Situation analysis of trauma based on Arizona trauma center standards in university hospitals of Tehran, Iran

Objective: Injuries are common and important problem in Tehran, capital of Iran. Although therapeutic centers are not essentially established following the constructional principles of developed countries, the present opportunities and equipments have to be used properly. We should recognize and reduce the deficits based on the global standards.This study deliberates the trauma resources and capacities in university hospitals of Tehran based on Arizona trauma center standards, which are suitable for the assessment of trauma centers.Methods: Forty-one university hospitals in Tehran were evaluated for their conformity with "Arizona trauma center standards" in 2008. A structured interview was arranged with the "Educational Supervisor" of all hospitals regarding their institutional organization, departments, clini-cal capabilities, clinical qualifications, facilities and resources, rehabilitation services, performance improvement, continuing education, prevention, research and additional requirements for pediatric trauma patients. Relative frequencies and percentages were calculated and Student's t test was used to compare the mean values.Results: Forty-one hospitals had the average of 77.7 (50.7%) standards from 153 Arizona trauma center standards and these standards were present in 97.5 out of 153 (63.7%) in 17 general hospitals. Based on the subgroups of the standards, 64.8% items of hospital resources and capabilities were considered as a subgroup with the maximum criteria, and 17.7% items of research section as another subgroup with the minimum standards.Conclusions: On the basis of our findings, no hospital meet all the Arizona trauma center standards completely. The hospitals as trauma centers at different levels must be promoted to manage trauma patients desirably.     

Can we improve trauma mortality in a state with a voluntary trauma system

BACKGROUND: Arizona has no organized statewide trauma system. We looked at the 1997 and the 1998 Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) for the State of Arizona, and examined the trauma mortality data at both trauma hospitals and nontrauma hospitals. METHODS: All qualifying mortalities based on hospital data from 1997 through 1998 were reviewed for the State of Arizona. Trauma deaths from 32 nontrauma hospitals were examined and compared with that of 7 level 1 trauma centers within the state. RESULTS: In this time period, there were 375 qualified mortalities from nontrauma centers and 761 qualified mortalities from level 1 trauma facilities. Only 29 (8%) of nontrauma hospital deaths were found to be due to motor vehicle accidents. Only 8 (4%) mortalities at nontrauma centers were due to firearms. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that patients are arriving at the appropriate facility for definitive care despite the absence of a formal statewide trauma system.     

Relative importance of designation and accreditation of trauma centers during evolution of a regional trauma system

BACKGROUND: Improved survival after injury has been demonstrated with trauma system implementation and designation of trauma centers. Local designating health authorities or national verification (United States) or accreditation (Canada) programs audit trauma center performance. The relative importance of designation versus accreditation with respect to improved outcomes is not clear. The purpose of this study was to measure outcomes within a single regional trauma system after designation of trauma centers and to compare outcomes in the one accredited center to the nonaccredited centers. METHODS: Data from three trauma centers were studied. All were large, university-affiliated regional medical centers, integrated into a regional trauma system and served by a single ambulance service. The study period was 1992 to 1999, immediately after trauma center designation in 1991. The British Columbia Trauma Registry was used to identify trauma patients, mechanism of injury, length of stay, case mix, case volume, acuity, pediatric caseload, and proportion of transfers at each center. A questionnaire was circulated to each hospital to determine the level of institutional support and programmatic development for trauma. The Trauma Registry was used to calculate z scores (TRISS methodology) for each center and TRISS-adjusted mortality odds ratios between institutions. Differences in covariables were controlled for in subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Two centers (hospitals A and C) had a high trauma caseload; one (hospital B) had a small and diminishing caseload. Only one center (hospital A) developed a trauma program consistent with Canadian accreditation criteria; z scores for center A were consistently better than at hospital B or C and survival odds ratios were significant. This finding applied to the total trauma population, blunt adult trauma patients (whether or not transfers and hip fracture patients were excluded), and in the more severely injured blunt trauma subgroups. There were no differences between hospitals for the relatively small number of patients with penetrating trauma. CONCLUSION: Differences between hospitals were apparent from the outset of the trauma system. However, designation as a trauma center does not appear to necessarily improve survival in large regional medical centers. Development of a trauma program and commitment to meeting national guidelines through the accreditation process does appear to be associated with improved outcome after injury.     

