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.

Penetrating Abdominal Aortic Injury: Comparison of ACS-Verified Level-I and II Trauma Centers

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (8) ◽  
pp. 692-696
Author(s):  
Brian Matthew Sheehan ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Shelley Maithel ◽  
Boris Borazjani ◽  
Roy M. Fujitani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Acute Injury ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Hemorrhage Control ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Level I

Objectives: Penetrating abdominal aortic injury (PAAI) is a highly acute injury requiring prompt surgical management. When compared to surgeons at level-II trauma centers, surgeons at level-I trauma centers are more likely to take in-house call, and may more often be available within 15 minutes of patient arrival. Thus, we hypothesized that level-I trauma centers would have a lower mortality rate than level-II trauma centers in patients with PAAI. Methods: We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database for patients with PAAI, and compared patients treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified level-I centers to those treated at ACS level-II centers. Results: PAAI was identified in 292 patients treated at level-I centers and 86 patients treated at level-II centers. Patients treated at the 2 center types had similar median age, injury severity scores and prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the frequency of additional intra-abdominal vascular injuries (p > 0.05). Median time to hemorrhage control (level-I: 40.8 vs level-II: 49.2 minutes, p = 0.21) was similar between hospitals at the 2 trauma center levels. We found no difference in the total hospital length of stay or post-operative complications (p > 0.05). When controlling for covariates, we found no difference in the risk of mortality between ACS verified level-I and level-II trauma centers (OR:1.01, CI:0.28-2.64, p = 0.99). Conclusion: Though the majority of PAAIs are treated at level-I trauma centers, we found no difference in the time to hemorrhage control, or the risk of mortality in those treated at level-I centers when compared to those treated at level-II trauma centers. This finding reinforces the ACS-verification process, which strives to achieve similar outcomes between level-I and level-II centers.

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.

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Hepatic Trauma: Comparison of Level I and II Trauma Centers

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110385
Author(s):  
Meghan Lewis ◽  
Dominik A. Jakob ◽  
Elizabeth R. Benjamin ◽  
Monica Wong ◽  
Marc D. Trust ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity ◽  
Blood Product ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Liver Trauma ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Thromboembolic Prophylaxis ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Liver Injuries ◽  
Level I

Introduction Most blunt liver injuries are treated with nonoperative management (NOM), and angiointervention (AI) has become a common adjunct. This study evaluated the use of AI, blood product utilization, pharmacological venous thromboembolic prophylaxis (VTEp), and outcomes in severe blunt liver trauma managed nonoperatively at level I versus II trauma centers. Methods American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) study (2013-2016), including adult patients with severe blunt liver injuries (AIS score>/= 3) treated with NOM, was conducted. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics, severity of liver injury (AIS), use of AI, blood product utilization, and VTEp were collected. Outcomes included survival, complications, failure of NOM, blood product utilization, and length of stay (LOS). Results Study included 2825 patients: 2230(78.9%) in level I and 595(21.1%) in level II centers. There was no difference in demographics, clinical presentation, or injury severity between centers. Angiointervention was used in 6.4% in level I and 7.2% in level II centers (P=.452). Level II centers were less likely to use LMWH for VTEp (.003). There was no difference in mortality or failure of NOM. In level II centers, there was a significantly higher 24-hour blood product utilization (PRBC P = .015 and platelets P = .002), longer ventilator days (P = .012), and longer ICU (P< .001) and hospital LOS (P = .024). The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia was significantly higher in level II centers (P = .003). Conclusion Utilization of AI and NOM success rates is similar in level I and II centers. However, the early blood utilization, ventilator days, and VAP complications are significantly higher in level II centers.

Regional, Racial, and Mortality Disparities Associated With Neurosurgeon Staffing at Level I Trauma Centers

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482098318
Author(s):  
Richelle L. Homo ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Jefferson Chen ◽  
Cesar Figueroa ◽  
Theresa Chin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Level I

