0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Reduced Mortality at a Community Hospital Trauma Center:  The Impact of Changing Trauma Level Designation From II to I FREE

Kristin Scarborough, BS; Denetta Sue Slone, MD; Phyllis Uribe, RN; Michael Craun, MD; Raphael Bar-Or, BS; David Bar-Or, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Trauma Research Department (Ms Scarborough, Mr Bar-Or, and Dr Bar-Or), Trauma Services (Drs Slone and Craun and Ms Uribe), and Emergency Department (Dr Bar-Or), Swedish Medical Center, Englewood, Colorado.


Arch Surg. 2008;143(1):22-27. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2007.2-b.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To determine if a change in trauma designation from level II (L2) to level I (L1) in the same institution reduces mortality.

Design, Setting, and Patients  A retrospective cohort study of all patients consecutively admitted to a community hospital trauma center.

Intervention  The upgrade to trauma L1 designation (January 1, 2003-March 31, 2007) (n = 7902) from trauma L2 designation (January 1, 1998-December 31, 2002) (n = 9511).

Main Outcome Measures  Adjusted overall mortality and adjusted mortality for severely injured patients, patients with complications, and patients with severe sites of injury.

Results  After adjusting for age, sex, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, hypotension on admission, respirations, and comorbidities, there was a significant decrease in overall mortality during L1 designation compared with L2 designation (2.50% vs 3.48%; P = .001). Severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score of ≥ 15) admitted during an L1 trauma designation had a significant reduction in mortality compared with patients admitted during an L2 designation (8.99% vs 14.11%; P < .001). Patients admitted during an L1 designation with a severe head, chest, or abdominal or pelvic injury diagnosis had a significant decrease in mortality (9.96% vs 14.51% [P = .005], 7.14% vs 11.27% [P = .01], and 6.76% vs 17.05% [P = .002], respectively), as did patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during their hospital stay (9.51% vs 26.87%; P = .02).

Conclusion  The significant reduction in mortality of trauma patients with severe or specific injuries after the change to a higher trauma level designation may justify direct triage of these patients to L1 facilities, when available.

Proper field triage is a critical feature of a good trauma system, and transport to appropriate facilities should optimize outcomes and use of resources.1 However, there is some disagreement about whether there is improved survival for patients admitted to higher-level trauma centers. Most studies reported improvements in survival andfunctional outcomes for level I (L1) trauma centers compared with lower-level centers25 and nontrauma centers.6,7 Others810 contend that there is no effect on mortality for patients triaged to an L1 center compared with a level II (L2) or lower trauma center.

The accreditation process by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) has been associated with improved outcomes.1114 The ACS verification for L1 and L2 status is associated with improved survival, presumably through the commitment to meet national guidelines and the establishment of a trauma program.

To our knowledge, there are no studies addressing the effect on mortality after changing ACS verification to a higher level within the same institution. A unique opportunity presented at Swedish Medical Center (SMC) to compare the effect of trauma designation and verification change from L2 to L1 on mortality. This study could help resolve the uncertainty about whether survival outcomes for comparable injuries are affected by trauma level. We hypothesized that a change to a higher trauma level designation would reduce mortality and that this potential improvement in survival would be putatively associated with staffing, protocol, and policy changes made during the L1 trauma designation.

PATIENT POPULATION

The SMC is a privately held community hospital serving the south side of the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area, with a historical commitment to trauma care. From January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, SMC was designated as an L2 trauma center and was upgraded to an L1 designation by the state of Colorado and to L1 verification by the ACS in 2002.

This study was a retrospective review of all consecutively admitted trauma patients at SMC between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 2007. Patients were considered traumatized if they were admitted by, or had a consultation with, a primary trauma surgeon (trauma L1 designation) or an on-call general surgeon (trauma L2 designation). Trauma patient records were prospectively collected and entered into a database (SMC Trauma Base) by a dedicated registrant. All patients who were entered into the database were included in the study; there were no exclusion criteria.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

For all analyses, the period from January 1, 2003, through March 31, 2007 (trauma L1 designation), was compared with the preceding period of January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2002 (trauma L2 designation). The outcome measure for the study was mortality, which was defined as alive at discharge. In addition to analyzing overall mortality, we examined mortality of severely injured patients, mortality for severe injury diagnoses by anatomical site, and mortality for specific complications.