Preventable trauma death in Tehran: an estimate of trauma care quality in teaching hospitals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was estimate the number of preventable trauma deaths in teaching hospitals in Tehran. METHODS: We evaluated the complete prehospital, hospital, and postmortem data of 70 trauma patients who had died during a 1-year period in two of the largest university hospitals in Tehran with a multidisciplinary panel of experts. RESULTS: Panel members identified 26% of all trauma deaths as preventable deaths. From 31 non-central nervous system-related deaths, 17 and 6 cases were identified as surely preventable and probably preventable, respectively. In central nervous system-related deaths, 5% of the deaths overall (2 of 38 cases) were identified as surely preventable or probably preventable. Sixty-four cases of medical errors were identified in 31 trauma deaths and 80% of these errors were directly related to the death of the patients. CONCLUSION: The high preventable trauma death rate in our teaching hospitals indicates that a relatively significant percentage of trauma fatalities could have been prevented by improving prehospital and in-hospital trauma care.     

A resource-based assessment of trauma care in the United States

BACKGROUND: The resources needed and those available to support trauma care for a given region are currently unknown. Resource use and availability were evaluated for injured subjects across a large sample of the United States. METHODS: This population-based study of trauma-related discharges in 18 states represented all four geographic regions of the United States. Hospital discharge and bed-utilization rates as a function of injury severity were assessed. Resource availability was evaluated by determining state trauma center density. RESULTS: This study evaluated 523,780 trauma patients discharged from 2,317 hospitals. The discharge rate for all trauma was 412 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate for major trauma was only 44 per 100,000 person-years. More than one third of the patients with major trauma received care at centers not designated for trauma care. The hospital bed utilization rate was 2,095 days per 100,000 person-years. The availability of trauma centers varied greatly across states, ranging from 0.9 to 6.6 centers per million population. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of major trauma patients in the United States are treated in nondesignated trauma centers. The variability in the availability of trauma resources indicates a lack of consensus with respect to the resources required for trauma system implementation.     

Outcomes after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: the "halo effect" of trauma center designation

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers have an array of services available around the clock that help reduce mortality in injured patients. Having such services available can benefit patients other than those who are injured. We set out to determine whether patients hospitalized with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms experience lower morbidity and mortality at regional trauma centers than at other acute care hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with the exposure being care at a trauma center and outcomes either mortality or organ failure. We evaluated all patients 40 to 84 years of age with a diagnosis of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent operation during 2001 in 20 US states with organized systems of trauma care. We determined the relative risk of either death or organ failure at regional trauma centers compared with nondesignated centers. RESULTS: Of 2,450 patients hospitalized for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, 867 (35%) hospitalizations occurred at regional trauma centers. At trauma centers, 41.4% of patients died before hospital discharge, compared with 45.2% of patients at nondesignated hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.02). After adjusting for payor, hospital beds, annual hospital admissions, annual inpatient operations, affiliation with a vascular surgery fellowship, and comorbid illnesses, the likelihood of death or organ failure was lower at trauma centers (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Care at regional trauma centers after operative repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with improved outcomes. We postulate that these benefits reflect the ability of both vascular and general surgeons to immediately mobilize resources for care of the patient requiring urgent operative intervention. The beneficial effects of trauma center designation might extend beyond caring for the critically injured.     

