A decade of firearm injuries: Have we improved?

BACKGROUND: Firearm injuries are a growing public health issue, with marked increases coinciding with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluates temporal trends over the past decade, hypothesizing that despite a growing number of injuries, mortality would be unaffected. In addition, the study characterizes the types of centers affected disproportionately by the reported firearm injury surge in 2020. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older with firearm injuries from 2011 to 2020 were identified retrospectively using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB®). Trauma centers not operating for the entirety of the study period were excluded to allow for temporal comparisons. Joinpoint regression and risk-standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were used to evaluate injury counts and adjusted mortality over time. Subgroup analysis was performed to describe centers with the largest increases in firearm injuries in 2020. RESULTS: A total of 238,674 patients, treated at 420 unique trauma centers, met inclusion criteria. Firearm injuries increased by 31.1% in 2020, compared to an annual percent change of 2.4% from 2011 to 2019 ( p = 0.01). Subset analysis of centers with the largest changes in firearm injuries in 2020 found that they were more often Level I centers, with higher historic trauma volumes and percentages of firearm injuries ( p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality decreased by 0.9% from 2011 to 2020, but after controlling for demographics, injury characteristics and physiology, there was no difference in adjusted mortality over the same time period. However, among patients with injury severity scores ≥25, adjusted mortality improved compared with 2011 (SMR of 0.950 in 2020; 95% confidence interval, 0.916-0.986). CONCLUSION: Firearm injuries pose an increasing burden to trauma systems, with Level I and high-volume centers seeing the largest growth in 2020. Despite increasing numbers of firearm injuries, mortality has remained unchanged over the past decade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Current patterns of trauma center proliferation have not led to proportionate improvements in access to care or mortality after injury: An ecologic study.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to high-level (I/II) trauma centers (HLTCs) is essential to minimize mortality after injury. Over the last 15 years, there has been a proliferation of HLTC nationally. The current study evaluates the impact of additional HLTC on population access and injury mortality. METHODS: A geocoded list of HLTC, with year designated, was obtained from the American Trauma Society, and 60-minute travel time polygons were created using OpenStreetMap data. Census block group population centroids, county population centroids, and American Communities Survey data from 2005 and 2020 were integrated. Age-adjusted nonoverdose injury mortality was obtained from CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Geographically weighted regression models were used to identify independent predictors of HLTC access and injury mortality. RESULTS: Over the 15-year (2005-2020) study period, the number of HLTC increased by 31.0% (445 to 583), while population access to HLTC increased by 6.9% (77.5-84.4%). Despite this increase, access was unchanged in 83.1% of counties, with a median change in access of 0.0% (interquartile range, 0.0-1.1%). Population-level age-adjusted injury mortality rates increased by 5.39 per 100,000 population during this time (60.72 to 66.11 per 100,000). Geographically weighted regression controlling for population demography and health indicators found higher median income and higher population density to be positively associated with majority (≥50%) HLTC population coverage and negatively associated with county-level nonoverdose mortality. CONCLUSION: Over the past 15 years, the number of HLTC increased 31%, while population access to HLTC increased only 6.9%. High-level (I/II) trauma center designation is likely driven by factors other than population need. To optimize efficiency and decrease potential oversupply, the designation process should include population level metrics. Geographic information system methodology can be an effective tool to assess optimal placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Factors associated with limitation of care after fatal injury.

