Mohan Deepika, Barnato Amber E, Rosengart Matthew R, Angus Derek C, Wallace David J, Kahn Jeremy M
*The CRISMA (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine †Department of Surgery ‡Department of Medicine; and §Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):383-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000603.
To understand hospital-level variation in triage practices for patients with moderate-to-severe injuries presenting initially to nontrauma centers.
Many patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic injuries receive care at nontrauma hospitals, despite evidence of a survival benefit from treatment at trauma centers.
We used claims from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to identify patients with moderate-to-severe injuries who presented initially to nontrauma centers. We determined whether or not they were transferred to a level I or II trauma center within 24 hours of presentation, and used multivariate regression to assess the influence of hospital-level factors on triage practices, after adjusting for differences in case mix.
Transfer of patients with moderate-to-severe injuries to trauma centers occurred infrequently, with significant variation among hospitals (median 2%; interquartile range 1%-6%). Greater resource availability at nontrauma centers was associated with lower rates of successful triage, including the presence of neurosurgeons (relative reduction in transfer rate: 76%, P < 0.01), more than 20 intensive care unit beds (relative reduction 30%, P < 0.01) and a high resident-to-bed ratio (relative reduction 23%, P < 0.01). However, patients were more likely to survive if they presented to hospitals with higher triage rates (odds of death for patients cared for at hospitals with the highest tercile of triage rates, compared with lowest tercile: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.99, P = 0.02).
Injured Medicare beneficiaries presenting to nontrauma centers experience high rates of undertriage, determined in part by increasing availability of resources. Care at hospitals with low rates of successful triage is associated with worse outcomes.
了解最初就诊于非创伤中心的中重度损伤患者在医院层面的分诊差异。
许多中重度创伤患者在非创伤医院接受治疗,尽管有证据表明在创伤中心治疗有生存获益。
我们利用医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的理赔数据,识别最初就诊于非创伤中心的中重度损伤患者。我们确定他们在就诊后24小时内是否被转至一级或二级创伤中心,并在调整病例组合差异后,使用多变量回归评估医院层面因素对分诊差异的影响。
中重度损伤患者转至创伤中心的情况并不常见,医院之间存在显著差异(中位数2%;四分位间距1%-6%)。非创伤中心更多的资源可及性与较低的成功分诊率相关,包括有神经外科医生(转诊率相对降低:76%,P<0.01)、超过20张重症监护病床(相对降低30%,P<0.01)以及高住院医师与床位比(相对降低23%,P<0.01)。然而,如果患者就诊于分诊率较高的医院,其存活可能性更大(分诊率最高三分位数医院与最低三分位数医院相比,患者死亡几率:0.92;95%置信区间:0.85-0.99,P=0.02)。
就诊于非创伤中心的医疗保险受益伤者存在分诊不足的高发生率,部分原因是资源可及性增加。成功分诊率低的医院的治疗与更差的预后相关。