Dataset Information

The influence of sociodemographic factors on trauma center transport for severely injured older adults.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine sociodemographic predictors of trauma center (TC) transport of severely injured older adults.

Data sources

The data source was the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, New York Inpatient Database (2014).

Study design

This study was a secondary analysis of injured older adults. Key sociodemographic variables were age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, and primary payer. Confounding variables were injury severity, geographic location, number of chronic conditions, and injury mechanism. The outcome variable was TC transport.

Data collection/extraction methods

The database was filtered on the following criteria: age =/> 55 years, primary diagnosis of injury (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM], 800.0-957.9, excluding poisoning, late effects, and interfacility transfers), admitted to an acute care hospital in New York.

Principal findings

Records of 33 696 patients were included. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that all variables were statistically significant predictors of TC transport except primary payer. Predictors of TC transport were as follows: higher injury severity (OR 2.1, CI 1.79-2.46; 3.39, CI 2.85-4.05); Asian/Pacific and Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR 2.51, CI 1.92-3.27; OR 1.1, CI 0.86-1.42), highest median household income (OR 1.24, CI 1.01-1.52), high population density (OR 1.32, CI 1.12-1.55; OR 3.2, CI 2.68-2.83), and vehicle crashes (OR 3.39, CI 2.79-4.11). Predictors of non-TC transport were as follows: older age groups (OR 0.92, CI 0.76-1.11; OR 0.79, CI 0.64-0.96; OR 0.77, CI 0.63-0.95), females (OR 0.65, CI 0.57-0.74), Black and "other" race (OR 0.75, CI 0.0.56-1.0; OR 0.96, CI 0.77-1.20), lower median household income (OR 0.76, CI 0.62-0.93; OR 0.86, CI 0.71-1.05), low population density (OR 0.96, CI 0.67-1.36; OR 0.89, CI 0.53-1.51), and number of chronic conditions (OR 0.89, CI 0.87-0.91).

Conclusions

Sociodemographic factors are a source of disparity for access to TCs. Further research is needed to confirm bias and test bias reduction strategies. Comprehensive education and policies are needed to reduce disparities in access to trauma care.

SUBMITTER: Scheetz LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7240777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Trauma is the leading cause of potential years of life lost before age 65 years in the United States. Timely care in a designated trauma center has been shown to reduce mortality by 25%. However, many severely injured patients are not transferred to trauma centers after initially being seen at non–trauma center emergency departments (EDs).To determine patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with the decision to admit rather than transfer severely injured patients who are initially seen at non–trauma center EDs and to ascertain whether insured patients are more likely to be admitted than transferred compared with uninsured patients.Retrospective analysis of the 2009 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. We included all ED encounters for major trauma (Injury Severity Score, >15) seen at non–trauma centers in patients aged 18 to 64 years. We excluded ED discharges and ED deaths. We quantified the absolute risk difference between admission vs transfer by insurance status, while adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, weekend admission and month of visit, and urban vs rural status and median household income of the home zip code, as well as annual ED visit volume and teaching status and US region.Inpatient admission vs transfer to another acute care facility.In 2009, a total of 4513 observations from 636 non–trauma center EDs were available for analysis, representing a nationally weighted population of 19,312 non–trauma center ED encounters for major trauma. Overall, 54.5% in 2009 were admitted to the non–trauma center. Compared with patients without insurance, the adjusted absolute risk of admission vs transfer was 14.3% (95% CI, 9.2%-19.4%) higher for patients with Medicaid and 11.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-15.4%) higher for patients with private insurance. Other factors associated with admission vs transfer included severe abdominal injuries (risk difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 9.4%-22.3%), urban teaching hospital vs non–teaching hospital (risk difference, 26.2%; 95% CI, 15.2%-37.2%), and annual ED visit volume (risk difference, 3.4%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.3% higher for every additional 10,000 annual ED visits).Patients with severe injuries initially evaluated at non–trauma center EDs were less likely to be transferred if insured and were at risk of receiving suboptimal trauma care. Efforts in monitoring and optimizing trauma interhospital transfers and outcomes at the population level are warranted.