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). For physiologic vital signs, established clinical definitions were used: hypotension on admission was defined as lower than 90 mm Hg (vs ≥90 mm Hg), and respirations were categorized into normal (10-29/min), low (<10/min), and high (>29/min).1 Univariate analyses were used to determine variables associated with mortality. χ2 Tests were performed on categorical variables, and 2-tailed t tests were performed on continuous variables. Variables were stratified using receiver operating characteristic curves. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was inconclusive for age, and stratification was determined by graphic analysis. Dichotomous variables included comorbidities (≤1 vs ≥2), hypotension on admission (<90 vs ≥90 mm Hg), mechanism of injury (blunt vs penetrating), and sex. The Injury Severity Score (ISS) was categorized into minor injuries (<15), severe injuries (15-24), and very severe injuries (≥25). Age was modeled as a continuous variable (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Swedish Medical Center Patient Demographics by Trauma Center Level

Three subanalyses examined the effect of injury severity, complications, and site of severe injury diagnoses. Severely injured patients included patients with an ISS of 15 or more. Complications were dichotomized as the presence or absence of the following: line sepsis or septicemia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute respiratory failure, pneumonia (aspiration or other), cardiac complications (major arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary edema), urinary tract infections (developed after hospital admission), thromboembolic disorders (deep vein thrombosis, thrombosis, and pulmonary embolus), and any complication. Sites of injury were dichotomized as diagnoses that included the following injury sites with an associated abbreviated injury scale score of 3 or more: head, chest, face, neck or spine; abdomen or pelvic contents; or the extremities (arm or leg).

Multivariate linear logistic regression models were used to determine whether trauma level was an independent predictor of mortality, and the effect of trauma level on mortality, stratified by injury severity, the presence of complications, and the inclusion of severe anatomical injury diagnoses. Covariates associated with mortality in the univariate analysis (P < .20) were included in the model. Odds ratios of less than 1.0 represent a reduction in mortality during L1 compared with L2. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

A total of 17 413 trauma patients were admitted between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 2007. Of these patients, 7902 (45.4%) were admitted and treated during L1, with statistically significant differences in patient demographics during L1 compared with L2: patients admitted during L1 were older, were more severely injured (ISS ≥ 15: 23.31% vs 19.07%; P < .001), and had fewer comorbidities; more patients were hypotensive on admission; and fewer patients had normal respirations on admission (Table 1).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on only complete data; patient records with missing response or explanatory variables were excluded from the analysis, and no attempt was made to substitute missing values for any patient records. There were 434 patient records deleted for patients without an ISS recorded, 4 patients had missing respiration and systolic blood pressure data, and 116 patients had a missing mechanism of injury. Excluded patient records were not statistically different when compared by level for mortality (P = .95). There were 16 879 patient records included for multivariate logistic regression analyses (96.9% of the total patient population).

OVERALL MORTALITY

From January 1998 through March 2007, the overall crude mortality was 3.69%, with 643 deaths of 17 413 patients. A χ2 test was computed for unadjusted mortality during L1 compared with L2 (Table 2), showing no significant decrease in mortality.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Adjusted and Unadjusted Mortality at SMC by Trauma Level Designation

A multivariate linear logistic regression was performed to examine the effect of trauma designation on mortality, adjusting for age, sex, ISS, hypotension on admission, mechanism of injury, respirations, and the presence of comorbidities. The adjusted mortalities and the adjusted odds ratios are presented in Table 2. After adjustment, there was a statistically significant overall decrease in mortality during L1 compared with L2.

PATIENTS WITH SEVERE TRAUMA

Trauma patients were considered severely injured if their ISSs were 15 or more. There were 3561 patients (20.45%) with severe injuries (n = 1775 for L1 and n = 1786 for L2). There were significantly more severely injured patients during L1 compared with L2 (23.31% vs 19.07%; P < .001). A χ2 test was computed for unadjusted mortality among severely injured patients during L1 compared with L2 (Table 2), showing no significant decrease in mortality. A multivariate linear logistic regression was performed and, after adjustment, there was a statistically significant decrease in mortality during L1 compared with L2.