The effect of interfacility transfer on outcome in an urban trauma system

BACKGROUND: Transporting all trauma patients to regional trauma centers is inefficient; however, the bypass of nearer, nondesignated hospitals in deference to regional trauma centers decreases mortality in the severely injured. One approach to improving efficiency is to allow the initial assessment of selected patients at lower level (Level III/IV) designated centers. We set out to evaluate whether patients initially assessed at these centers and then transferred to a Level I facility were adversely affected by delays to definitive care. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study in which the primary exposure being evaluated is initial assessment at a Level III or IV trauma center before transport to a Level I center in an urban setting. The outcomes in this transfer cohort were compared with outcomes in patients transported directly from the scene to a Level I center (direct cohort). The outcomes of interest were mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics across these two cohorts. RESULTS: Crude length of stay was comparable, whereas mortality was lower and charges were 40% higher in the transfer cohort (n = 281) compared with the direct cohort (n = 4,439). After adjusting for confounders, mortality and length of stay were similar and total charges were significantly greater in the transferred patients. CONCLUSION: Interfacility transfers in a mature urban trauma system do not appear to impact on clinical outcome. However, transfer patients use significantly greater resources as measured by hospital charges. This effect is likely because of the nature of their injuries or, alternatively, delays in reaching definitive care.     

Improving outcomes in a regional trauma system: impact of a level III trauma center

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems decrease morbidity and mortality of injured populations, and each component contributes to the final outcome. This study evaluated the association between a referring hospital's trauma designation and the survival and resource utilization of patients transferred to a level I trauma center. METHODS: Data from the Registry of the American College of Surgeons on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during a 7-year period were subdivided into 3 categories: group 1 = level III-designated trauma center; group 2 = potential level III trauma centers; and group 3 = other transferring hospitals. Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology was used to provide a probability estimate of survival adjusted for the effect related to injury severity, physiologic host factors, and age. A W statistic was calculated for each type of referring hospital so that comparisons between observed survival and predicted survival could be measured. Differences in W, length of stay, intensive care unit days, and ventilator days were examined using general linear models. RESULTS: Patients transferred to a level I from a level III trauma center (group 1) were more seriously injured (P < .0001) and had improved survival (P < .0018) compared with those transferred from nondesignated hospitals (groups 2 and 3). Patients transferred from large nondesignated hospitals (group 2) had outcomes similar to patients transferred from all other hospitals (group 3). Level I hospital resource utilization did not show significant differences based on referring hospital type. COMMENTS: Outcomes of patients in a trauma system are associated with trauma-center designation of the referring hospitals.     

The profile of level I trauma center directors

BACKGROUND: No data are available regarding the characteristics of the trauma directors of Level I trauma centers. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to 102 directors of Level I trauma centers. Data were analyzed in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Seventy-two directors responded. All were men, with a mean age of 48 +/- 6 years. Fifty-eight percent of directors were fellowship trained. Directorship was assumed 7.3 +/- 6.1 years after training and the average time on the job was 8.6 +/- 6.1 years. Directors work in urban (93%), university-affiliated (67%) institutions that admit 1,000 to 2,000 patients annually (50%). Practice time distribution is as follows: trauma clinical care, 33%; general surgery, 20%; administrative work, 18%; critical care delivery, 17%; and research, 11%. Directors take 6.6 +/- 2.2 night calls per month, with half of them taking in-house call. Eighty-eight percent of directors are involved in research. Seventy-eight percent of directors earn $200,000 to $325,000 per year, with the largest group making $225,000 to $250,000. Salary is derived from clinical revenues (42%) and hospital (37%) or university (20%) support. Compensation is higher in community hospitals and tends to be higher in the Midwest. CONCLUSION: The profile of the trauma director at a Level I trauma center was described. This may be important in trauma career and systems development.     

