Dataset Information

United States level I trauma centers are not created equal - a concern for patient safety?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The American College of Surgeons delineates 108 requirements for level I trauma centers. Some of these requirements include: minimum of 1,200 trauma admissions per year; an average of 35 major trauma patients per surgeon; residency training programs; and 10 peer-reviewed journal submissions every three years. This study examines the variation in services provided among U.S. level I trauma centers.

Methods

218 facilities identified as level I trauma centers in 2005 were contacted for participation. 136 centers in 37 states completed the questionnaire. Surveys queried variances in trauma, neurosurgery, plastics, and orthopaedic surgery with regard to type of center, type of accreditation, number and training of participating physicians, number of beds, dedicated OR support (staff/rooms), call pay, and research.

Results

Of the level I centers surveyed, 66% are university-affiliated facilities that employ more surgeons and staffing across trauma and all subspecialties compared to community-based or public centers. However, the community and public centers have more surgeons per capita (44% of the university-affiliated hospitals have six or more trauma surgeons on staff compared to 59% of the community and 70% of the public facilities). University-affiliated centers also provide more in-house subspecialty services (orthopaedic, neurosurgery, and plastics). Thirty-nine percent do not have ACS accreditation and are designated trauma facilities by state or local governments. Only 49% of trauma centers provide on-call pay to trauma surgeons, and these percentages decline for all subspecialties. Dedicated operating rooms and research programs are also lacking among all subspecialties.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, we conclude that there are no homogeneous criteria for being accredited as a level I trauma center. Reliable resources should be offered at any facility that claims a level I trauma designation. We do not know if such diversity of services truly impacts care or how it can be measured; nevertheless, it would be logical to presume that at some point services that fall below a minimum threshold would potentially adversely affect the quality of care. In order to develop appropriate policy to decrease possible disparities, differentiation in services between trauma centers must be further researched and described.

SUBMITTER: Ziran BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2515286 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

United States level I trauma centers are not created equal - a concern for patient safety?

Ziran Bruce H BH Barrette-Grischow Mary-Kate MK Hileman Barbara B

Patient safety in surgery 20080721

<h4>Background</h4>The American College of Surgeons delineates 108 requirements for level I trauma centers. Some of these requirements include: minimum of 1,200 trauma admissions per year; an average of 35 major trauma patients per surgeon; residency training programs; and 10 peer-reviewed journal submissions every three years. This study examines the variation in services provided among U.S. level I trauma centers.<h4>Methods</h4>218 facilities identified as level I trauma centers in 2005 were ...[more]

