Financial vulnerability of trauma centers: A national analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Trauma centers function as an essential safeguard in the United States health care system. However, there has been minimal study of their financial health or vulnerability. We sought to perform a nationwide analysis of trauma centers using detailed financial data and a recently developed Financial Vulnerability Score (FVS) metric. METHODS: The RAND Hospital Financial Database was used to evaluate all American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers nationwide. The composite FVS was calculated for each center using six metrics. Financial Vulnerability Score tertiles were used to classify centers as high, medium, or low vulnerability, and hospital characteristics were analyzed and compared. Hospitals were also compared by US Census region and teaching versus nonteaching hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 311 American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers were included in the analysis, with 100 (32%) Level I, 140 (45%) Level II, and 71 (23%) Level III. The largest share of the high FVS tier was consisted of Level III centers (62%), with the majority of Level I (40%) and Level II (42%) in the middle and low FVS tier, respectively. The most vulnerable centers had fewer beds, negative operating margins, and significantly less cash on hand. Lower FVS centers had greater asset/liability ratios, lower outpatient shares, and three times less uncompensated care. Nonteaching centers were statistically significantly more likely to have high vulnerability compared with teaching centers (46% vs. 29%). Statewide analysis showed high discrepancy among individual states. CONCLUSION: With approximately 25% of Levels I and II trauma centers at high risk for financial vulnerability, disparities in characteristics, including payer mix and outpatient status, should be targeted to reduce vulnerabilities and bolster the health care safety net. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Reading the signs in penetrating cervical vascular injuries: Analysis of hard/soft signs and initial management from a nationwide vascular trauma database.

BACKGROUND: Algorithms for management of penetrating cervical vascular injuries (PCVIs) commonly call for immediate surgery with "hard signs" and imaging before intervention with "soft signs." We sought to analyze the association between initial examination and subsequent evaluation and management approaches. METHODS: Analysis of PCVIs from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment vascular injury registry from 25 US trauma centers was performed. Patients were categorized by initial examination findings of hard signs or soft signs, and subsequent imaging and surgical exploration/repair rates were compared. RESULTS: Of 232 PCVI patients, 110 (47%) had hard signs (hemorrhage, expanding hematoma, or ischemia) and 122 (53%) had soft signs. With hard signs, 61 (56%) had immediate operative exploration and 44% underwent computed tomography (CT) imaging. After CT, 20 (18%) required open surgical repair, and 7% had endovascular intervention. Of note, 21 (19%) required no operative intervention. A total of 122 patients (53%) had soft signs on initial examination; 37 (30%) had immediate surgery, and 85 (70%) underwent CT imaging. After CT, 9% had endovascular repair, 7% had open surgery, and 65 (53%) were observed. No difference in mortality was observed for hard signs patients undergoing operative management versus observation alone (23% vs. 17%, p = 0.6). Those with hemorrhage as the primary hard signs most often required surgery (76%), but no interventions were required in 19% of hemorrhage, 20% of ischemia, and 24% of expanding hematoma. CONCLUSION: Although hard signs in PCVIs are associated with the need for operative intervention, initial CT imaging can facilitate endovascular options or nonoperative management in a significant subgroup. Hard signs should not be considered an absolute indication for immediate surgical exploration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiological; Level IV.