BACKGROUND: There is variability in end-of-life care of trauma patients. Many survive resuscitation but die after limitation of care (LoC). This study investigated LoC at a level I center. METHODS: Adult trauma deaths between January 2016 and June 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into "full code" versus any LoC (i.e., do not resuscitate, no escalation, or withdrawal of care) and by timing to LoC. Emergency department and "brain" deaths were excluded. Unadjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used for analyses. Results include n (%) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included; 15 patients (8%) died full code and 158 (91%) died after LoC. Seventy-seven patients (48%) underwent incremental LoC. Age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0010) and female sex (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.01-13.64; p = 0.0487) increased the odds of LoC; number of anatomic injuries (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98; p = 0.0146), chest injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score chest, >3) (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; p = 0.0021), extremity injury (AIS score, >3) (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.64; p = 0.0170), and hospital complications equal to 1 (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.78; p = 0.0201) or ≥2 (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.87; p = 0.0319) decreased the odds of LoC. For those having LoC, final limitations were implemented in <14 days for 83% of patients; markers of injury severity (e.g., Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and AIS score) increased the odds of early LoC implementation. CONCLUSION: Most patients died after LoC was implemented in a timely fashion. Significant head injury increased the odds of LoC. The number of injuries, severe chest and extremity injuries, and increasing number of complications decreased the odds of LoC, presumably because patients died before LoCs were initiated. Understanding factors contributing to end-of-life care could help guide discussions regarding LoCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Rotational thromboelastometry in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome owing to coronavirus disease 2019: Is there a viscoelastic fingerprint and a role for predicting thrombosis?

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated rotational thromboelastometry tracings in 44 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, to determine whether there is a viscoelastic fingerprint and to test the hypothesis that the diagnosis and prediction of venous thromboembolism would be enhanced by the addition of rotational thromboelastometry testing. RESULTS: Rotational thromboelastometry values reflected an increase in clot strength for the EXTEM, INTEM, and FIBTEM assays beyond the reference range. No hyperfibrinolysis was noted. Fibrinolysis shutdown was present but did not correlate with thrombosis; 32% (14/44) of patients experienced a thrombotic episode. For every 1 mm increase of FIBTEM maximum clot formation, the odds of developing thrombosis increased 20% (95% confidence interval, 0-40%, P = .043), whereas for every 1,000 ng/mL increase in D-dimer, the odds of thrombosis increased by 70% (95% confidence interval, 20%-150%, P = .004), after adjustment for age and sex (AUC 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00). There was a slight but significant improvement in model performance after adding FIBTEM maximum clot formation and EXTEM clot formation time to D-dimer in a multivariable model (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer concentrations were more predictive of thrombosis in our patient population than any other parameter. Rotational thromboelastometry confirmed the hypercoagulable state of coronavirus disease 2019 intensive care unit patients. FIBTEM maximum clot formation and EXTEM clot formation time increased the predictability for thrombosis compared with only using D-dimer. Rotational thromboelastometry analysis is most useful in augmenting the information provided by the D-dimer concentration for venous thromboembolism risk assessment when the D-dimer concentration is between 1,625 and 6,900 ng/dL, but the enhancement is modest. Fibrinolysis shutdown did not correlate with thrombosis.

Comparing geographic information system-based estimates with trauma center registry data to assess the effects of additional trauma centers on system access.

BACKGROUND: Geographic information systems (GISs) are often used to analyze trauma systems. Geographic information system-based approaches can model access to a trauma center (TC), including estimates of transport time and population coverage, when accurate trauma registry and emergency medical systems (EMS) data are not available. We hypothesized that estimates of trauma system performance calculated using a standard GIS method with public data would be comparable with trauma registry data. METHODS: A standardized GIS-based method was used to estimate metrics of TC access in a regional trauma system in which the number of TCs increased from one to three during a 3-year period. Registry data from the index TC in the system were evaluated for different periods during this evolution. The number of admissions to the TC in different periods was compared with changes predicted by the GIS-based model, and the distribution of observed ground-based transportation times was compared with the predicted distribution. RESULTS: With the addition of two TCs to the system, the volume of patients transported by ground to the index TC decreased by 30%. However, the model predicted a 68% decrease in population having the shortest predicted transport time to the index TC. The model predicted the geographic trend seen in the registry data, but many patients were transported to the index TC even though it was not the closest center. Observed transport times were uniformly shorter than predicted times. CONCLUSION: The GIS-based model qualitatively predicted changes in distribution of trauma patients, but registry data highlight that field triage decisions are more complex than model assumptions. Similarly, transport times were systematically overestimated. This suggests that model assumptions, such as vehicle speed, based on normal traffic may not fully reflect emergency medical systems (EMS) operations. There remains great need for metrics to guide policy based on widely available data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Collecting data on organizational structures of trauma centers: the CAFE web service.

