Are trauma research programs in academic and non-academic centers measured by equal standards? A survey of 137 level I trauma centers in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
American 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.Methods
A 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.Results
The 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%).Conclusions
Survey 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.
SUBMITTER: Madayag RM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8501921 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.Methods218 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionBased 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.
| S-EPMC2515286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSepsis is a major public health problem. Understanding the epidemiology of sepsis subtypes is important to quantify the magnitude of the problem and identify targets for system wide treatment strategies. We sought to describe the current national epidemiology of community-acquired (CAS), hospital-acquired (HAS) and healthcare-associated sepsis (HCAS) hospitalizations among academic medical centers in the United States using current discharge diagnosis taxonomies.MethodsRetrospective analysis of patient discharge data from the Vizient Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager. We identified sepsis hospitalizations using four ICD-10 coding strategies: (1) "Martin" sepsis codes (21 ICD-10 codes), (2) "Angus" sepsis codes (ICD-10 infection + ICD-10 organ dysfunction), (3) Medicare "SEP-1" codes (28 ICD-10 codes), and (4) "explicit sepsis" codes (ICD-10 R65.20 and R65.21). Using present-on-admission flags for each diagnosis, we also distinguished: (1) community-acquired sepsis (CAS), (2) hospital-acquired sepsis (HAS), and (3) healthcare associated sepsis (HCAS).ResultsAmong 22,655,240 hospitalizations, the number and incidence of sepsis hospitalizations were: (1) Martin (n = 1,718,257, 75.8 per 1000 hospitalizations), (2) Angus (n = 2,749,163, 121.3 per 1000), (3) SEP-1 (n = 1,624,909, 71.7 per 1000), and (4) explicit sepsis (n = 655,853, 28.9 per 1000). CAS was the most common sepsis subtype. HAS exhibited higher adjusted mortality than CAS. ICU admission was highest for HAS (Martin, 1.5%; Angus, 1.5%; SEP-1, 1.6%; Explicit, 1.9%).ConclusionsThese results illustrate the prevalence of sepsis at US academic medical centers using the most current sepsis classification taxonomies and discharge diagnosis codes. These results highlight important considerations when using hospital discharge data to characterize the epidemiology of sepsis.
| S-EPMC9288236 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4688077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere is no consensus on whether, when and how to surveil an ileal pouch. The aims of this study were to evaluate experts' opinions and practice patterns on pouch surveillance and to determine if they were associated with detection of neoplasia.MethodsEligible physicians were identified by searching the literature in MEDLINE and the physician list of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America and surveying by questionnaire.ResultsFifty-two eligible participants from 32 tertiary institutions were identified. Forty-one physicians (79%) felt that surveillance pouchoscopy was necessary, and 36 (69%) believed that pouchoscopy with biopsy was effective for the detection of neoplasia. Great variation exists with regard to the frequency of surveillance pouchoscopy. Eighteen physicians (35%) reported the detection of a total of 4 pouch dysplasias and 15 pouch cancers within the previous 5 years. The follow-up number of ileal pouches per year was significantly higher in the neoplasia detection group (50 vs 25, P?=?0.041). Those who reported detecting neoplasia took even fewer biopsies from the ileal pouch body during the pouchoscopy examination (>3 biopsies per location, 44% vs 82%, P?=?0.005). Multivariable analysis showed that the number of patients with ileal pouches followed up per year was the only independent factor associated with the detection of pouch neoplasia (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.1; P?=?0.005).ConclusionMost experts agree with performing pouchoscopy and biopsy for surveillance of ileal pouch neoplasia, although the optimal interval varies greatly. The detection of pouch neoplasia appears to be related to patient volume and physician experience.
| S-EPMC4863190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe recent intense attention to hospital readmissions and their implications for quality, safety, and reimbursement necessitates understanding specific subsets of readmitted patients. Frequently admitted patients, defined as patients who are admitted 5 or more times within 1 year, may have some distinguishing characteristics that require novel solutions.MethodsA comprehensive administrative database (University HealthSystem Consortium's Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager) was analyzed to identify demographic, social, and clinical characteristics of frequently admitted patients in 101 US academic medical centers.ResultsWe studied 28,291 frequently admitted patients with 180,185 admissions over a 1-year period (2011-2012). These patients comprise 1.6% of all patients, but account for 8% of all admissions and 7% of direct costs. Their admissions are driven by multiple chronic conditions; compared to other hospitalized patients, they have significantly more comorbidities (an average of 7.1 vs 2.5), and 84% of their admissions are to medical services. A minority, but significantly more than other patients, have comorbidities of psychosis or substance abuse. Moreover, although they are slightly more likely than other patients to be on Medicaid or to be uninsured (27.6% vs 21.6%), nearly three-quarters have private or Medicare coverage.ConclusionsPatients who are frequently admitted to US academic medical centers are likely to have multiple complex chronic conditions and may have behavioral comorbidities that mediate their health behaviors, resulting in acute episodes requiring hospitalization. This information can be used to identify solutions for preventing repeat hospitalization for this small group of patients who consume a highly disproportionate share of healthcare resources.