Improved outcome after trauma care in university-level intensive care units

Background: Centralized trauma care has been shown to be associated with improved patient outcome. We compared the outcomes of trauma patients in relation to the size of the intensive care unit (ICU) using a large Finnish database.
Methods: A national prospectively collected ICU data registry was used for analysis. All adult trauma admissions excluding isolated head trauma and burns registered from July 1999 to December 2006 were analyzed. Data from 22 ICUs were available. The non-university-affiliated units were categorized according to the number of beds and referral population as small, mid size and large. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II)- and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)-adjusted mortalities were compared between the units.
Results: There were 2067 trauma admissions that fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 38% were treated in the university hospitals, 26% in large non-teaching ICUs, 20% in mid size ICUs and 15% in small ICUs. The crude hospital mortality was 5.6%, being 4.7% in university ICU and 6.6% in mid size ICU. In two subgroup analyses of severely ill trauma patients with APACHE II points >25 or SOFA score >8 points, respectively, hospital mortality was significantly lower in university ICUs.
Conclusions: University-level hospitals were associated with better outcomes with critically ill trauma patients. These results can be used in planning future organization of trauma patient care in Finland.     

Hospital management of abdominal trauma in Tehran, Iran: a review of 228 patients

Objective: Today, trauma is a major public health problem in some countries. Abdominal trauma is the source of significant mortality and morbidity with both blunt and penetrating injuries. We performed an epidemiological study of abdominal trauma (AT) in Tehran, Iran. We used all our sources to describe the epidemiology and outcome of patients with AT.Methods: This study was done in Tehran. The study population included trauma patients admitted to the emergency department of six general hospitals in Tehran during one year. The data were collected through a questionnaire that was completed by a trained physician at the trauma center. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software (version 11.5 for Windows). The statistical analysis was conducted using the chi-square and P＜0.05 was accepted as being statistically significant.Results: Two hundred and twenty-eight (2.8%) out of 8 000 patients were referred to the above mentioned centers with abdominal trauma. One hundred and twenty-five (54.9%)of the patients were in their 2nd and 3rd decades of life and 189 (83%) of our patients were male. Road traffic accidents (RTA) were the leading cause of AT with 119 (52.2%) patients. Spleen was the commonly injured organ with 51 cases. Following the analysis of injury severity, 159 (69.7%) patients had mild injuries (ISS＜16) and 69 (30.3%) patients had severe injuries (ISS= 16). The overall mortality rate was 46 (20.2%).Conclusions: Blunt abdominal trauma is more common than penetrating abdominal trauma. Road traffic accidents and stab wound are the most common causes of blunt and penetrating trauma, respectively. Spleen is the most commonly injured organ in these patients. The mortality rate is higher in blunt trauma than penetrating one.     

The Integrated Trauma Program: a model for cooperative trauma triage.

The Integrated Trauma Program (ITP) is the cooperative trauma triage service of the University of Toronto trauma and burn hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health. It provides physicians in referring hospitals direct access to a trauma team leader (TTL) in one of several trauma centers through a single phone number. Three adult trauma centers, one pediatric trauma center, and one burn center, all affiliated with the University of Toronto, participate in this program. This article describes the system during the first two years of operation. From July 1989 to June 1991, 1530 requests for patient transfers from a total of 97 hospitals were processed. Of these transfer requests, 77% were accepted by the TTL to a trauma service as multiple trauma cases, 16% were accepted directly to a surgical service without involving the trauma team, 4% were refused by the TTL as inappropriate referrals, and 3% of requests were cancelled by the referring physician. The transfer requests are distributed to a specific trauma center by request of the referring physician (10%), according to a rotation (70%), or as selected by the ITP (20%) when the scheduled hospital is not readily available. Closure of all adult trauma centers occurred on 43 occasions. During these closures, 48 patients bypassed the Toronto trauma centers and were transferred to other cities. The ITP office also keeps an ongoing data base of patients transferred. The mechanism of injury in the majority of cases is vehicular crashes. The mean Injury Severity Score is 24 for adults and 17 for children.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Maximizing reimbursement from trauma response fees (UB-92: 68X) - lessons learned from a hospital comparison

