Possible Geographical Barriers to Trauma Center Access for Vulnerable Patients in the United States An Analysis of Urban and Rural Communities

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 94110, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.3). 01/2011; 146(1):46-52. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.299
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To study whether traditionally vulnerable populations have worse geographic access to trauma centers.
A cross-sectional analysis using data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey from 2005 linked with zip code-level data from the US Census. We used a multinomial logit model to examine the odds of having difficult as opposed to easy access to trauma centers for a given subgroup of vulnerable populations.
Population in rural and urban communities as defined by zip codes in the United States.
Each community's distance to the nearest trauma center (levels I-III).
In urban areas, 67% of the population had easy access to trauma centers and 12% had difficult access compared with 24% and 31% in rural areas, respectively. Areas with higher shares of the following vulnerable population groups had higher risks (odds ratios) of facing difficult access to trauma center services in 2005: foreign born in urban areas (1.65 for a medium share and 2.18 for a high share [both P < .01]); African American in urban and rural areas (1.25 for a medium share and 1.35 for a high share, respectively [both P < .05]); and near-poor in urban and rural areas (1.52 [P < .05] and 1.69 [P < .01] for a high share, respectively).
A significant segment of the US population (representing 38.4 million people) does not have access to trauma care within 1 hour of driving time. Moreover, certain vulnerable groups are at higher risk than others for worse access to trauma centers. Stakeholders and health care planners should consider these factors in the development of trauma systems because a mismatch of potential need and access could signal inefficiencies in the delivery of care.


Available from: Yu-Chu Shen, Jun 05, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Injury surveillance is critical in identifying the need for targeted prevention initiatives. Understanding the geographic distribution of injuries facilitates matching prevention programs with the population most likely to benefit. At the population level, however, the geographic site of injury is rarely known, leading to the use of location of residence as a surrogate. To determine the accuracy of this approach, we evaluated the relationship between the site of injury and of residence over a large geographic area. Data were derived from a population-based, prehospital registry of persons meeting triage criteria for major trauma. Patients dying at the scene or transported to the hospital were included. Distance between locations of residence and of injury was calculated using geographic information system network analysis. Among 3,280 patients (2005-2010), 88% were injured within 10 miles of home (median, 0.2 miles). There were significant differences in distance between residence and location of injury based on mechanism of injury, age, and hospital disposition. The large majority of injuries involving children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists, falls, and assaults occurred less than 10 miles from the patient's residence. Only 77% of motor vehicle collision occurred within 10 miles of the patient's residence. Although the majority of patients are injured less than 10 miles from their residence, the probability of injury occurring "close to home" depends on patient and injury characteristics. Epidemiologic study, level III.
    04/2015; 78(4):860-5. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000595
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Trauma centers are associated with improved survival rates and outcomes in trauma patients. In 2000 our hospital officially became a level I trauma center. The implementation of the trauma center model showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospital length of stay in our hospital and throughout the trauma region. The aim of the present prospective database study was to present the outcomes of patients treated during the course of further maturation of a level I trauma center. METHODS: We performed the prospective database study and included and analyzed outcome data for all adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma center during the years 2003 through 2006 (period 1) and 2007 through 2010 (period 2). RESULTS: A total of 5,299 patients were included; 2,419 in period 1 and 2,880 in period 2. Mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) increased from 12.6 to 13.8 (p < 0.001). Mean Revised Trauma Score decreased from 7.4 to 7.2 (p < 0.001). Penetrating injuries increased from 111 (4.6 %) to 192 (6.7 %) (p < 0.001). More head injuries (+7.2 %) and spine injuries (+3.1 %), and fewer injuries to extremities (-6.5 %) were seen in the second period. Mortality, adjusted for age and ISS, was lower in period 2 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.736, p = 0.010). Adjusted for age, ISS, and survival, both the hospital stay and the intensive care unit stay were shortened (OR: 1.068, p < 0.018; OR: 1.188, p = 0.007). Mean probability of survival was significantly higher in the second period. Moreover, more unexpected survivors were seen in the second period (Z-score of 3.4 and W-value of 1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Maturation of the trauma center and the trauma system resulted in improved patient outcomes. A significant increase in unexpected survivors was noted, and shorter hospital stay and ICU stay were achieved. Of note, population-based studies on trauma system and trauma center performance with statistical analysis by logistic regression are considered strong class III evidence.
    World Journal of Surgery 05/2013; 37(10). DOI:10.1007/s00268-013-2103-9 · 2.35 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater, who are indirectly transported from the scene of injury to a nontrauma center can experience delays to definitive neurosurgical management. Transport to a hospital with appropriate initial emergency department treatment and rapid admission has been shown to reduce mortality in a state's trauma system. This study was conducted to see if the same finding holds with a nationally representative sample of patients with severe TBI seen at Level I and II trauma centers. This study is based on adult (≥18 years), severe TBI patients treated in a nationally representative sample of Level I and II trauma centers, submitting data to the National Trauma Databank National Sample Program from 2007 to 2009. We analyzed independent variables including age, sex, primary payer, race, ethnicity, mode of transport, injury type (blunt vs. penetrating), mechanism of injury, trauma center level, head AIS, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and systolic blood pressure by transfer status. The primary outcome variable was inpatient death, with discharge disposition, neurosurgical procedures, and mean hospital, intensive care unit, and ventilator days serving as secondary outcomes. After exclusion criteria were applied (ISS < 16; age < 18 years; GCS motor score = 6; non-head AIS score ≥ 3; head AIS < 3; patients with missing transfer status, and death on arrival), a weighted sample of 51,300 (16%) patients was eligible for analysis. In bivariate analyses, transferred patients were older (≥60 years), white, insured, less severely injured (head AIS score ≤ 4, ISS ≤ 25), and less likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (p < 0.001). After controlling for all variables, direct transport, 1 or more comorbidities, advanced age, head AIS score, intracranial hemorrhage, and firearm injury remained significant predictors of death. Being transferred (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96) lowered the risk of death. Patients with severe TBI who were transferred to a Level I or II trauma center had lower injury severity, including less penetrating trauma, and, as a result, were less likely to die compared with patients who were directly admitted to a Level I or II trauma center. The results may demonstrate adherence with the current Guidelines for Prehospital Management of Traumatic Brain Injury and Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients, which recommend the direct transport of patients with severe TBI to the highest level trauma center. Patients with severe TBI who cannot be taken to a trauma center should be stabilized at a nontrauma center and then transferred to a Level I or II trauma center. Regional and national trauma databases should consider collecting information on patient outcomes at referral facilities and total transport time after injury, to better address the outcomes of patient triage decisions. Prognostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.
    12/2012; 73(6):1489-97. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182782675