| S-EPMC5032986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEfforts to reduce opioid use in trauma patients are currently hampered by an incomplete understanding of the baseline opioid exposure and variation in United States. The purpose of this project was to obtain a global estimate of opioid exposure following injury and to quantify the variability of opioid exposure between and within United States trauma centers.Study designProspective observational study was performed to calculate opioid exposure by converting all sources of opioids to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). To estimate variation, an intraclass correlation was calculated from a multilevel generalized linear model adjusting for the a priori selected variables Injury Severity Score and prior opioid use.ResultsThe centers enrolled 1,731 patients. The median opioid exposure among all sites was 45 MMEs per day, equivalent to 30 mg of oxycodone or 45 mg of hydrocodone per day. Variation in opioid exposure was identified both between and within trauma centers with the vast majority of variation (93%) occurring within trauma centers. Opioid exposure increased with injury severity, in male patients, and patients suffering penetrating trauma.ConclusionThe overall median opioid exposure was 45 MMEs per day. Despite significant differences in opioid exposure between trauma centers, the majority of variation was actually within centers. This suggests that efforts to minimize opioid exposure after injury should focus within trauma centers and not on high-level efforts to affect all trauma centers.Level of evidenceEpidemiological, level III.
| S-EPMC7802946 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5497944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Probiotics have a wide variation in their effectiveness in preventing or treating conditions due to the varying beneficial effects of specific probiotic strains. In other words, there is no "generic equivalency" between different probiotic species. However, it is has been noted that many practitioners consider probiotics in generic terms and may not realize the impact of these differences between probiotics. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to identify probiotics used in US academic medical centers and to determine whether those probiotics were supported by a reliable evidence base. METHODS: A phone survey of 126 inpatient pharmacies in US academic medical centers was conducted to determine which probiotics were stocked. A systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies that were then critically evaluated to determine whether the identified probiotics are supported by a reliable evidence base. RESULTS: There was a 90.5% (114/126) response rate of academic medical centers that were contacted through the phone survey. Ten probiotic products were identified through the phone survey. The probiotic most often stocked in academic medical centers was Culturelle (27.2%) followed by Lactinex (25.4%). The systematic search identified evidence that evaluated Culturelle, Florastor, Lactinex, and VSL #3. Of those 4 probiotics, none were supported by a strong evidence base. However, the results suggested that both Culturelle and Florastor appear to be supported by more evidence compared to other probiotics. CONCLUSION: A majority of academic medical centers did not stock a probiotic that was supported by a reliable evidence base.
| S-EPMC3859277 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundExcessive inpatient administrative tasks can lead to adverse consequences for residents and their patients. Furthermore, this burden has been linked to depersonalization, a major component of physician burnout.ObjectiveTo describe the development, implementation, feasibility, acceptability, and early outcomes of Resident Team Assistant (RTA) programs.MethodsThree large academic medical centers created RTA programs in which administrative assistants are incorporated into inpatient medical teams. First steps included a needs assessment and driver diagram creation to identify key issues and to solidify goals. Program directors were assigned, and RTAs were hired, trained, and incorporated into inpatient teams at each institution (2003, 2016, 2018). Program leadership and institutional stakeholders met regularly to discuss development and quality assurance. Surveys and direct interviews were performed to evaluate impact and acceptability. Institutional goals in accordance to RTAs tasks were also investigated.ResultsResident surveys and interviews have shown acceptability with RTAs completing a large percentage of resident administrative tasks while promoting time spent in direct clinical care and job satisfaction. Hospital-specific improvements have included increase in referring physician communication rate and decrease in work hour violations. The programs have maintained high feasibility and sustainability with a relatively low time commitment from leadership and cost for the institutions.ConclusionsThe RTA programs at the 3 institutions have continued to be sustained over time with perceived improvements in administrative task burden and job satisfaction for the residents. They have maintained high acceptability and feasibility in terms of effort and costs for the hospitals.
| S-EPMC7771612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data.We identified all patients with concurrent blood cultures, antibiotics, and vasopressors for ? two consecutive days, and all patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes for septic shock, at 27 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2014. We compared annual incidence and mortality trends. We reviewed 967 records from three hospitals to estimate the accuracy of each method.Of 6.5 million adult hospitalizations, 99,312 (1.5%) were flagged by clinical criteria, 82,350 (1.3%) by ICD-9 codes, and 44,651 (0.7%) by both. Sensitivity for clinical criteria was higher than claims (74.8% vs 48.3%; P < .01), whereas positive predictive value was comparable (83% vs 89%; P = .23). Septic shock incidence, based on clinical criteria, rose from 12.8 to 18.6 cases per 1,000 hospitalizations (average, 4.9% increase/y; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.9%), while mortality declined from 54.9% to 50.7% (average, 0.6% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%). In contrast, septic shock incidence, based on ICD-9 codes, increased from 6.7 to 19.3 per 1,000 hospitalizations (19.8% increase/y; 95% CI, 16.6%-20.9%), while mortality decreased from 48.3% to 39.3% (1.2% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.6%).A clinical surveillance definition based on concurrent vasopressors, blood cultures, and antibiotics accurately identifies septic shock hospitalizations and suggests that the incidence of patients receiving treatment for septic shock has risen and mortality rates have fallen, but less dramatically than estimated on the basis of ICD-9 codes.
| S-EPMC5310115 | biostudies-literature