BACKGROUND: The trauma response fee (UB-92:68x) recently has been approved, to be used by hospitals to cover expenses resulting from continuous trauma team availability. These charges may be made by designated trauma centers for all defined trauma patients when notification has been received before arrival (eligible pt). This study compares two trauma centers' performance in collecting this fee help define methodologies that can enhance reimbursement. METHODS: Our trauma system uses two hospitals (A and B) that are designated as the Level I trauma center for the region on alternate years. This allows hospital performance comparisons with relatively consistent patient demographics, injury severity, and payer mix. Data were collected for a one-year period beginning on January 1, 2003 and included charges, collections, and payer source for the trauma response fee. This time frame allowed the comparison of two six-month sequential periods at each trauma center. RESULTS: Out of a total of 871 trauma patients, 625 were eligible for the trauma response fee (72%): hospital A = 65% and hospital B = 77%. Total trauma response fee charges for both centers were 1,111,882 dollars with collections of 319,684 dollars (28.8%). The following payer sources contributed to the collections: Indemnity insurance (77.4%), Managed Care (22.1%), Medicare (0.3%), and Medicaid (0.2%). No collections were obtained from any self-pay patient. Eligible patients were charged a trauma response fee much less frequently in Hospital A than B (29.35% versus 95.2%) but revenue / charge ratios were equivalent at both hospitals (0.32 versus 0.28). These differences resulted in markedly enhanced revenue for each eligible patient in Hospital B compared with A (735 dollars versus 174 dollars) CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced collection by hospital B was a result of a higher charge, compulsive billing of all eligible patients, and emphasis on pre-admission designation of trauma patients. Effective billing and collection process related to trauma response fees results in substantial additional revenue for the trauma center without additional expense.     

Assessment of the status of resources for essential trauma care in Hanoi and Khanh Hoa, Vietnam

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization and the International Association for Trauma Surgery and Intensive Care have published the Guidelines for Essential Trauma Care. This provides recommendations for the human and physical resources needed to provide an adequate, essential level of trauma care services in countries at all economic levels worldwide. We sought to use this set of recommendations as a basis to assess the trauma care capabilities in two locations in Vietnam and thus to identify affordable and sustainable methods to strengthen trauma care nationwide. METHODS: A needs assessment tool was created that incorporated the recommendations of the Guidelines. This was used to conduct in-depth, onsite evaluations of 11 health care facilities in Hanoi and Khanh Hoa Province, including commune health stations, district hospitals, provincial hospitals, and a central hospital. RESULTS: Resources for trauma care were mostly adequate at provincial and central hospitals. There were several deficiencies at the district hospitals and especially at commune health stations. These included low level of trauma related training and shortages of supplies and equipment. In many cases these shortages were of low-cost items. However, in general, capabilities had improved compared with prior evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified several low-cost ways in which to strengthen trauma care in Vietnam. These include greater use of continuing education courses for trauma care and more attention to trauma related curriculum in schools of medicine and nursing. These also include defining and assuring the availability of a core set of essential trauma related equipment and supplies. A policy recommendation that follows from the above findings is the need for programs to strengthen the organization and planning for trauma care.     

Tertiary trauma care in a rural state

Trauma patients in rural areas usually have no access to regional trauma systems or designated trauma centers. Efforts to provide quality trauma care in small hospitals may seriously overextend local capabilities. The urban trauma center retains an important role in trauma care even when the initial care must be provided at the local level. Twenty-five trauma patients were transferred to University Hospital between 1985 and 1988 after definitive care was initiated in community hospitals. During the same time period, a total of 147 trauma patients were transferred to the trauma service. No information was available on the total incidence of trauma. Medical records were reviewed to determine the reasons for transfer. Major reasons included the need for further complex surgery, better critical care support, and inadequate blood banks. Trauma centers serving rural areas provide a valuable resource well beyond the initial 24 hours.     

Trauma center closure: effects on an adjacent trauma center

The effects of the closure of a busy trauma center on an adjacent university trauma hospital were analyzed. Significant increases were found in monthly volume (P less than .01) and frequency of penetrating injuries (P less than .05) and significant decreases in patients with insurance coverage (P less than .01) and numbers requiring intensive care (P less than .01). The authors conclude that trauma center closures have significant and measurable effects which influence allocation of scarce resources within remaining hospitals and generate pressures to transfer patients to overburdened public facilities. Transfers undermine continuity of care and education and further threaten the integrity of the trauma system.     