PATIENTS WITH SEVERE INJURY BY ANATOMICAL SITE

The percentage of patients reporting with a site of injury diagnosis with an abbreviated injury scale score of 3 or more was statistically significantly higher during L1 compared with L2 for injury to the head, neck or spine, chest, face, and extremities (Table 1). All analyzed sites of injury were significantly associated with mortality.

χ2 Tests were computed for unadjusted mortality following injury to anatomical sites (Table 3). After adjustment, patients admitted with an included diagnosis of injury to the head, chest, or abdomen or pelvic contents had a significant reduction in mortality during L1 compared with those patients admitted during L2 (Table 3). The mortality of patients with a head injury decreased from 14.51% to 9.96%; for those with a chest injury, from 11.27% to 7.14%; and for those with an abdominal or pelvic injury, from 17.05% to 6.76%. The mortality data of patients with facial injuries, neck or spine injuries, or injuries to the extremities were statistically nonsignificant during L1 compared with L2.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Mortality for Site of Injury for Those With an AIS of 3 or More by Trauma Center Designation
COMPLICATIONS

There were significant differences for L1 compared with L2 for patients reporting with any complication, and specifically for those with a complication of thromboembolic disorders and urinary tract infections, with fewer reported during L1 (Table 4). All analyzed complications were significantly associated with mortality, except for urinary tract infections (P = .20).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Complications by Trauma Level Designation

χ2 Tests were computed for unadjusted mortality following development of complications (Table 5). Patients who developed ARDS (n = 130) had a significant reduction in mortality (Table 5). The adjusted mortality was reduced from 26.87% to 9.51% for L1 compared with L2 (Table 5). There were no significant differences observed for the other complications examined.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Mortality for Complications by Trauma Center Designation

To our knowledge, the effect on mortality after changing ACS verification or designation to a higher level has not previously been reported. This study has the unique advantage of comparing L1 with L2 trauma center outcomes within the same hospital, where the preceding period served as its own control after L1 designation. Our results indicate a significant reduction in adjusted mortality for severely injured patients (ISS of ≥ 15) and the subsets of patients presenting with severe injury diagnoses to the head, chest, and abdominal or pelvic contents treated at SMC during L1 trauma designation compared with the preceding years (L2 trauma designation).

This study suggests that modifying field triage protocols for traumatized patients for transfer to the appropriate trauma facility would improve survival. The number of patients needed to be treated at an L1 trauma center over an L2 trauma center to save 1 life is as follows: overall, 70 patients; ISS of 15 or more, 22 patients; head injury, 17 patients; chest injury, 20 patients; and abdominal or pelvic injury, 8 patients. In addition, every fourth patient who developed ARDS may have been saved had the patient been triaged to an L1 trauma center.

Similar to the findings reported by Demetriades et al,3 severely injured patients treated at L1 trauma centers have significantly reduced mortality vs those treated at L2 trauma centers. Demetriades et al found the overall mortality among severely injured patients to be 14.9% for L1 and 15.4% for L2 centers using the National Trauma Data Bank, which is not significantly different from the mortality in the present study (13.18% and 14.11%, respectively). These researchers discussed a difficulty in identifying the specific resources responsible for the reduced mortality rates at L1 trauma centers. Their analyses combined 45 L1 facilities and 39 L2 facilities whose length of ACS accreditation was not uniformly known and whose specific protocols, policies, and staffing criteria were also unknown; therefore, no meaningful conclusions could be drawn as to why L1 facilities were significantly better than L2 facilities. They concluded that attaining L1 ACS accreditation justified the financial and personnel commitments.

At SMC, several changes were implemented during L1 trauma designation that may collectively explain the reduction in mortality observed after the higher trauma designation was obtained. These changes can be divided into 3 broad categories: staffing, protocol, and policy changes.

