JAMA Surg. 2014 May;149(5):422-30. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4398.
Trauma is the leading cause of potential years of life lost before age 65 years in the United States. Timely care in a designated trauma center has been shown to reduce mortality by 25%. However, many severely injured patients are not transferred to trauma centers after initially being seen at non–trauma center emergency departments (EDs).
To determine patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with the decision to admit rather than transfer severely injured patients who are initially seen at non–trauma center EDs and to ascertain whether insured patients are more likely to be admitted than transferred compared with uninsured patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of the 2009 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. We included all ED encounters for major trauma (Injury Severity Score, >15) seen at non–trauma centers in patients aged 18 to 64 years. We excluded ED discharges and ED deaths. We quantified the absolute risk difference between admission vs transfer by insurance status, while adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, weekend admission and month of visit, and urban vs rural status and median household income of the home zip code, as well as annual ED visit volume and teaching status and US region.
Inpatient admission vs transfer to another acute care facility.
In 2009, a total of 4513 observations from 636 non–trauma center EDs were available for analysis, representing a nationally weighted population of 19,312 non–trauma center ED encounters for major trauma. Overall, 54.5% in 2009 were admitted to the non–trauma center. Compared with patients without insurance, the adjusted absolute risk of admission vs transfer was 14.3% (95% CI, 9.2%-19.4%) higher for patients with Medicaid and 11.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-15.4%) higher for patients with private insurance. Other factors associated with admission vs transfer included severe abdominal injuries (risk difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 9.4%-22.3%), urban teaching hospital vs non–teaching hospital (risk difference, 26.2%; 95% CI, 15.2%-37.2%), and annual ED visit volume (risk difference, 3.4%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.3% higher for every additional 10,000 annual ED visits).
Patients with severe injuries initially evaluated at non–trauma center EDs were less likely to be transferred if insured and were at risk of receiving suboptimal trauma care. Efforts in monitoring and optimizing trauma interhospital transfers and outcomes at the population level are warranted.
在美国,创伤是导致 65 岁以下人群潜在寿命损失的主要原因。在指定的创伤中心及时进行治疗已被证明可将死亡率降低 25%。然而,许多严重受伤的患者在最初被非创伤中心急诊部(ED)收治后并未转至创伤中心。
确定与决定收治而非转院严重受伤患者相关的患者层面和医院层面的因素,这些患者最初在非创伤中心 ED 就诊。并确定与未参保患者相比,参保患者是否更有可能被收治而非转院。
设计、地点和参与者:对 2009 年全国急诊部样本的回顾性分析。我们纳入了在年龄为 18 至 64 岁的患者中,在非创伤中心接受主要创伤(损伤严重程度评分>15)治疗的所有 ED 就诊。我们排除了 ED 出院和 ED 死亡。我们根据保险状况量化了收治与转院之间的绝对风险差异,同时调整了年龄、性别、损伤机制、损伤严重程度评分、周末入院和就诊月份、城乡状况以及家庭邮政编码的中位数家庭收入,以及每年 ED 就诊量和教学状况和美国地区。
住院收治与转至另一家急性护理机构。
2009 年,来自 636 家非创伤中心 ED 的 4513 次观察结果可用于分析,代表了全国范围内 19312 例非创伤中心 ED 主要创伤就诊的加权人群。总体而言,2009 年有 54.5%的患者被收治在非创伤中心。与没有保险的患者相比,医疗补助患者的收治与转院的调整后绝对风险比为 14.3%(95%可信区间,9.2%-19.4%),私人保险患者为 11.2%(95%可信区间,6.9%-15.4%)。与收治与转院相关的其他因素包括严重腹部损伤(风险差异,15.9%;95%可信区间,9.4%-22.3%)、城市教学医院与非教学医院(风险差异,26.2%;95%可信区间,15.2%-37.2%)以及 ED 年就诊量(风险差异,每增加 10000 次 ED 年就诊,风险增加 3.4%;95%可信区间,1.6%-5.3%)。
最初在非创伤中心 ED 就诊的严重受伤患者如果参保,其转院的可能性较低,并且存在接受次优创伤治疗的风险。有必要在人群层面监测和优化创伤院内转院和结局。