BACKGROUND: During the past several decades, the American College of Surgeons has led efforts to standardize trauma care through their trauma center verification process and Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Despite these endeavors, great variability remains among trauma centers functioning at the same level. Little research has been conducted on the correlation between trauma center organizational structure and patient outcomes. We are attempting to close this knowledge gap with the Comparative Assessment Framework for Environments of Trauma Care (CAFE) project. METHODS: Our first action was to establish a shared terminology that we then used to build the Ontology of Organizational Structures of Trauma centers and Trauma systems (OOSTT). OOSTT underpins the web-based CAFE questionnaire that collects detailed information on the particular organizational attributes of trauma centers and trauma systems. This tool allows users to compare their organizations to an aggregate of other organizations of the same type, while collecting their data. RESULTS: In collaboration with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, we tested the system by entering data from three trauma centers and four trauma systems. We also tested retrieval of answers to competency questions. DISCUSSION: The data we gather will be made available to public health and implementation science researchers using visualizations. In the next phase of our project, we plan to link the gathered data about trauma center attributes to clinical outcomes.

General Surgery Residents' Perception of Feedback: We Can Do Better.

BACKGROUND: Feedback (FB) regarding perioperative care is essential in general surgery residents' (GSRs) training. We hypothesized that FB would be distributed unevenly across preoperative (PrO), intraoperative (IO), and postoperative (PO) continuum of the perioperative period. We aimed to compare results between university- and community-hospital settings planning to institute structured, formalized FB in a large health care system operating multiple surgery residency programs in departments that are linked strategically. METHODS: Quantitative, cross-sectional, Likert scale anonymous surveys were distributed to all GSRs (categorical and preliminary; university: community 1:2). Twenty-five questions considered frequency and perceived quality of FB in PrO, IO, and PO settings. Data were tabulated using REDCap and analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the Mann-Whitney U test, with α = 0.05. Comparisons were made between university- and community-hospital settings, between junior (Post-Graduate Year (PGY) 1-3) and senior (PGY 4-5) GSRs, and by gender. RESULTS: Among 115 GSRs surveyed, 83 (72%) responded. Whereas 93% reported receiving some FB within the past year, 46% reported receiving FB ≤ 20% of the time. A majority (58%) found FB to be helpful ≥ 80% of the time. Among GSRs, 77%, 24%, and 64% reported receiving PrO, IO, or PO FB ≤ 20% of the time, respectively, but 52% also believed that FB was lacking in all 3 areas. Most GSRs wanted designated time for PrO planning FB (82%) and PO FB (87%), respectively. Thirty-six percent of GSRs reported that senior/chief (i.e., PGY-4/PGY-5 GSRs) took them through cases ≥40% of the time; notably,78% reported that FB from senior/chief GSRs was equally or more valuable than FB from attending surgeons. A majority (78%) reported that attending surgeons stated explicitly when they were providing FB only ≤20% of the time. GSRs at the community hospital campuses reported receiving a higher likelihood of "any" FB, IO FB, and PO FB (p < 0.05). Most GSRs surveyed preferred a structured format and designated times for debriefing and evaluation of performance. Subanalyses of gender and GSR level of training showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS: FB during GSR training varies across the perioperative continuum of care. Community programs seem to do better than University Programs. More work need to be done to elucidate why differences exist between the frequency of FB at University and Community programs. Further, data show particularly low FB outside of the operating room. Ideally, according to respondents, FB would be provided in a structured format and at designated times for debriefing and evaluation of performance, which poses a challenge considering the temporal dynamism of general surgery services.