Five changes in staffing were made after attaining L1 designation. First, the trauma service established a core group of dedicated trauma surgeons with critical care certification available in-house 24 hours a day. A dedicated core of trauma surgeons, as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma as “acute care surgeons,” committed and trained in trauma care, emergency surgery, and critical care has been demonstrated to significantly lower the mortality of traumatized patients within the same system.15 This group of trauma surgeons attended to, or consulted with, all of the admitted trauma patients. They were consecutively employed throughout the study period (January 1, 2003-March 31, 2007). Previously, the surgical staff consisted of general surgeons with critical care credentials who also cared for up to 15% of nontrauma private patients. Second, operating room nurses became available in-house 24 hours a day after ACS L1 accreditation, whereas the operating room nurses were on call during L2. Third, a unique and specialized medical trauma team that exclusively serves SMC was established. This team consults with trauma surgeons to treat less severely injured trauma patients presenting with comorbidities. Fourth, a dedicated subset of specialized intensive care unit nurses who care for critically injured trauma patients was established. This group of nurses requires additional continuing medical education in trauma. Last, there is a consistent rotation of medical students, emergency department residents, and general surgery residents during the L1 period compared with the L2 period. Their presence may be beneficial in 2 ways: teaching stimulates surgeons to remain up-to-date on current practices, and the addition of the students and residents at daily rounds allows for a larger group for education and discussion in daily care.16

Before L1 designation, there were several evidence-based trauma protocols in place; however, they were not consistently followed. The use of these protocols was at the discretion of the individual surgeon. The main protocol change that took place after attaining L1 designation was compliance to these evidence-based protocols. Validated protocols for ARDS, blunt aortic injury, chest tube management, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, insulin for glucose control, pelvic fracture care, and the factor VII protocol were consistently adhered to.

Three main policy changes that accompany the change in trauma designation to L1 include the following: (1) regularly scheduled trauma conferences for physicians, nurses, and basic science researchers; (2) an active basic science and clinical research program; and (3) a dedicated operating room for trauma surgery available 24 hours a day. Previous studies report that a full-time trauma service, consisting of a dedicated admitting unit, a trauma core curriculum, and quality assurance meetings, is associated with improved outcome.17

Mortality was significantly reduced for patients who developed ARDS during L1 compared with L2. This reduction in mortality is most likely associated with improved compliance of the ARDS protocols for low tidal volume18 and weaning from mechanical ventilation. In a recent study19 examining ARDS development among patients with a head injury, the proportion with ARDS or acute lung injury increased with the higher initial tidal volume settings in a dose-response relationship. Among our study population, the unadjusted mortality for patients with a head injury who developed ARDS differed significantly for L1 (after compliance to ARDS protocols) compared with L2 (9.30% [n = 4] vs 29.73% [n = 11]; P < .001). Acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of dying after severe head injury, and patients with a head injury have high rates (20%) of ARDS development.20 This finding warrants further studies examining whether the reduction in mortality among patients with a head injury is related to an improvement in survival for patients who developed ARDS.

There are several limitations to this study. This is a retrospective study; therefore, the database used for analysis was predetermined, and not all of the covariates that could be significantly associated with outcome were collected. For example, alternative measures to ISS could be better predictors of mortality, including the New ISS, the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), ISS, and the revised trauma score.2123 However, ISS was the severity score most consistently calculated at SMC. In addition, there were variables that we were unable to use because they were not routinely collected or recorded. These include scene and emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale scores, which were more consistently recorded after 2004. We are unaware of any systematic changes made to the variables we used in our analysis. Last, we included covariates previously associated with mortality following traumatic injury, but they may not represent a comprehensive list.2,3,57,2429

In conclusion, severely injured patients (ISS of ≥ 15) and patients with head, chest, and abdominal or pelvic content injuries treated during L1 had significantly reduced mortality compared with patients admitted and treated during L2; mortality was significantly reduced for patients who developed ARDS during L1 compared with L2. Larger multicenter studies, comparing mortality in urban trauma center settings, are necessary to conclude if the observations of this study can be generalized at a local and national level.

Correspondence: David Bar-Or, MD, Trauma Research Department, Swedish Medical Center, 501 E Hampden Ave, Room 4-454, Englewood, CO 80113 (dbaror@dmibio.com).

