Search

Introduction: In certain regions of the United States, there has been a dramatic proliferation of trauma centers. The goal of our study was to evaluate transport times during this period of trauma center proliferation., Methods: Aggregated data summarizing level I trauma center admissions in Arizona between 2009 and 2018 were provided to our institution by the Arizona Department of Health Services. We evaluated patient demographics, transport times, and injury severity for both rural and urban injuries., Results: Data included statistics summarizing 266,605 level I trauma admissions in the state of Arizona. The number of state-designated trauma centers during this time increased from 14 to 47, with level I centers increasing from 8 to 13. Slight decreases in mean Injury Severity Score (rural, 9.4 vs. 8.4; urban, 7.9 vs. 7.0) were observed over this period. Median transport time for cases transported from the injury scene directly to a level I center remained stable in urban areas at 0.9 hours in both 2009 and 2018. In rural areas, transport times for these cases were approximately double but also stable, with median times of 1.8 and 1.9 hours. Transport times for cases requiring interfacility transfer before admission at a level I center increased by 0.3 hours for urban injuries (5.3-5.6 hours) and 0.9 hours for rural injuries (5.6-6.5 hours)., Conclusion: Despite the threefold increase in the number of state-designated trauma centers, transport time has not decreased in urban or rural areas. This finding highlights the need for regulatory oversight regarding the number and geographic placement of state-designated trauma centers., Level of Evidence: Care management, level IV, Epidemiological, level III., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Level 1 trauma centers should provide definitive care for every aspect of injury. However, in environments that have experienced trauma center proliferation, not all level 1 centers may have the resources or expertise needed for every patient, necessitating transfer to another trauma center. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of such transfers and associated impact on patient outcome and burden on the receiving level 1 center., Methods: In a metropolitan area experiencing trauma center proliferation, we performed a 5.5-year review of patient transfers to an established level 1 (index center) from other state designated level 1 centers. American College of Surgeons verification level was identified for each facility. Comparisons were performed between the cohort of transferred patients and patients with similar demographics, injury patterns, and severity managed at the index center using propensity score matching., Results: A total of 104 patients were received from other state level 1 centers (39% American College of Surgeons level 2, 61% American College of Surgeons level 1). Nearly 70% of patients were transferred for definitive evaluation and/or management of brain, spine, or cerebrovascular injury. For 76% of this subgroup, specialty consultation was available, but the injury was deemed beyond their capability. Comparison of the transfer cohort propensity score matched to the control cohort (93 vs. 558 patients) demonstrated increased length of stay (6.5 days vs. 4.6 days, p = 0.001) and cost (US $36,027 vs. US $30,654, p = 0.033) associated with the transfer cohort, with similar mortality (12.1% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.492)., Conclusion: The number of level 1 to level 1 transfers observed imply a disparity in resources and capability among level 1 trauma centers in the region. The majority of transfers were for neurosurgical care, suggestive of a deficit of adequate neurosurgical coverage in the setting of trauma center proliferation. Both patients and established trauma centers bear the burden for these transfers with respect to increased cost and length of stay., Level of Evidence: Care management, level IV.

The Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) weight, as derived from the MS-DRG assigned at discharge, is in part determined by the physician-documented diagnoses. However, the terminology associated with MS-DRG determination is often not aligned with typical physician language, leading to inaccurate coding and decreased hospital reimbursements. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of a diagnosis picklist within a paper-based history and physical examination (H&P) on the average MS-DRG weight and the Case-mix index (CMI). Our trauma center implemented a paper H&P form for trauma patients featuring picklist diagnoses aligned with the MS-DRG terminology and arranged by the physiologic system. To evaluate its impact, we conducted a cohort study using data from our trauma registry between July 2015 and November 2017. Our cohort included 442 (26.0%) paper and 1,261 (74.0%) dictated H&Ps. Average CMI (2.56 vs 2.15) and expected patients ($25,057 vs $19,825) were higher for the paper group ( P < 0.001, P = 0.002). Adjusted regression models demonstrated paper coding to be associated with 0.265 CMI points, translating to an average increase in expected payment of 6.5 per cent per patient. Utilization of a standardized, paper-based H&P template with picklist diagnoses was associated with a higher trauma service CMI and higher expected payments. Preprinted diagnoses that align with the MS-DRG terminology lead to clinical documentation improvement.

Introduction: Trauma centers reported illicit amphetamine use in approximately 10% of trauma admissions in the previous decade. From experience at a trauma center located in a southwestern metropolis, our perception is that illicit amphetamine use is on the rise and that these patients utilize in-hospital resources beyond what would be expected for their injuries. The purposes of this study were to document the incidence of illicit amphetamine use among our trauma patients and to evaluate its impact on resource utilization., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 7 consecutive years of data (starting July 2010) from our institution's trauma registry. Toxicology screenings were used to categorize patients into one of three groups: illicit amphetamine, other drugs, or drug-free. Adjusted linear and logistic regression models were used to predict hospital cost, length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and ventilation between drug groups. Models were conducted with combined injury severity (Injury Severity Score [ISS]) and then repeated for ISS of less than 9, ISS 9 to 15, and ISS 16 or greater., Results: Eight thousand five hundred eighty-nine patients were categorized into the following three toxicology groups: 1,255 (14.6%) illicit amphetamine, 2,214 (25.8%) other drugs, and 5,120 (59.6%) drug-free. Illicit amphetamine use increased threefold over the course of the study (from 7.85% to 25.0% of annual trauma admissions). Adjusted linear models demonstrated that illicit amphetamine among patients with ISS of less than 9 was associated with 4.6% increase in hospital cost (p = 0.019) and 7.4% increase in length of stay (p = 0.043). Logistic models revealed significantly increased odds of ventilation across all ISS groups and increased odds of intensive care unit admission when all ISS groups were combined (p = 0.001) and within the group with ISS of less than 9 (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: Hospital resource utilization of amphetamine patients with minor injuries is significant. Trauma centers with similar epidemic growth in proportion of amphetamine patients face a potentially significant resource strain relative to other centers., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/Epidemiological, level II; Therapeutic, level III.