A comprehensive review of topical hemostatic agents: The good, the bad, and the novel.

Uncontrolled exsanguination remains the leading cause of death for trauma patients, many of whom die in the pre-hospital setting. Without expedient intervention, trauma-associated hemorrhage induces a host of systemic responses and acute coagulopathy of trauma. For this reason, health care providers and prehospital personal face the challenge of swift and effective hemorrhage control. The utilization of adjuncts to facilitate hemostasis was first recorded in 1886. Commercially available products haves since expanded to include topical hemostats, surgical sealants, and adhesives. The ideal product balances efficacy, with safety practicality and cost-effectiveness. This review of hemostasis provides a guide for successful implementation and simultaneously highlights future opportunities.

World trauma education: hemorrhage control training for healthcare providers in India.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage remains a major cause of death around the world. Eighty percent of trauma patients in India do not receive medical care within the first hour. The etiology of these poor outcomes is multifactorial. We describe findings from the first Stop the Bleed (StB) course recently offered to a group of medical providers in southern India. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 101 participants who attended StB trainings in India was performed. Pre-training and post-training questionnaires were collected from each participant. In total, 88 healthcare providers' responses were analyzed. Three bleeding control skills were presented: wound compression, wound packing, and tourniquet application. RESULTS: Among participants, only 23.9% had received prior bleeding control training. Participants who reported feeling 'extremely confident' responding to an emergency medical situation rose from 68.2% prior to StB training to 94.3% post-training. Regarding hemorrhage control abilities, 37.5% felt extremely confident before the training, compared with 95.5% after the training. For wound packing and tourniquet application, 44.3% and 53.4%, respectively, felt extremely confident pre-training, followed by 97.7% for both skills post-training. Importantly, 90.9% of StB trainees felt comfortable teaching newly acquired hemorrhage control skills. A significant majority of participants said that confidence in their wound packing and tourniquet skills would improve with more realistic mannequins. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first StB training in India. Disparities in access to care, long transport times, and insufficient numbers of prehospital personnel contribute to its significant trauma burden. Dissemination of these critical life-saving skills into this region and the resulting civilian interventions will increase the number of trauma patients who survive long enough to reach a trauma center. Additionally, considerations should be given to translating the course into local languages to increase program reach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Development of a geospatial approach for the quantitative analysis of trauma center access.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions around trauma center (TC) designation have become contentious in many areas. There is no consensus regarding the ideal number and location of TC and no accepted metrics to assess the effect of changes in system structure. We aimed to develop metrics of TC access, using publicly available data and analytic tools. We hypothesize that geospatial analysis can provide a reproducible approach to quantitatively asses potential changes in trauma system structure. METHODS: A region in New York State was chosen for evaluation. Geospatial data and analytic tools in ArcGIS Online were used. Transport time polygons were created around TC, and the population covered was estimated by summing the census tracts within these polygons. Transport time from each census tract to the nearest TC was calculated. The baseline model includes the single designated TC. Model 1 includes one additional TC, and Model 2 includes two additional TC, chosen to maximize coverage. The population covered, population-weighted distribution of transport times, and population covered by a specific TC were calculated for each model. RESULTS: The baseline model covered 1.12 × 10 people. The median transport time was 19.2 minutes. In Model 1, the population covered increased by 14.4%, while the population catchment, and thus the estimated trauma volume, of the existing TC decreased by 12%. Median transport time to the nearest TC increased to 20.4 minutes. Model 2 increased coverage by 18% above baseline, while the catchment, and thus the estimated trauma volume, of the existing TC decreased by 22%. Median transport time to the nearest TC decreased to 19.6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Geospatial analysis can provide objective measures of population access to trauma care. The analysis can be performed using different numbers and locations of TC, allowing direct comparison of changes in coverage and impact on existing centers. This type of data is essential for guiding difficult decisions regarding trauma system design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, level IV.