Culica Dan, Aday Lu Ann
Health Research and Educational Trust, American Hospital Association, One North Franklin, Chicago, IL, USA.
Public Health. 2008 Mar;122(3):285-96. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.06.020. Epub 2007 Oct 24.
The main aim of this study was to contrast the variation in mortality between trauma centres (TCs) and non-trauma hospitals (NTHs) in Texas, and among TCs by sociodemographic and economic factors of trauma cases.
Difference in fatality due to trauma by hospital type was studied for all injured cases hospitalized over a 2-year period.
The outcome measure was mortality following an injury for cases that survived the impact and were treated in any hospital. Logistic regressions were employed to compare the risk factors associated with trauma fatalities between TCs and NTHs, and among TCs.
The risk of dying at a TC in contrast to an NTH was higher among young adult males and cases admitted through the emergency department/room. In rural areas, fatality was higher among 25-44 year olds, Hispanics, uninsured patients, and cases admitted through transfer. In urban settings, fatality was higher among 18-24 year olds, patients covered by 'other' insurance, and cases admitted as severe emergencies. Increased mortality at Level I TCs occurred due to the transfer of patients from rural areas. Blacks and Hispanics in rural areas were more likely to die, while Hispanics had lower fatality in Level I TCs in urban areas. Survival time was longer for patients treated in urban TCs compared with rural TCs.
In the absence of validated data about severity of cases and type of injury, and details about the treatment provided to trauma cases in this study, more investigation is needed into the case-mix of trauma patients admitted to TCs and NTHs. Further exploration is necessary for better co-ordination of the emergency care response to integrate NTHs within the trauma system and alleviate the stress placed on Level I TCs. Revisiting the transfer algorithms could improve clinical outcomes, particularly when TCs are closed due to diversion protocols.
本研究的主要目的是对比德克萨斯州创伤中心(TCs)与非创伤医院(NTHs)之间的死亡率差异,以及按创伤病例的社会人口统计学和经济因素对比各创伤中心之间的死亡率差异。
对在两年期间住院的所有受伤病例,研究医院类型导致的创伤致死差异。
结局指标为在受到撞击后存活并在任何医院接受治疗的病例的受伤后死亡率。采用逻辑回归比较创伤中心与非创伤医院之间以及各创伤中心之间与创伤死亡相关的风险因素。
与非创伤医院相比,年轻成年男性以及通过急诊科/室收治的病例在创伤中心死亡的风险更高。在农村地区,25 - 44岁人群、西班牙裔、未参保患者以及通过转诊收治的病例死亡率更高。在城市环境中,18 - 24岁人群、参保类型为“其他”的患者以及作为严重急诊收治的病例死亡率更高。一级创伤中心死亡率增加是由于农村地区患者的转诊。农村地区的黑人和西班牙裔更有可能死亡,而在城市地区的一级创伤中心西班牙裔死亡率较低。与农村创伤中心相比,城市创伤中心治疗的患者存活时间更长。
由于本研究缺乏关于病例严重程度、损伤类型的有效数据以及创伤病例所接受治疗的详细信息,需要对创伤中心和非创伤医院收治的创伤患者病例组合进行更多调查。有必要进一步探索以更好地协调急诊护理反应,将非创伤医院纳入创伤系统并减轻一级创伤中心的压力。重新审视转诊算法可以改善临床结局,尤其是在因分流方案导致创伤中心关闭时。