No abstract

No abstract

Trauma centers are inconsistently distributed throughout the United States. It is unclear if new trauma centers improve care and decrease mortality. We tested the hypothesis that increases in trauma centers are associated with decreases in injury-related mortality (IRM) at the state level. METHODS:We used data from the American Trauma Society to geolocate every state-designated or American College of Surgeons-verified trauma center in all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2014 to 2018. These data were merged with publicly available IRM data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We used geographic information systems methods to map and study the relationships between trauma center locations and state-level IRM over time. Regression analysis, accounting for state-level fixed effects, was used to calculate the effect of total statewide number of trauma center on IRM and year-to-year changes in statewide trauma center with the IRM (shown as deaths per additional trauma center per 100,000 population, p value). RESULTS:Nationwide between 2014 and 2018, the number of trauma center increased from 2,039 to 2,153. Injury-related mortality also increased over time. There was notable interstate variation, from 1 to 284 trauma centers. Four patterns in statewide trauma center changes emerged: static ( 12), increased (29), decreased (5), or variable (4). Of states with trauma center increases, 26 (90%) had increased IRM between 2014 and 2017, while the remaining 3 saw a decline. Regression analysis demonstrated that having more trauma centers in a state was associated with a significantly higher IRM rate (0.38, p = 0.03); adding new trauma centers was not associated with changes in IRM (0.02, p = 0.8). CONCLUSION:Having more trauma centers and increasing the number of trauma center within a state are not associated with decreases in state-level IRM. In this case, more is not better. However, more work is needed to identify the optimal number and location of trauma centers to improve IRM.

BACKGROUND Trauma patients are often noted to have poor compliance but high recidivism and readmission rates. Participation in a trauma recovery services (TRS) program, which provides peer support and other psychosocial resources, may impact the trajectory of patient recovery by decreasing barriers to follow-up. We hypothesized that TRS participants would have greater downstream nonemergent use of our hospital system over the year following trauma, manifested by more positive encounters, fewer negative encounters, and lower emergency department (ED) charges. METHODS We studied trauma survivors (March 2017 to March 2018) offered TRS. Hospital encounters and charges 1 year from index admission were compared between patients who accepted and declined TRS. Positive encounters were defined as outpatient visits and planned admissions; negative encounters were defined as no shows, ED visits, and unplanned admissions. Charges were grouped as cumulative ED and non-ED charges (including outpatient and subsequent admission charges). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with positive/negative encounters and ED charges. RESULTS Of 511 identified patients (68% male; injury severity score, 14 [9–19]), 362 (71%) accepted TRS. Trauma recovery services patients were older, had higher injury severity, and longer index admission length of stay (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, TRS patients were more likely to have at least one positive encounter and were similarly likely to have negative encounters as patients who declined services. Total aggregate charges for this group was US $74 million, of which US $30 million occurred downstream of the index admission. Accepting TRS was associated with lower ED charges. CONCLUSION A comprehensive TRS program including education, peer mentors, and a support network may provide value to the patient and the health care system by reducing subsequent care provided by the ED in the year after a trauma without affecting nonemergent care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/care management, level IV.