Accepted for Publication: August 25, 2007.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: D. Bar-Or. Acquisition of data: Uribe and Craun. Analysis and interpretation of data: Scarborough, Slone, and R. Bar-Or. Drafting of the manuscript: Scarborough, R. Bar-Or, and D. Bar-Or. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Slone, Uribe, Craun, and D. Bar-Or. Statistical analysis: Scarborough and R. Bar-Or. Administrative, technical, and material support: Slone, Uribe, and Craun. Study supervision: D. Bar-Or.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Additional Contributions: Karin Whinery provided access to, and initially formatted, the database (Trauma Base); the trauma coordinator staff, especially April Settell, RN, BSN, performed data collection.

 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient: 2006.  Chicago, IL American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma2006;1722
Demetriades  DMartin  MSalim  ARhee  PBrown  CChan  L The effect of trauma center designation and trauma volume on outcome in specific severe injuries. Ann Surg 2005;242 (4) 512- 517
PubMed
Demetriades  DMartin  MSalim  A  et al.  Relationship between American College of Surgeons trauma center designation and mortality in patients with severe trauma (Injury Severity Score > 15). J Am Coll Surg 2006;202 (2) 212- 215
PubMed Link to Article
Kreis  DJ  JrPlasencia  GAugenstein  D  et al.  Preventable trauma deaths: Dade County, Florida. J Trauma 1986;26 (7) 649- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Nirula  RBrasel  K Do trauma centers improve functional outcomes: a national trauma databank analysis? J Trauma 2006;61 (2) 268- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Cooper  DJMcDermott  FTCordner  SMTremayne  AB Quality assessment of the management of road traffic fatalities at a level I trauma center compared with other hospitals in Victoria, Australia: Consultative Committee on Road Traffic Fatalities in Victoria. J Trauma 1998;45 (4) 772- 779
PubMed Link to Article
MacKenzie  EJRivara  FPJurkovich  GJ  et al.  A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med 2006;354 (4) 366- 378
PubMed Link to Article
Clancy  TVGary Maxwell  JCovington  DLBrinker  CCBlackman  D A statewide analysis of level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 346- 351
PubMed Link to Article
Helling  TSMorse  GMcNabney  WK  et al. Midwest Trauma Society Liver Trauma Study Group, Treatment of liver injuries at level I and level II centers in a multi-institutional metropolitan trauma system. J Trauma 1997;42 (6) 1091- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Pasquale  MDPeitzman  ABBednarski  JWasser  TE Outcome analysis of Pennsylvania trauma centers: factors predictive of nonsurvival in seriously injured patients. J Trauma 2001;50 (3) 465- 472
PubMed Link to Article
Piontek  FACoscia  RMarselle  CSKorn  RLZarling  EJ Impact of American College of Surgeons verification on trauma outcomes. J Trauma 2003;54 (6) 1041- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
DiRusso  SHolly  CKamath  R  et al.  Preparation and achievement of American College of Surgeons level I trauma verification raises hospital performance and improves patient outcome. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 294- 299
PubMed Link to Article
Simons  RKasic  SKirkpatrick  AVertesi  LPhang  TAppleton  L Relative importance of designation and accreditation of trauma centers during evolution of a regional trauma system. J Trauma 2002;52 (5) 827- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Norwood  SFernandez  LEngland  J The early effects of implementing American College of Surgeons level II criteria on transfer and survival rates at a rurally based community hospital. J Trauma 1995;39 (2) 240- 244