PMID: 18644130

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:BackgroundRegionalized trauma care improves outcomes; however, access to care is not uniform across the United States. The objective was to evaluate whether geographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality across state trauma systems.MethodsLevel I or II trauma centers in the contiguous United States were mapped. State-level age-adjusted injury fatality rates per 100,000 people were obtained and evaluated for spatial autocorrelation. Nearest neighbor ratios (NNRs) were generated for each state. A NNR less than 1 indicates clustering, while a NNR greater than 1 indicates dispersion. NNRs were tested for difference from random geographic distribution. Fatality rates and NNRs were examined for correlation. Fatality rates were compared between states with trauma center clustering versus dispersion. Trauma center distribution and population density were evaluated. Spatial-lag regression determined the association between fatality rate and NNR, controlling for state-level demographics, population density, injury severity, trauma system resources, and socioeconomic factors.ResultsFatality rates were spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.35, p < 0.01). Nine states had a clustered pattern (median NNR, 0.55; interquartile range [IQR], 0.48-0.60), 22 had a dispersed pattern (median NNR, 2.00; IQR, 1.68-3.99), and 10 had a random pattern (median NNR, 0.90; IQR, 0.85-1.00) of trauma center distribution. Fatality rate and NNR were correlated (ρ = 0.34, p = 0.03). Clustered states had a lower median injury fatality rate compared with dispersed states (56.9 [IQR, 46.5-58.9] vs. 64.9 [IQR, 52.5-77.1]; p = 0.04). Dispersed compared with clustered states had more counties without a trauma center that had higher population density than counties with a trauma center (5.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.01). Spatial-lag regression demonstrated that fatality rates increased by 0.02 per 100,000 persons for each unit increase in NNR (p < 0.01).ConclusionGeographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality, with more clustered state trauma centers associated with lower fatality rates. This may be a result of access relative to population density. These results may have implications for trauma system planning and require further study to investigate underlying mechanisms.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:BackgroundFemoral shaft fractures are common in major trauma. Early definitive fixation, within 24 hours, is feasible in most patients and is associated with improved outcomes. Nonetheless, variability might exist between trauma centers in timeliness of fixation. Such variability could impact outcomes and would therefore represent a target for quality improvement. We evaluated variability in delayed fixation (≥24 hours) between trauma centers participating in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) and measured the resultant association with important clinical outcomes at the hospital level.Methods and findingsA retrospective cohort study was performed using data derived from the ACS TQIP database. Adults with severe injury who underwent definitive fixation of a femoral shaft fracture at a level I or II trauma center participating in ACS TQIP (2012-2015) were included. Patient baseline and injury characteristics that might affect timing of fixation were considered. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of delayed fixation. Hospital variability in delayed fixation was measured using 2 approaches. First, the random effects output of the hierarchical model was used to identify outlier hospitals where the odds of delayed fixation were significantly higher or lower than average. Second, the median odds ratio (MOR) was calculated to quantify heterogeneity in delayed fixation between hospitals. Finally, complications (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, decubitus ulcer, and death) and hospital length of stay were compared across quartiles of risk-adjusted delayed fixation. We identified 17,993 patients who underwent definitive fixation at 216 trauma centers. The median injury severity score (ISS) was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 9-22). Median time to fixation was 15 hours (IQR 7-24 hours) and delayed fixation was performed in 26% of patients. After adjusting for patient characteristics, 57 hospitals (26%) were identified as outliers, reflecting significant practice variation unexplained by patient case mix. The MOR was 1.84, reflecting heterogeneity in delayed fixation across centers. Compared to hospitals in the lowest quartile of delayed fixation, patients treated at hospitals in the highest quartile of delayed fixation suffered 2-fold higher rates of pulmonary embolism (2.6% versus 1.3%; rate ratio [RR] 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.2; P = 0.005) and required greater length of stay (7 versus 6 days; RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.1-1.19; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference with respect to mortality (1.3% versus 0.8%; RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.8; P = 0.066). The main limitations of this study include the inability to classify fractures by severity, challenges related to the heterogeneity of the study population, and the potential for residual confounding due to unmeasured factors.ConclusionsIn this large cohort study of 216 trauma centers, significant practice variability was observed in delayed fixation of femoral shaft fractures, which could not be explained by differences in patient case mix. Patients treated at centers where delayed fixation was most common were at significantly greater risk of pulmonary embolism and required longer hospital stay. Trauma centers should strive to minimize delays in fixation, and quality improvement initiatives should emphasize this recommendation in best practice guidelines.

Project description:Antibodies that block T cell inhibition via the immune checkpoints CTLA-4 and PD-1 have revolutionized cancer therapy during the last 15 years. T cells express additional inhibitory surface receptors that are considered to have potential as targets in cancer immunotherapy. Antibodies against LAG-3 and TIM-3 are currently clinically tested to evaluate their effectiveness in patients suffering from advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies. In addition, blockade of the inhibitory BTLA receptors on human T cells may have potential to unleash T cells to effectively combat cancer cells. Much research on these immune checkpoints has focused on mouse models. The analysis of animals that lack individual inhibitory receptors has shed some light on the role of these molecules in regulating T cells, but also immune responses in general. There are current intensive efforts to gauge the efficacy of antibodies targeting these molecules called immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in different combinations in preclinical models of cancer. Differences between mouse and human immunology warrant studies on human immune cells to appreciate the potential of individual pathways in enhancing T cell responses. Results from clinical studies are not only highlighting the great benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treating cancer but also yield precious information on their role in regulating T cells and other cells of the immune system. However, despite the clinical relevance of CTLA-4 and PD-1 and the high potential of the emerging immune checkpoints, there are still substantial gaps in our understanding of the biology of these molecules, which might prevent the full realization of their therapeutic potential. This review addresses PD-1, CTLA-4, BTLA, LAG-3, and TIM-3, which are considered major inhibitory immune checkpoints expressed on T cells. It provides summaries of our current conception of the role of these molecules in regulating T cell responses, and discussions about major ambiguities and gaps in our knowledge. We emphasize that each of these molecules harbors unique properties that set it apart from the others. Their distinct functional profiles should be taken into account in therapeutic strategies that aim to exploit these pathways to enhance immune responses to combat cancer.

Project description:BackgroundPrehospital 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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%).ConclusionsBenefit 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.

Dataset Information

United States level I trauma centers are not created equal - a concern for patient safety?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

United States level I trauma centers are not created equal - a concern for patient safety?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets