Does the Institution of a Statewide Trauma System Reduce Preventable Mortality and Yield a Positive Return on Investment for Taxpayers?

BACKGROUND: In July 2009, Arkansas began to annually fund $20 million for a statewide trauma system (TS). We studied injury deaths both pre-TS (2009) and post-TS (2013 to 2014), with attention to causes of preventive mortality, societal cost of those preventable mortality deaths, and benefit to tax payers of the lives saved. STUDY DESIGN: A multi-specialty trauma-expert panel met and reviewed records of 672 decedents (290 pre-TS and 382 post-TS) who met standardized inclusion criteria, were judged potentially salvageable, and were selected by a proportional sampling of the roughly 2,500 annual trauma deaths. Deaths were adjudicated into sub-categories of nonpreventable and preventable causes. The value of lives lost was calculated for those lives potentially saved in the post-TS period. RESULTS: Total preventable mortality was reduced from 30% of cases pre-TS to 16% of cases studied post-TS, a reduction of 14%. Extrapolating a 14% reduction of preventable mortality to the post-TS study period, using the same inclusion criteria of the post-TS, we calculate that 79 lives were saved in 2013 to 2014 due to the institution of a TS. Using a minimal standard estimate of $100,000 value for a life-year, a lifetime value of $2,365,000 per person was saved. This equates to an economic impact of the lives saved of almost $186 million annually, representing a 9-fold return on investment from the $20 million of annual state funding invested in the TS. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a TS in Arkansas during a 5-year period resulted in a reduction of the preventable death rate to 16% post-TS, and a 9-fold return on investment by the tax payer. Additional life-saving gains can be expected with ongoing financial support and additional system performance-improvement efforts.

Use of a Novel Accounting and Grouping Method for Major Trunk Injury-Analysis of Data from a Statewide Trauma Financial Survey.

Major trunk trauma is common and costly, but comparisons of costs between trauma centers (TCs) are rare. Understanding cost is essential to improve quality, manage trauma service lines, and to facilitate institutional commitment for trauma. We have used results of a statewide trauma financial survey of Levels I to IV TC to develop a useful grouping method for costs and clinical characteristics of major trunk trauma. The trauma financial survey collected billing and clinical data on 75 per cent of the state trauma registry patients for fiscal year 2012. Cost was calculated by separately accounting for embedded costs of trauma response and verification, and then adjusting reasonable costs from the Medicare cost report for each TC. The cost-to-charge ratios were then recalculated and used to determine uniform cost estimates for each patient. From the 13,215 patients submitted for the survey, we selected 1,094 patients with major trunk trauma: lengths of stay ≥ 48 hours and a maximum injury of AIS ≥3 for either thorax or abdominal trauma. These patients were then divided into three Injury Severity Score (ISS) groups of 9 to 15, 16 to 24, or 25+ to stratify patients into similar injury groups for analysis of cost and cost drivers. For abdominal injury, average total cost for patients with ISS 9 to 15 was $17,429. Total cost and cost per day increased with severity of injury, with $51,585 being the total cost for those with ISS 25. Similar trends existed for thoracic injury. Use of the Medicare cost report and cost-to-charge ratios to compute uniform costs with an innovative grouping method applied to data collected across a statewide trauma system provides unique information regarding cost and outcomes, which affects quality improvement, trauma service line management, and decisions on TC participation.

Determining the hospital trauma financial impact in a statewide trauma system.

BACKGROUND: There have been no comprehensive studies across an organized statewide trauma system using a standardized method to determine cost. STUDY DESIGN: Trauma financial impact includes the following costs: verification, response, and patient care cost (PCC). We conducted a survey of participating trauma centers (TCs) for federal fiscal year 2012, including separate accounting for verification and response costs. Patient care cost was merged with their trauma registry data. Seventy-five percent of the 2012 state trauma registry had data submitted. Each TC's reasonable cost from the Medicare Cost Report was adjusted to remove embedded costs for response and verification. Cost-to-charge ratios were used to give uniform PCC across the state. RESULTS: Median (mean ± SD) costs per patient for TC response and verification for Level I and II centers were $1,689 ($1,492 ± $647) and $450 ($636 ± $431) for Level III and IV centers. Patient care cost-median (mean ± SD) costs for patients with a length of stay >2 days rose with increasing Injury Severity Score (ISS): ISS <9: $6,787 ($8,827 ± $8,165), ISS 9 to 15: $10,390 ($14,340 ± $18,395); ISS 16 to 25: $15,698 ($23,615 ± $21,883); and ISS 25+: $29,792 ($41,407 ± $41,621), and with higher level of TC: Level I: $13,712 ($23,241 ± $29,164); Level II: $8,555 ($13,515 ± $15,296); and Levels III and IV: $8,115 ($10,719 ± $11,827). CONCLUSIONS: Patient care cost rose with increasing ISS, length of stay, ICU days, and ventilator days for patients with length of stay >2 days and ISS 9+. Level I centers had the highest mean ISS, length of stay, ICU days, and ventilator days, along with the highest PCC. Lesser trauma accounted for lower charges, payments, and PCC for Level II, III, and IV TCs, and the margin was variable. Verification and response costs per patient were highest for Level I and II TCs.

A young surgeon's perspective on alternate surgical training pathways.

Most residents in training today are in focused on their training, and the thoughts of changing the structure of residencies and fellowships is something that they are ambivalent about or have never heard anything about. The small minority who are vocal on these issues represent an activist group supporting change. This group is very vocal and raises many of the excellent questions we have examined. In discussion with residents, some feel that shortened training will help with the financial issues facing residents. However, many people today add additional years to their training with research years or "super" fellowships. The residents demonstrate that they want to get the skill sets that they desire despite the added length of training. This is unlikely to change even if the minimum number of years of training changes with the evolution of tracked training programs. Medical students, in the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons survey, did not indicate that shortened training would have an affect on decision to pursue or not pursue a surgical career. If the focus of these changes is to encourage medical students to pursue a residency in surgical specialties, we may need to look at other options to increase medical student interest. Medical students indicated that lifestyle issues, types of clinical problems, stress-related concerns, and interactions with the surgical faculty were far more important in their decision to enter a surgical specialty than work hours or duration of training. If we are to make a difference in the quality and quantity of applicants for surgical residencies, then changes in the structure of residencies do not seem to be the most effective way to accomplish this. We should possibly focus more on faculty and medical student interaction and the development of positive role models for medical students to see surgeons with attractive practices that minimize some of the traditionally perceived negative stereotypes. Residents in general surgery training programs often do not make decisions on the type of fellowship that they will pursue until late in their residency. Many residents are apprehensive about these types of tracked training programs because it will accelerate the timeline for choosing a track. Changes in the structure of residency and fellowships would result in residents having to decide and "match" in their second or third postgraduate years of training instead of the fourth or fifth postgraduate year time frame. Many residents will not have been exposed to all of the types of tracks by their third postgraduate year and many voice concerns over being ready to make this decision that early in their training. Acceptance and enthusiasm about this concept among all residents will likely depend on the final version of any planned changes. A wholesale rewrite of surgical training in the United States would likely not be well received. However, the addition of alternate pathways, on a limited scale and under close scrutiny and supervision, could evaluate interest and ease into this type of program. Before embarking on massive changes in surgical training, scientific, statistically valid research determining the interest of residents in these types of programs will target changes to make these programs successful.

Upper extremity vascular injury: a current in-theater wartime report from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Past wartime experience and recent civilian reports indicate upper extremity (UE) vascular injury occurs less often and with less limb loss than lower extremity (LE) injury. Given advances in critical care, damage control techniques, and military armor technology, the objective of this evaluation was to define contemporary patterns of UE injury and effectiveness of vascular surgical management in UE vascular injury during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). From 1 September 2004 through 31 August 2005, 2,473 combat-related injuries were treated at the central echelon III surgical facility in Iraq. Patients with UE vascular injuries upon arrival were reviewed. Vessels injured were delineated. Therapeutic interventions, early limb viability, and complication rates following vascular repair were recorded. Of casualties treated during the study period, 43 (1.7%) UE and 83 (3.3%) LE vascular injuries were identified. Of the UE injuries, 11 (26%) had been operated on at forward locations and six (14%) had temporary shunts in place upon arrival at our facility. Injury levels included 10 (23%) subclavian-axillary, 25 (58%) brachial, and 10 (23%) distal to the brachial bifurcation. Two patients had multilevel injury. Twenty-eight grafts were placed, and 10 vessel repairs and eight ligations were performed. Two (4.7%) brachial interposition grafts required removal due to infection. Four (9.3%) subacute brachial graft thromboses occurred. Four (9.3%) patients underwent early UE amputation. In this most recent U.S. military evaluation of wartime UE vascular injury, UE injury appears rare, with LE injury twice as frequent. Yet, UE limb loss appears more substantial than noted previously. These findings are likely related to significant tissue destruction occurring with the combined mechanisms of injury sustained in OIF.