Project description:PurposeWhile survival rates after a trauma are increasing a considerable part of the trauma population are still at risk for both short and long term disabilities. Little is known about prognostic factors over time after a severe trauma. The aim of the present prospective cohort study was to examine trauma and patient related prognostic factors for a lower health status over time after a severe trauma.MethodsA multicentre prospective observational cohort study was conducted. Adult trauma patients with severe injuries (ISS???16) were included from August 2015 until November 2016 if admitted to one of the hospitals in Noord-Brabant (the Netherlands). Outcome measure was health status, measured by the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D utility and EQ-Visual analogue scale) and the Health Utilities Index (HUI2 and HUI3) one week and one, three, six, and twelve months after injury. Patient and trauma characteristics were analysed as prognostic factors with linear mixed models. The effect of each prognostic factor over time was analysed by adding the interaction term between the prognostic factor and time point in a multivariable linear mixed model, adjusted for confounders. Additionally, the risk factors for problems in the EQ-5 dimensions of HS and cognition were analysed.ResultsIn total 239 severely injured patients participated. Pre-injury health status, hospital length of stay, ISS and comorbidities were significant prognostic factors for a lower health status. A younger age and extremity injury were prognostic factors for a lower health status until one month after trauma and unemployment before trauma and comorbidities six until twelve months after trauma. In the EQ-5 dimensions 44.1% remained problems in mobility, 15.3% in self-care, 46.4% in activity, 53.3% in pain, 32.5% in anxiety and 35.7% in cognition.ConclusionsLower pre-injury health status, longer hospital length of stay, higher ISS, and comorbidities were significant prognostic factors for a lower health status during one year after a severe injury. A younger age and an extremity injury were short-term prognostic factors and unemployment before trauma and comorbidities were long-term prognostic factors. Even after twelve months patients in our population reported more problems in all EQ-5D dimensions when compared to the Dutch reference population.

Project description:ImportanceTrauma centers improve outcomes for young patients with serious injuries. However, most injury-related hospital admissions and deaths occur in older adults, and it is not clear whether trauma center care provides the same benefit in this population.ObjectiveTo examine whether 30- and 365-day mortality of injured older adults is associated with the treating hospital's trauma center level.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, population-based cohort study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older with inpatient admission for traumatic injury in 2014 to 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 31, 2021. Preinjury health was measured using 2013 claims, and outcomes were measured through 2016. The population was stratified by anatomical injury pattern. Propensity scores for level I trauma center treatment were estimated using the Abbreviated Injury Scale, age, and residential proximity to trauma center and then used to match beneficiaries from each trauma level (I, II, III, and IV/non-trauma centers) by injury type.ExposureAdmitting hospital's trauma center level.Main outcomes and measuresCase fatality rates (CFRs) at 30 and 365 days after injury, estimated in the matched sample using multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 433 169 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 82.9 [8.3] years; 68.4% female; 91.5% White) were included in the analysis. A total of 206 275 (47.6%) were admitted to non-trauma centers and 161 492 (37.3%) to level I or II trauma centers. Patients with isolated extremity fracture had the fewest deaths (365-day CFR ranged from 16.1% [95% CI, 11.2%-22.4%] to 17.4% [95% CI, 11.8%-24.6%] by trauma center status). Patients with both hip fracture and traumatic brain injury had the most deaths (365-day CFRs ranged from 33.4% [95% CI, 25.8%-42.1%] to 35.8% [95% CI, 28.9%-43.5%]).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that older adults do not benefit from existing trauma center care, which is designed with younger patients in mind. There is a critical need to improve trauma care practices to address common injury mechanisms and types of injury in older adults.

Project description:ImportanceTrauma registries are the primary data mechanism in trauma systems to evaluate and improve the care of injured patients. Research has suggested that trauma registries may miss high-risk older adults, who commonly experience morbidity and mortality after injury.ObjectiveTo compare injured older adults who were included in with those excluded from trauma registries, with a focus on patients with serious injuries, requiring major surgery, or dying after injury.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all injured adults 65 years and older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma centers in 7 counties in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, with follow-up through December 31, 2012. Record linkage was used to match emergency medical services records with state trauma registries, state discharge databases, state death registries, and Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August to November 2018.ExposuresInclusion in vs exclusion from a trauma registry.Main outcomes and measuresMortality up to 12 months, including time to death and causes of death.ResultsOf 8161 included patients, 5579 (68.4%) were women, and the mean (SE) age was 82.2 (0.10) years. A total of 1720 older adults (21.1%) were matched to a trauma registry record. Seriously injured patients not captured by trauma registries ranged from 18% (7 of 38 patients with abdominal-pelvic Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater) to 80.0% (1792 of 2241 patients with extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater), while 68 of 186 patients requiring major nonorthopedic surgery (36.6%) and 1809 of 2325 patients requiring orthopedic surgery (77.8%) were not included in trauma registries. Of patients with serious injuries or undergoing major surgery missed by trauma registries (range by injury and procedure type, 36.0% to 57.1%), 36.4% (39.3% when excluding serious extremity injuries and orthopedic procedures) were treated at trauma centers, particularly level III through V hospitals. When registry and nonregistry groups were tracked over 12 months, 93 of 188 in-hospital deaths (49.5%) and 1531 of 1887 total deaths (81.1%) occurred in the nonregistry cohort.Conclusions and relevanceIn their current form, trauma registries are ineffective in capturing, tracking, and evaluating injured older adults, although mortality following injury is frequently due to noninjury causes. High-risk injured older adults are not included in registries because of care in nontrauma hospitals, restrictive registry inclusion criteria, and being missed by registries in trauma centers.