Two major hospitals can share level I status in a rural community setting

Joint programmes in paediatric cardiothoracic surgery: a survey and descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Joint programmes, as opposed to regionalisation of paediatric cardiac care, may improve outcomes while preserving accessibility. We determined the prevalence and nature of joint programmes.

METHODS

We sent an online survey to 125 paediatric cardiac surgeons in the United States in November, 2009 querying the past or present existence of a joint programme, its mission, structure, function, and perceived success.

RESULTS

A total of 65 surgeon responses from 65 institutions met the criteria for inclusion. Of the 65 institutions, 22 currently or previously conducted a joint programme. Compared with primary institutions, partner institutions were less often children's hospitals (p = 0.0004), had fewer paediatric beds (p = 0.005), and performed fewer cardiac cases (p = 0.03). Approximately 47% of partner hospitals performed fewer than 50 cases per year. The median distance range between hospitals was 41-60 miles, ranging from 5 to 1000 miles. Approximately 54% of partner hospitals had no surgeon working primarily on-site, and 31% of the programmes conducted joint conferences. Approximately 67% of the programmes limited the complexity of cases at the partner hospital, and 83% of the programmes had formal contracts between hospitals. Of the six programmes whose main mission was to increase referrals to the primary hospital, three were felt to have failed. Of the nine programmes whose mission was to increase regional quality, eight were felt to be successful.

CONCLUSION

Joint programmes in paediatric cardiac surgery are common but are heterogeneous in structure and function. Programmes whose mission is to improve the quality of regional care seem more likely to succeed. Joint programmes may be a practical alternative to regionalisation to achieve better outcomes.

Two hospitals with 1 trauma system: a joint approach to the care of the injured patient

BACKGROUND

Trauma centers are closing at an alarming rate, but the need for trauma care persists. This article shows the sustainability and feasibility of a joint trauma system whereby 2 university-affiliated hospitals function as a single trauma center system in a moderate-sized city.

METHODS

Since 1994, 3 days per week, trauma patients are transported by emergency medical services (EMS) to hospital A. The other 4 days they are transported to hospital B. Trauma registry data from 1994 to 2008 were analyzed. Cost data were also examined.

RESULTS

The joint system admitted 28,338 trauma patients. On each center's nontrauma days, trauma team activation was required infrequently. The 2 centers share costs; they perform joint outreach, educational training, and quality control. The joint trauma system has been sustained since 1994.

CONCLUSIONS

Two hospitals functioning as a single trauma center system is a viable model of care for injured patients in a moderate-sized city with mostly blunt trauma.