• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

所有创伤中心都是一样的吗?全州范围的分析。

Are all trauma centers created equally? A statewide analysis.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jul;17(7):701-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00786.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00786.x
PMID:20653583
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Prior work has shown differences in mortality at different levels of trauma centers (TCs). There are limited data comparing mortality of equivalently verified TCs. This study sought to assess the potential differences in mortality as well as discharge destination (discharge to home vs. to a rehabilitation center or skilled nursing facility) across Level I TCs in the state of Ohio.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, statewide analysis of a state trauma registry of American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified Level I TCs from 2003 to 2006. All adult (>15 years) patients transferred from the scene to one of the 10 Level I TCs throughout the state were included (n = 16,849). Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to assess for differences in mortality, keeping each TC as a fixed-effect term and adjusting for patient demographics, injury severity, mechanism of injury, and emergency medical services and emergency department procedures. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and discharge destination (home vs. rehabilitation center or skilled nursing facility). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each TC were also calculated.

RESULTS

Considerable variability existed in unadjusted mortality between the centers, from 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.7% to 3.9%) to 24.2% (95% CI = 24.1% to 24.3%), despite similar patient characteristics and injury severity. Adjusted mortality had similar variability as well, ranging from an OR of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.47 to 1.84) to an OR of 6.02 (95% CI= 3.70 to 9.79). Similar results were seen with the secondary outcomes (discharge destination).

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variability in the mortality of injured patients at Level I TCs in the state of Ohio. The patient differences or care processes responsible for this variation should be explored.

摘要

目的

先前的研究表明,创伤中心(TC)的不同级别之间的死亡率存在差异。比较同等认证 TC 死亡率的相关数据有限。本研究旨在评估俄亥俄州一级 TC 之间死亡率的潜在差异,以及出院去向(回家或康复中心或熟练护理设施)。

方法

这是一项对美国外科医师学院(ACS)认证的一级 TC 的州创伤登记处的回顾性、多中心、全州范围的分析。从 2003 年至 2006 年,所有从现场转至全州 10 个一级 TC 之一的成年(>15 岁)患者均包括在内(n=16849)。建立多变量逻辑回归模型,以评估死亡率的差异,每个 TC 作为固定效应项,并根据患者人口统计学特征、损伤严重程度、损伤机制以及紧急医疗服务和急诊程序进行调整。纳入的结果包括院内死亡率和出院去向(家庭与康复中心或熟练护理设施)。还计算了每个 TC 的校正优势比(OR)。

结果

尽管患者特征和损伤严重程度相似,但各中心之间的未校正死亡率存在较大差异,从 3.8%(95%置信区间[CI]为 3.7%至 3.9%)至 24.2%(95%CI为 24.1%至 24.3%)。校正死亡率也存在类似的差异,范围从 OR 为 0.93(95%CI 为 0.47 至 1.84)到 OR 为 6.02(95%CI=3.70 至 9.79)。次要结局(出院去向)也出现了类似的结果。