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs in approximately 30% of trauma patients. Because neurosurgeons hold expertise in treating TBI, increased neurosurgical staffing may improve patient outcomes. We hypothesized that TBI patients treated at level I trauma centers (L1TCs) with ≥3 neurosurgeons have a decreased risk of mortality vs. those treated at L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons. Methods The Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2010-2016) was queried for patients ≥18 years with TBI. Patient characteristics and mortality were compared between ≥3 and <3 neurosurgeon-staffed L1TCs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with mortality. Results Traumatic brain injury occurred in 243 438 patients with 5188 (2%) presenting to L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons and 238 250 (98%) to L1TCs with ≥3 neurosurgeons. Median injury severity score (ISS) was similar between both groups (17, P = .09). There were more Black (37% vs. 12%, P < .001) and Hispanic (18% vs. 12%, P < .001) patients in the <3 neurosurgeon group. Nearly 60% of L1TCs with <3 neurosurgeons are found in the South. Mortality was higher in the <3 vs. the ≥3 group (12% vs. 10%, P < .001). Patients treated in the <3 neurosurgeon group had a higher risk for mortality than those treated in the ≥3 neurosurgeon group (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.01-1.26, P = .028). Discussion There exists a significant racial disparity in access to neurosurgeon staffing with additional disparities in outcomes based on staffing. Future efforts are needed to improve this chasm of care that exists for trauma patients of color.

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.

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.

No Difference in Morbidity or Mortality Between Octogenarians and Other Geriatric Burn Trauma Patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110111
Author(s):  
Miriam Alpert ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Victor Joe ◽  
Theresa L Chin ◽  
Nicole Bernal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Past Study ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Burn Trauma ◽  
Severity Scores

Background Geriatric burn trauma patients (age ≥65 years) have a 5-fold higher mortality rate than younger adults. With the population of the US aging, the number of elderly burn and trauma patients is expected to increase. A past study using the National Burn Repository revealed a linear increase in mortality for those >65 years old. We hypothesized that octogenarians with burn and trauma injuries would have a higher rate of in-hospital complications and mortality, than patients aged 65-79 years old. Methods The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for burn trauma patients. To detect mortality risk a multivariable logistic regression model was used. Results From 282 patients, there were 73 (25.9%) octogenarians and 209 (74.1%) aged 65-79 years old. The two cohorts had similar median injury severity scores (16 vs. 15 in octogenarians, P = .81), total body surface area burned ( P = .30), and comorbidities apart from an increased smoking (12.9% vs. 4.1%, P = .04) and decreased hypertension (52.2% vs. 65.8%, P = .04) in the younger cohort. Octogenarians had similar complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis ( P > .05), and mortality (15.1% vs. 10.5%, P = .30), compared to the younger cohort. Octogenarians were not associated with an increased mortality risk (odds ratio 1.51, confidence interval 0.24-9.56, P = .67). Discussion Among burn trauma patients ≥65 years, age should not be a sole predictor for mortality risk. Continued research is necessary in order to determine more accurate approaches to prognosticate mortality in geriatric burn trauma patients, such as the validation and refinement of a burn-trauma-related frailty index.

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.

The Impact of American College of Surgeons Trauma Center Designation and Outcomes after Early Thoracotomy: A National Trauma Databank Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Bukur ◽  
Bernardino Castelo Branco ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Ramon Cestero ◽  
Leslie Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Pressure Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

Trauma centers are designated by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) into four different levels based on resources, volume, and scientific and educational commitment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between ACS center designation and outcomes after early thoracotomy for trauma. The National Trauma Databank (v. 7.0) was used to identify all patients who required early thoracotomy. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were extracted. Patients were categorized according to ACS trauma center designation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of ACS trauma center designation on mortality. From 2002 to 2006, 1834 (77.4%) patients were admitted to a Level I ACS verified trauma center, 474 (20.0%) to a Level II, and 59 (3.6%) to a Level III/IV facility. After adjusting for differences between the groups, there were no significant differences in mortality (overall: 53.3% for Level I, 63.1% for Level II, and 52.5% for Level III/IV, adjusted P = 0.417; or for patients arriving in cardiac arrest: 74.9% vs 87.1% vs 85.0%, P = 0.261). Subgroup analysis did not show any significant difference in survival irrespective of mechanism of injury. Glasgow Coma Scale score # 8, Injury Severity Score >16, no admission systolic blood pressure, time from admission to thoracotomy, and nonteaching hospitals were found to be independent predictors of death. For trauma patients who have sustained injuries requiring early thoracotomy, ACS trauma center designation did not significantly impact mortality. Nonteaching institutions however, were independently associated with poorer outcomes after early thoracotomy. These findings may have important implications in educational commitment of institutions. Further prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document