PubMed Link to Article
Haut  ERChang  DCEfron  DTCornwell  EE  III Injured patients have lower mortality when treated by “full-time” trauma surgeons vs surgeons who cover trauma “part-time.” J Trauma 2006;61 (2) 272- 278
PubMed Link to Article
Arbabi  SJurkovich  GJRivara  FP  et al.  Patient outcomes in academic medical centers: influence of fellowship programs and in-house on-call attending surgeon. Arch Surg 2003;138 (1) 47- 51
PubMed Link to Article
Cornwell  EE  IIIChang  DCPhillips  JCampbell  KA Enhanced trauma program commitment at a level I trauma center: effect on the process and outcome of care. Arch Surg 2003;138 (8) 838- 843
PubMed Link to Article
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342 (18) 1301- 1308
PubMed Link to Article
Mascia  LZavala  EBosma  K  et al. Brain IT Group, High tidal volume is associated with the development of acute lung injury after severe brain injury: an international observational study. Crit Care Med 2007;35 (8) 1815- 1820
PubMed Link to Article
Contant  CFValadka  ABGopinath  SPHannay  HJRobertson  CS Adult respiratory distress syndrome: a complication of induced hypertension after severe head injury. J Neurosurg 2001;95 (4) 560- 568
PubMed Link to Article
Lavoie  AMoore  LLeSage  NLiberman  MSampalis  JS The New Injury Severity Score: a more accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality than the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma 2004;56 (6) 1312- 1320
PubMed Link to Article
Moore  LLavoie  AAbdous  B  et al.  Unification of the revised trauma score. J Trauma 2006;61 (3) 718- 722
PubMed Link to Article
Osler  TRutledge  RDeis  JBedrick  E ICISS: an International Classification of Disease-9 based Injury Severity Score. J Trauma 1996;41 (3) 380- 386
PubMed Link to Article
Bergeron  ERossignol  MOsler  TClas  DLavoie  A Improving the TRISS methodology by restructuring age categories and adding comorbidities. J Trauma 2004;56 (4) 760- 767
PubMed Link to Article
Bochicchio  GVJoshi  MBochicchio  KShih  DMeyer  WScalea  TM Incidence and impact of risk factors in critically ill trauma patients. World J Surg 2006;30 (1) 114- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Gabbe  BJCameron  PAWolfe  RSimpson  PSmith  KLMcNeil  JJ Predictors of mortality, length of stay and discharge destination in blunt trauma. ANZ J Surg 2005;75 (8) 650- 656
PubMed Link to Article
Morris  JA  JrMacKenzie  EJEdelstein  SL The effect of preexisting conditions on mortality in trauma patients. JAMA 1990;263 (14) 1942- 1946
PubMed Link to Article
Shen  LYHelmer  SDHuang  JNiyakorn  GSmith  RS “Shift work” improves survival and reduces intensive care unit use in seriously injured patients. Am Surg 2007;73 (2) 185- 191
PubMed
Guzzo  JLBochicchio  GVNapolitano  LMMalone  DLMeyer  WScalea  TM Prediction of outcomes in trauma: anatomic or physiologic parameters? J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (6) 891- 897
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Swedish Medical Center Patient Demographics by Trauma Center Level
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Adjusted and Unadjusted Mortality at SMC by Trauma Level Designation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Mortality for Site of Injury for Those With an AIS of 3 or More by Trauma Center Designation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Complications by Trauma Level Designation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Mortality for Complications by Trauma Center Designation

