative TT because of rib fractures in the setting of multisystem trauma.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document