Development of a Unified National Database of Burn Centers with Co-located Emergency Departments, 2020

Development of the national injury resource database (NIRD)

INTRODUCTION

Lack of an accurate, publicly available database of burn/trauma resources creates challenges in providing burn care. In response to this gap, our group developed the National Injury Resource Database (NIRD), a comprehensive database of all US burn centers (BC) and trauma centers (TC) and their capabilities.

METHODS

Lists of all national BC and TC were obtained from the American Burn Association (ABA), the American College of Surgeons, and every state department of health. Data was cross-checked and included BC/TC were linked with a 7-digit identification number using the American Hospital Association Quick Search guide. Each center's resources and verification status were validated with electronic or telephonic communications.

RESULTS

The final database includes 135 BC and 617 TC, of which 18 are BC-only, 500 are TC-only, and 117 are combined BC/TC. ABA-verified BC (n = 76) are only found in Washington DC and 31 states, and 8 states have no BC. In the last 10 years, a net increase of 7 burn centers was found nationally. The ABA's online BC directory is outdated.

CONCLUSIONS

NIRD represents the only up-to-date, comprehensive listing of BC and TC in existence. It categorizes all currently operating BC and TC across myriad classifications of designation and capabilities.

Hospital-Level Implementation Barriers, Facilitators, and Willingness to Use a New Regional Disaster Teleconsultation System: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

The Region 1 Disaster Health Response System project is developing new telehealth capabilities to provide rapid, temporary access to clinical experts across US jurisdictions to support regional disaster health response.

OBJECTIVE

To guide future implementation, we identified hospital-level barriers, facilitators, and willingness to use a novel regional peer-to-peer disaster teleconsultation system for disaster health response.

METHODS

We used the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA database to identify all 189 hospital-based and freestanding emergency departments (EDs) in New England states. We digitally or telephonically surveyed emergency managers regarding notification systems used for large-scale no-notice emergency events, access to consultants in 6 disaster-relevant specialties, disaster credentialing requirements before system use, reliability and redundancy of internet or cellular service, and willingness to use a disaster teleconsultation system. We examined state-wise hospital and ED disaster response capability.

RESULTS

Overall, 164 (87%) hospitals and EDs responded-126 (77%) completed telephone surveys. Most (n=148, 90%) receive emergency notifications from state-based systems. Forty (24%) hospitals and EDs lacked access to burn specialists; toxicologists, 30 (18%); radiation specialists, 25 (15%); and trauma specialists, 20 (12%). Among critical access hospitals (CAHs) or EDs with <10,000 annual visits (n=36), 92% received routine nondisaster telehealth services but lacked toxicologist (25%), burn (22%), and radiation (17%) specialist access. Most hospitals and EDs (n=115, 70%) require disaster credentialing of teleconsultants before system use. Among 113 hospitals and EDs with written disaster credentialing procedures, 28% expected completing disaster credentialing within 24 hours, and 55% within 25-72 hours, which varied by state. Most (n=154, 94%) reported adequate internet or cellular service for video-streaming; 81% maintained cellular service despite internet disruption. Fewer rural hospitals and EDs reported reliable internet or cellular service (19/22, 86% vs 135/142, 95%) and ability to maintain cellular service with internet disruption (11/19, 58% vs 113/135, 84%) than urban hospitals and EDs. Overall, 133 (81%) were somewhat or very likely to use a regional disaster teleconsultation system. Large-volume EDs (annual visits ≥40,000) were less likely to use the service than smaller ones; all CAHs and nearly all rural hospitals or freestanding EDs were likely to use disaster consultation services. Among hospitals and EDs somewhat or very unlikely to use the system (n=26), sufficient consultant access (69%) and reluctance to use new technology or systems (27%) were common barriers. Potential delays (19%), liability (19%), privacy (15%), and hospital information system security restrictions (15%) were infrequent concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Most New England hospitals and EDs have access to state emergency notification systems, telecommunication infrastructure, and willingness to use a new regional disaster teleconsultation system. System developers should focus on ways to improve telecommunication redundancy in rural areas and use low-bandwidth technology to maintain service availability to CAHs and rural hospitals and EDs. Policies and procedures to accelerate and standardize disaster credentialing are needed for implementation across jurisdictions.

Development of a unified national trauma center database, 2018

OBJECTIVE

Trauma center certifications across the United States (U.S.) are not unified. Participation in the national trauma certification program established through the American College of Surgeons (ACS) is not universal, and many states maintain unique trauma certification systems with varying criteria. We investigated degree of similarity between the ACS national trauma certification program and state trauma certifications, then combined these distinct certifications into a unified national trauma center database.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of all non-specialty, non-federal emergency U.S. departments (EDs) open in 2018 to determine availability and levels of trauma centers. We created a "Standard" definition of trauma levels using ACS criteria as a benchmark. ACS similar trauma levels were then assigned to state levels I-III by comparing trauma receiving protocol, maximum response times, and general surgical coverage; through this process, levels across distinct systems established through different criteria were standardized.

RESULTS

In 2018, ACS certifications spanned 47 states and DC; 3 states did not participate in ACS (Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington). A distinct, non-ACS state certification system was present in 47 states and DC; 3 states had no ongoing state certification system in 2018 (Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Among 5,514 US EDs open in 2018, we identified 2,132 associated with adult and pediatric trauma centers (39%) holding certification (ACS, state, or both); 1,083 (51%) were certified levels I-III, and the rest (1,049, 49%) were levels IV-V. Of the 1,083 centers with any level I-III certification, 498 (46%) held ACS certification, and 1,059 (98%) held state certification. Applying ACS-similar criteria to centers with state levels I-III (n=1,059) resulted in a level change for 124 centers (12%). Using our "Standard" definition of a trauma level based on ACS criteria, our unified level I-III database included 959 (89%) adult and pediatric centers, with 24 (3%) ACS-certified only, 461 (48%) state-certified only, and 474 (49%) certified by both.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies exist between ACS and state trauma certification systems. The differences in level I-III state criteria confirm discrepant standards for a given trauma "level" across the U.S. We combined these certifications into a unified national trauma center database available to researchers and the public.