Fractures in access to and assessment of trauma systems

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a major public health problem and organized systems of trauma care have been shown to substantially reduce trauma-related mortality. Currently California and many other states have incompletely developed systems of trauma care delivery. This study was undertaken to determine how frequently patients incurring serious trauma in California receive treatment at a trauma center. STUDY DESIGN: Hospital discharge records for 360,743 acute trauma patients for 1995 to 1997 were analyzed. Abbreviated Injury Scale scores were calculated from discharge diagnosis codes. Severity of trauma and the need for trauma center treatment was defined by eight Abbreviated Injury Scale criteria combined with patient age and type of injury. RESULTS: According to study criteria, 67,718 patients needed trauma center care and 56% were treated at a trauma center. Among patients less than 55 years of age, 62% were treated at a trauma center compared with 40% of those aged 55 years or more (p < 0.0001). For patients less than 55 years old with brain injuries, 66% were treated at a trauma center compared with 44% for patients aged 55 years or more (p < 0.0001). Of the 29,849 patients who met Abbreviated Injury Scale criteria but were not treated at trauma centers, 59% were in counties with designated trauma centers and 41% were in counties without trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: Only 56% of seriously injured patients in California were treated at trauma centers, despite most of the injuries occurring in the catchment areas of designated trauma care systems. Substantial undertriage of serious trauma patients to trauma centers appears to be occurring, especially in older persons and in persons with brain injuries. Efforts to understand why undertriage is occurring so frequently are hampered by fragmentation of the systems of care, inadequate data management systems, and lack of trauma care performance reporting by non-trauma center hospitals.     

System compliance with out-of-hospital trauma triage criteria

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers are the initial link to a trauma care system. Previous studies have demonstrated poor compliance with trauma triage by EMS personnel. We sought to determine the proportion of adult EMS cases within a large state meeting Trauma Triage Criteria (TTC) who are ultimately cared for in trauma centers. METHODS: Merged EMS and hospital discharge records for 1996 were examined. All adult acute trauma cases were included. Single-system burns and late effects of injury were excluded. RESULTS: Nine thousand one hundred seventy-four adult cases had at least one TTC, and 60.1% of these patients were transported to a non-trauma center (NTC) and 74.6% of cases with an Injury Severity Score > 15 and one TTC were taken to trauma centers. Analyzing two large urban counties, 58.2% and 27.0% of all TTC cases were still taken to NTC hospitals. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of seriously injured patients meeting TTC were transported by EMS personnel to NTCs.     

Pediatric trauma registries: the foundation of quality care

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Traumatic injuries cause substantial morbidity and mortality in children. Trauma registries are essential to assess and improve standards of trauma care. An interprovincial study of pediatric trauma between 6 centers across Canada who use identical software components was completed. METHODS: Data were collected from April 1, 1995 to December 31, 1998 for children aged 1 day to 17 years with an injury severity score of > or = 12. Cause of injury, injury time and day, gender, age, injury scores, length of hospital stay, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1,276 patients were included. Mean age was 10.3 +/- 5.6 years. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common mechanism of injury (56%). Boys were more often injured (66%; P < .05). Injuries occurred mainly between 1600 and 2400 hours (P < .0001). Mean hospital stay was 11.5 +/- 16.6 days. The longest stays in the hospital were among those who had an abdominal abbreviated injury score (AIS) of 1 (P < or = .03). Patients with similar injury severities remained twice as long in Winnipeg Children's Hospital (hospital 5), hospital 2, and hospital 6 as compared with patients in hospital 3 (P < .05). Differences existed in discharge placement between hospitals (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study was the first to compare pediatric patients in multiple Canadian centers using identical trauma registries. Variations in length of stay and discharge placements between hospitals were identified. Further analysis of data in the registries may clarify these differences and serve as a foundation for hospitals to improve the quality of patient care.