Development of a unified national trauma center database, 2018

Increased Mortality in Patients Transferred to a Level 1 Trauma Center with Blunt and Penetrating Extremity Vascular Injuries

BACKGROUND

Trauma care depends on a complex transfer system to ensure timely and adequate management at major trauma centers. Patient outcomes depend on the reliability of triage in local or community hospitals and access to tertiary or quaternary trauma institutions. Patients with polytrauma, extremity trauma, or vascular injuries require multidisciplinary management at trauma hospitals. Our study investigated outcomes in this population at a level one trauma center in San Bernardino County, the largest geographic county in the contiguous United States.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with extremity trauma who presented to a single level 1 trauma center over 10 years. The cohort was divided into following two groups: 1. transferred from another medical center for a higher level of care or 2. those who directly presented. Overall, 19,417 patients were identified, with 15,317 patients presenting directly and 3,830 patients transferred from an outside hospital. Extremity of vascular injuries was observed in 268 patients. Demographic data were ascertained, including the injury severity score, mechanism of injury, response level, arrival method, tertiary center emergency department disposition, and presence of vascular injury in the upper or lower extremities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess patient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 268 patients with vascular injuries were analyzed, including 207 nontransferred and 61 transferred patients. In the univariate analysis, injury severity score means were compared at 11.4 in nontransferred patients versus 8.4 in transferred (P < 0.001), 50% of blunt injury in the nontransferred group, and 28% in the transferred group (P < 0.001); in-hospital mortality was 4% in nontransferred patients versus 28% in the transferred group (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that mortality is 8 times more likely if a patient with vascular extremity injuries is transferred from an outside hospital. A 10% mortality rate was observed in patients without blood transfusion within 4 hr of arrival to the trauma center and 3% mortality in transferred patients transfused blood.

CONCLUSIONS

Extremity trauma with vascular injury can be lethal if managed appropriately. Patients transferred to our level 1 trauma center had a substantial increase in mortality compared with nontransferred patients. Furthermore, the transfer distance was associated with increased mortality. Further research is required to address this vulnerable patient population.

Association between EMS Workforce Density and Population Health Outcomes in the U.S

BACKGROUND

The prehospital care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel is a critical component of the public health, public safety, and health care systems in the U.S.; however, the population-level value of EMS care is often overlooked. No studies have examined how the density of EMS personnel relates to population-level health outcomes. Our objectives were to examine the geographic distribution and density of EMS personnel in the U.S.; and quantify the association between EMS personnel density and population-level health outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of county-level EMS personnel density using estimates from the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians in nine states that require continuous national certification (Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.). Outcomes of interest included life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cardiac arrest mortality. We used quantile regression models to examine the association between a 10-person increase in EMS personnel density and each outcome at the 10th, 50th (median), and 90th percentiles, controlling for population characteristics and area health resources.

RESULTS

There were 356 counties included, with a mean EMS density of 223 EMS personnel per 100,000 population. Density was higher in rural compared to urban counties (247 versus 186 per 100,000 population; p = 0.001). In unadjusted models, there was a significant association between increase in EMS personnel density and an increase in life expectancy at each examined percentile (e.g., 50th percentile, increase of 52.9 days; 95% CI 40.2, 65.5; p < 0.001), decrease in all-cause mortality at each examined percentile, and decrease in cardiac arrest mortality at the 50th and 90th percentiles. These associations were not statistically significant in the adjusted models.

CONCLUSIONS

EMS personnel density differs between urban and rural areas, with higher density per population in rural areas. There were no statistically significant associations between EMS density and population-level health outcomes after controlling for population characteristics and other health resources. The best approach to quantifying the community-level value that EMS care may or may not provide remains unclear.