References

 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient: 2006.  Chicago, IL American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma2006;1722
Demetriades  DMartin  MSalim  ARhee  PBrown  CChan  L The effect of trauma center designation and trauma volume on outcome in specific severe injuries. Ann Surg 2005;242 (4) 512- 517
PubMed
Demetriades  DMartin  MSalim  A  et al.  Relationship between American College of Surgeons trauma center designation and mortality in patients with severe trauma (Injury Severity Score > 15). J Am Coll Surg 2006;202 (2) 212- 215
PubMed Link to Article
Kreis  DJ  JrPlasencia  GAugenstein  D  et al.  Preventable trauma deaths: Dade County, Florida. J Trauma 1986;26 (7) 649- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Nirula  RBrasel  K Do trauma centers improve functional outcomes: a national trauma databank analysis? J Trauma 2006;61 (2) 268- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Cooper  DJMcDermott  FTCordner  SMTremayne  AB Quality assessment of the management of road traffic fatalities at a level I trauma center compared with other hospitals in Victoria, Australia: Consultative Committee on Road Traffic Fatalities in Victoria. J Trauma 1998;45 (4) 772- 779
PubMed Link to Article
MacKenzie  EJRivara  FPJurkovich  GJ  et al.  A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med 2006;354 (4) 366- 378
PubMed Link to Article
Clancy  TVGary Maxwell  JCovington  DLBrinker  CCBlackman  D A statewide analysis of level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 346- 351
PubMed Link to Article
Helling  TSMorse  GMcNabney  WK  et al. Midwest Trauma Society Liver Trauma Study Group, Treatment of liver injuries at level I and level II centers in a multi-institutional metropolitan trauma system. J Trauma 1997;42 (6) 1091- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Pasquale  MDPeitzman  ABBednarski  JWasser  TE Outcome analysis of Pennsylvania trauma centers: factors predictive of nonsurvival in seriously injured patients. J Trauma 2001;50 (3) 465- 472
PubMed Link to Article
Piontek  FACoscia  RMarselle  CSKorn  RLZarling  EJ Impact of American College of Surgeons verification on trauma outcomes. J Trauma 2003;54 (6) 1041- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
DiRusso  SHolly  CKamath  R  et al.  Preparation and achievement of American College of Surgeons level I trauma verification raises hospital performance and improves patient outcome. J Trauma 2001;51 (2) 294- 299
PubMed Link to Article
Simons  RKasic  SKirkpatrick  AVertesi  LPhang  TAppleton  L Relative importance of designation and accreditation of trauma centers during evolution of a regional trauma system. J Trauma 2002;52 (5) 827- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Norwood  SFernandez  LEngland  J The early effects of implementing American College of Surgeons level II criteria on transfer and survival rates at a rurally based community hospital. J Trauma 1995;39 (2) 240- 244
PubMed Link to Article
Haut  ERChang  DCEfron  DTCornwell  EE  III Injured patients have lower mortality when treated by “full-time” trauma surgeons vs surgeons who cover trauma “part-time.” J Trauma 2006;61 (2) 272- 278
PubMed Link to Article
Arbabi  SJurkovich  GJRivara  FP  et al.  Patient outcomes in academic medical centers: influence of fellowship programs and in-house on-call attending surgeon. Arch Surg 2003;138 (1) 47- 51
PubMed Link to Article
Cornwell  EE  IIIChang  DCPhillips  JCampbell  KA Enhanced trauma program commitment at a level I trauma center: effect on the process and outcome of care. Arch Surg 2003;138 (8) 838- 843
PubMed Link to Article
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342 (18) 1301- 1308
PubMed Link to Article
Mascia  LZavala  EBosma  K  et al. Brain IT Group, High tidal volume is associated with the development of acute lung injury after severe brain injury: an international observational study. Crit Care Med 2007;35 (8) 1815- 1820
PubMed Link to Article
Contant  CFValadka  ABGopinath  SPHannay  HJRobertson  CS Adult respiratory distress syndrome: a complication of induced hypertension after severe head injury. J Neurosurg 2001;95 (4) 560- 568
PubMed Link to Article
Lavoie  AMoore  LLeSage  NLiberman  MSampalis  JS The New Injury Severity Score: a more accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality than the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma 2004;56 (6) 1312- 1320
PubMed Link to Article
Moore  LLavoie  AAbdous  B  et al.  Unification of the revised trauma score. J Trauma 2006;61 (3) 718- 722
PubMed Link to Article
Osler  TRutledge  RDeis  JBedrick  E ICISS: an International Classification of Disease-9 based Injury Severity Score. J Trauma 1996;41 (3) 380- 386
PubMed Link to Article
Bergeron  ERossignol  MOsler  TClas  DLavoie  A Improving the TRISS methodology by restructuring age categories and adding comorbidities. J Trauma 2004;56 (4) 760- 767
PubMed Link to Article
Bochicchio  GVJoshi  MBochicchio  KShih  DMeyer  WScalea  TM Incidence and impact of risk factors in critically ill trauma patients. World J Surg 2006;30 (1) 114- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Gabbe  BJCameron  PAWolfe  RSimpson  PSmith  KLMcNeil  JJ Predictors of mortality, length of stay and discharge destination in blunt trauma. ANZ J Surg 2005;75 (8) 650- 656
PubMed Link to Article
Morris  JA  JrMacKenzie  EJEdelstein  SL The effect of preexisting conditions on mortality in trauma patients. JAMA 1990;263 (14) 1942- 1946
PubMed Link to Article
Shen  LYHelmer  SDHuang  JNiyakorn  GSmith  RS “Shift work” improves survival and reduces intensive care unit use in seriously injured patients. Am Surg 2007;73 (2) 185- 191
PubMed
Guzzo  JLBochicchio  GVNapolitano  LMMalone  DLMeyer  WScalea  TM Prediction of outcomes in trauma: anatomic or physiologic parameters? J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (6) 891- 897
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 18

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles