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: 4.93). 01/2011; 146(1):46-52. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.299
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Yu-Chu Shen,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proximal femoral fractures are common in the elderly. The best care depends on expeditious presentation, medical stabilization, and treatment of the condition. We investigated the risk of increased mortality in residents of rural communities secondary to inaccessible facilities and treatment delays. We used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Part A data to identify 338,092 patients with hip fractures. Each patient was categorized as residing in urban, large rural, or small rural areas. We compared the distance traveled, mortality rates, time from admission to surgery, and length of stay for patients residing in each location. Patients in rural areas traveled substantially farther to reach their treating facility than did urban patients: mean, 34.4 miles for small rural, 14.5 miles for large rural, and 9.3 miles for urban. The adjusted odds ratios for mortality were similar but slightly better for urban patients for in-hospital mortality (small rural odds ratio, 1.05; large rural odds ratio, 1.13). Rural patients had a favorable adjusted odds ratio for 1-year mortality when compared with urban patients (small rural odds ratio, 0.93; large rural odds ratio, 0.96). Rural patients experienced no greater delay in time to surgery or longer hospital length of stay. Although patients living in rural areas traveled a greater distance than those living in urban centers, we found no increase in time to surgery, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 10/2011; 470(6):1763-70. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-2140-3 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on equitable care is the least studied of the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Inequities in access and treatment throughout the health care system are well documented in all fields of medicine. While there is little evidence demonstrating that inequity is worsened by crowding, theory and evidence from social science disciplines, as well as known barriers to care for vulnerable populations, would suggest that crowding will worsen inequities. To design successful interventions, however, it is important to first understand how crowding can result in disparities and base interventions on these mechanisms. A research agenda is proposed to understand mechanisms that may threaten equity during periods of crowding and design and test potential interventions that may ensure the equitable aspect of quality of care.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 12/2011; 18(12):1318-23. DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01233.x · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States and many other countries, there has been limited attempt to develop a trauma system that addresses the unique trauma situations that occur in rural areas. Rather the planners have attempted to simply extend the urban based trauma system into rural communities. This extension does not address the needs of the majority of patients who are injured in rural communities. A review of the types of patients seen in the rural communities, the volume of these patients and the destination protocols used in the rural communities as taught by the ACS/ATLS and the implications of the CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage were reviewed, assessed and compared to the needs in the rural areas for a rural trauma system. In addition, a quality assessment tool was used from a major trauma centre whereby the frequency of patients transported to the centre that were inappropriate for the trauma centre was indicated by the volume that were discharged in 6 h. Most of the patients injured in the rural communities can be treated in the critical access and rural hospital (> 90 per cent) and can be provided with good care without the need for emergency medical service (EMS) transportation long distances to the trauma centre, inappropriate use of air EMS vehicles thus circumventing families having to travel long distances to see patients, incurring expense and inconvenience, and avoiding loss of revenue to the local hospitals and the overload of urban trauma centres. Rather triage criteria can be taught as per the EMS systems, training given to rural hospital personnel, hospital administrators instructed as to the benefit of such a system, citizens educated as to the advantage of keeping their loved ones closer to home and trauma system registries used to enhance the correct use of the trauma system. Only 5-10 per cent of trauma injuries require the resources of a trauma centre. Proper triage and medical provider education can be used for the benefit of the patient, the EMS system, the rural and urban hospital, and proper quality assurance to assure that the 'right patient is treated at the right hospital at the right time', for the benefit of the patient.
    British Journal of Surgery 03/2012; 99(3):309-14. DOI:10.1002/bjs.7734 · 5.54 Impact Factor
Show more