结论

俄亥俄州一级 TC 中受伤患者的死亡率存在较大差异。应探讨导致这种差异的患者差异或护理过程。

相似文献

1
Are all trauma centers created equally? A statewide analysis.所有创伤中心都是一样的吗?全州范围的分析。
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jul;17(7):701-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00786.x.
2
Level I versus Level II trauma centers: an outcomes-based assessment.一级创伤中心与二级创伤中心:基于结果的评估。
J Trauma. 2009 May;66(5):1321-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181929e2b.
3
Moving beyond personnel and process: a case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process.超越人员与流程:在创伤中心指定过程中纳入结果指标的理由。
Arch Surg. 2008 Feb;143(2):115-9; discussion 120. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2007.29.
4
The effect of a change in the surgeon response time mandate on outcomes within Ohio level III trauma centers: it is all about commitment.外科医生响应时间要求的改变对俄亥俄州三级创伤中心治疗结果的影响:一切都关乎投入。
J Trauma. 2010 May;68(5):1038-43. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d486e9.
5
Use of a state-wide administrative database in assessing a regional trauma system: the New York City experience.利用全州行政数据库评估区域创伤系统:纽约市的经验
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):509-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.12.021.
6
Analysis of compliance and outcomes in a trauma system with a 2-hour transfer rule.具有2小时转运规则的创伤系统中的依从性和结果分析。
Arch Surg. 2010 Dec;145(12):1171-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.264.
7
Chronic consequences of acute injuries: worse survival after discharge.急性损伤的慢性后果:出院后生存率下降。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Sep;73(3):699-703. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318253b5db.
8
The effect of resident duty hour restriction on trauma center outcomes in teaching hospitals in the state of Pennsylvania.宾夕法尼亚州教学医院住院医师值班时长限制对创伤中心治疗效果的影响。
J Trauma. 2010 Sep;69(3):607-12; discussion 612-3. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e51211.
9
In a mature trauma system, there is no difference in outcome (survival) between Level I and Level II trauma centers.在一个成熟的创伤救治体系中,一级创伤中心和二级创伤中心在治疗结果(生存率)上没有差异。
J Trauma. 2011 Jun;70(6):1354-7. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182183789.
10
Impact of a voluntary trauma system on mortality, length of stay, and cost at a level I trauma center.自愿创伤系统对一级创伤中心死亡率、住院时间和成本的影响。
Am Surg. 2002 Feb;68(2):182-92.

引用本文的文献

1
Expanding the Ontology of Organizational Structures of Trauma Centers and Trauma Systems.拓展创伤中心和创伤系统组织结构的本体论
CEUR Workshop Proc. 2024 Jul;3939.
2
Trauma Quality Improvement Program: A Retrospective Analysis from A Middle Eastern National Trauma Center.创伤质量改进计划:来自中东一家国家创伤中心的回顾性分析
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Oct 31;11(21):2865. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11212865.
3
ACS COT participates in study to develop comparative data on trauma care organization.美国外科医师学会创伤委员会参与了一项研究,以制定有关创伤护理组织的比较数据。
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2020 Apr;105(4):43-48.
4
Collecting data on organizational structures of trauma centers: the CAFE web service.收集创伤中心组织结构数据:CAFE网络服务
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2020 Jul 29;5(1):e000473. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2020-000473. eCollection 2020.
5
Evaluation of the influence of the definition of an isolated hip fracture as an exclusion criterion for trauma system benchmarking: a multicenter cohort study.评估将孤立性髋部骨折定义为创伤系统基准测试排除标准的影响:一项多中心队列研究。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016 Jun;42(3):345-50. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0542-8. Epub 2015 Aug 7.
6
Temporal trends and differences in mortality at trauma centres across Ontario from 2005 to 2011: a retrospective cohort study.2005年至2011年安大略省各创伤中心死亡率的时间趋势及差异:一项回顾性队列研究。
CMAJ Open. 2014 Jul 22;2(3):E176-82. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20140007. eCollection 2014 Jul.
7
Establishing consensus on the definition of an isolated hip fracture for trauma system performance evaluation: A systematic review.为创伤系统性能评估确定孤立性髋部骨折定义的共识:一项系统评价。
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2014 Jul;7(3):209-14. doi: 10.4103/0974-2700.136867.
8
Variation in prehospital use and uptake of the national Field Triage Decision Scheme.院前使用和采用国家现场分诊决策方案的变化。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013 Apr-Jun;17(2):135-48. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2012.749966.
9
Healthcare outcome disparities in trauma care.创伤护理中的医疗保健结果差异。
West J Emerg Med. 2012 Aug;13(3):217-9. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2012.3.11742.
10
Association between hospitals caring for a disproportionately high percentage of minority trauma patients and increased mortality: a nationwide analysis of 434 hospitals.收治少数族裔创伤患者比例过高的医院与死亡率上升之间的关联:对434家医院的全国性分析
Arch Surg. 2012 Jan;147(1):63-70. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.254. Epub 2011 Sep 19.