Tag Archives: trauma center

Scoop and Run or Stay and Play for Trauma Care?

Scoop and run vs stay and play are traditionally EMS concepts. Do I stay at the scene to perform invasive procedures, or do I perform the minimum I can and get to the nearest hospital?

For trauma patients time is the enemy and there is a different flavor of scoop and run vs stay and play. Do I take the patient to a nearby hospital that is not a high level trauma center to stay and play, or do I scoop and run to the nearest Level I or II center?

Admissions to a group of 8 trauma centers were analyzed over a 3 year period. A total of 1112 patients were studied. Patients were divided into two groups: those who were taken directly to a Level I trauma center (76%), and those who were transferred from another hospital (24%). 

Patients who were taken to a non-trauma center first received 3 times more IV crystalloid, 12 times more blood, and were nearly 4 times more likely to die!

Obviously, the cause of this increased mortality cannot be determined from the data. The authors speculate that patients may undergo more aggressive resuscitation with crystalloid and blood at the outside hospital making them look better than they really are, and then they die. Alternatively, they may have been under-resuscitated at the outside hospital, making it more difficult to ensure survival at the trauma center.

Bottom line: this is an interesting paper, but there are a number of flaws that prevent us from mandating that all trauma patients should go directly to the trauma center. The authors never really define a “nontrauma hospital.” Does a Level III or IV center count? How did patients who stayed at the outside hospital do?

A lot of work needs to be done to add detail to this work. In the meantime, we have to trust our experienced prehospital providers to determine who really needs to go to the closest appropriate center, and what that really is.

Reference: Scoop and run to the trauma center or stay and play at the local hospital: hospital transfer’s effect on mortality. J Trauma 69(3):595-601, 2010.

PAs and NPs In Level I Trauma Centers

Trauma service staffing is important to maintaining trauma center status. Teaching centers in the US have been grappling with resident work hour rules, and non-teaching centers have always had to deal with how to adequately staff their trauma service. What is the impact of staffing a trauma center with midlevel practitioners (MLPs) such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners?

A state designated Level I trauma center in Pennsylvania retrospectively examined the effect of adding MLPs to an existing complement of residents on their trauma service. They examined the usual outcomes, including complications, lengths of stay, ED dwell times and mortality. 

Here are the more interesting results:

  • ED dwell time decreased for trauma activations and transfers in, but it increased for trauma consults. Of note, data on dwell times suffered from inconsistent charting.
  • ICU length of stay decreased significantly
  • Hospital length of stay decreased somewhat but did not achieve significance
  • The incidence of most complications stayed the same, but urinary tract infection decreased significantly
  • There was no change in mortality

Bottom line: There is a growing body of literature showing the benefits of employing midlevel providers in trauma programs. Whereas residents may have a variable interest in the trauma service based on their career goals, MLPs are professionally dedicated to this task. This study demonstrates a creative and safe solution for managing daily clinical activity on a busy trauma service.

Reference: Utilization of PAs and NPs at a level I trauma center: effects on outcomes. J Amer Acad Physician Assts, July 2011.

Trauma Center Level And Outcome

All designating/verifying agencies differentiate between highest level trauma centers (regional resource, or Level I in the US) and an intermediate level center (Level II in the US). For most, the differences are not huge on paper. Level I’s usually require a significant education and research component, as well as continuously available specialists in all disciplines. There are usually minimum volume and/or injury severity requirements as well.

Several previously published reports using NTDB data have shown that mortality is decreased in trauma patients taken to Level I centers compared to Level II. A report out this month confirms this using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma System Foundation database. The authors noted the following:

  • Patients admitted to Level I centers were younger and more often male than those admitted to Level II
  • Level I’s admitted more patients with gunshots and fewer with same level falls
  • Overall, mortality of patients admitted to Level I centers was 15% lower than in those admitted to a Level II
  • This survival advantage was principally in the most severely injured patients (20% in patients with ISS >= 25). In lower ISS patients, there was no apparent survival advantage.
  • Complication rates were 37% higher in Level I centers!

Bottom line: What does all this actually mean? First, this applies in the US only. Next, this study shows an association, but can’t assign a cause for the better survival. But it is consistent now across a number of studies. The US criteria for Level I centers are fairly stringent. Level II criteria are less so. Some Level II’s function like a Level I, but others are barely better than a Level III. It’s time to figure out what those less tangible differences are and implement them as best practices for all centers, if possible. And, oh yes, we better figure out why the major complication rate in Level I’s is so ridiculously high. It does no good to survive if the patient sustains significant functional limitations due to complications!

Reference: Impact of Trauma Center Designation on Outcomes: Is There a Difference Between Level I and Level II Trauma Centers? Journal Amer Coll Surgeons 215(3):372-378, 2012.

Financial Triage (Wallet Biopsy) and Transfer to Trauma Centers

A significant amount of volume coming in to Level I and Level II trauma centers is transferred from other hospitals. Occasionally, concerns are raised that some hospitals “cherry pick” the patients, retaining those who are insured and transferring those who are not. If this is true, it has the potential to undermine the entire trauma transfer system by delaying and impeding patient care and by financially damaging the higher level trauma centers. A few single state or single health care system studies have been performed, and some of them have suggested that the uninsured were more likely to be transferred to high level trauma centers.

The group at Parkland looked at a national sample using the National Trauma Databank, and compared the insurance status of patients transferred to Level I and II centers to those retained at Level III and IV centers. Overall, most patients (83%) were insured. At first glance, transferred patients were significantly more likely to be uninsured (18% vs 14%). However, they were also more seriously injured and more likely to have multiple injuries. When adjusted for these differences, the transferred patients were no more likely to be uninsured than the others.

Bottom line: There does not appear to be any concerted effort nationally to inappropriately transfer uninsured injured patients to high level trauma centers. The perception arises because the uninsured have a tendency toward higher risk behaviors that may result in serious injury.

However, it is possible that cherry picking may occur on occasion at the local level. If you are a trauma director experiencing this phenomenon, the best course of action is to speak directly to the director at the referring hospital. Politely discuss your perceptions and offer to see if there is anything you can do to help with their triage process. Frequently, letting them know you are aware of the pattern causes them to improve their transfer decision making.

Reference: Financial triage in transfer of trauma patients: a myth or a reality. Am J Surg 198(3):e35-e38, 2009.

PAs and NPs In Level I Trauma Centers

Trauma service staffing is important to maintaining trauma center status. Teaching centers in the US have been grappling with resident work hour rules, and non-teaching centers have always had to deal with how to adequately staff their trauma service. What is the impact of staffing a trauma center with midlevel practitioners (MLPs) such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners?

A state designated Level I trauma center in Pennsylvania retrospectively examined the effect of adding MLPs to an existing complement of residents on their trauma service. They examined the usual outcomes, including complications, lengths of stay, ED dwell times and mortality. 

Here are the more interesting results:

  • ED dwell time decreased for trauma activations and transfers in, but it increased for trauma consults. Of note, data on dwell times suffered from inconsistent charting.
  • ICU length of stay decreased significantly
  • Hospital length of stay decreased somewhat but did not achieve significance
  • The incidence of most complications stayed the same, but urinary tract infection decreased significantly
  • There was no change in mortality

Bottom line: There is a growing body of literature showing the benefits of employing midlevel providers in trauma programs. Whereas residents may have a variable interest in the trauma service based on their career goals, MLPs are professionally dedicated to this task. This study demonstrates a creative and safe solution for managing daily clinical activity on a busy trauma service.

Reference: Utilization of PAs and NPs at a level I trauma center: effects on outcomes. J Amer Acad Physician Assts, July 2011.