Costs of Transfer From Nontrauma to Trauma Centers Among Patients With Minor Injuries.

Importance: Nearly half the patients transferred from nontrauma centers to trauma centers have minor injuries, yet trauma center care is not associated with a difference in morality among patients with minor injuries. Consequently, reducing the frequency of such transfers has been postulated as a method to improve resource allocation. Currently, the economic implications of these transfers are not well understood. Objective: To estimate health care costs associated with the transfer of patients with minor injuries from nontrauma to trauma centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Participants included individuals aged 16 years or older who were transferred to a trauma center after presenting to a nontrauma center with a minor injury (survival >24 hours, Injury Severity Score [ISS] <16, and absence of an American College of Surgeons-defined critical injury). Statistical analysis was conducted from March 2022 to June 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was total health care costs within 30 days of injury, standardized to 2015 Canadian dollars (CAD$). Propensity scoring was used to match transferred patients with controls admitted to nontrauma centers. Negative binomial models were used to estimate differences in costs between transferred patients and matched controls. Results: Of the 14 557 patients with minor injuries transferred to a trauma center (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [20.9] years; 5367 female patients [36.9%]; median ISS, 4 [IQR, 2-5]), 12 652 (86.9%) were matched with a control. Thirty days after injury, mean health care costs among transferred patients were CAD$13 540 (95% CI, CAD$13 319-CAD$13 765), a 6.5% (95% CI, 4.4%-8.5%) increase relative to controls (CAD$12 719 [95% CI, CAD$12 582-CAD$12 857]). Half the transferred patients (54.9% [7994 of 14 557]) were admitted, while the remainder were discharged after evaluation in the trauma center emergency department. Among patients admitted to a trauma center, mean 30-day costs were CAD$19 602 (95% CI, CAD$19 294-CAD$19 915), a 54.6% (95% CI, 51.5%-57.8%) increase relative to controls. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with minor injuries transferred from nontrauma centers to trauma centers found that the transfer of these patients was associated with increased costs to the health care system. Given the high prevalence of such transfers, these findings suggest that the development of systems to support the care of patients with minor injuries at their local hospitals is essential to the sustainability of trauma systems.

Trauma Activation Fees Vary Widely Across US Trauma Centers.

Trauma activation fees are intended to help trauma centers cover the costs of providing lifesaving care at all times, but they have fallen under greater scrutiny because of a lack of regulation and wide variability in charges. We leveraged the federal Hospital Price Transparency rule to systematically describe trauma activation fees as captured in the Turquoise Health database for all Level I-III trauma centers nationally and across payer types. As of April 18, 2023, a total of 38 percent of US trauma centers published trauma activation fees. These fees varied widely by payer type. The minimum fee charged was $40 (for a Medicaid contract); the maximum fees charged were $28,356 (self-pay) and $28,893 (commercial payers). Trauma centers that were larger, metropolitan, located in the West, and associated with proprietary (investor-owned, for-profit) hospitals had higher trauma activation fees. Proprietary hospitals posted fees that were 60 percent higher than those published by public, nonfederal hospitals. Unmerited variation in trauma activation fees may suggest that the current funding strategy is equitable neither for trauma centers nor for the severely injured patients who rely on them for lifesaving care.

Cost-avoidance associated with implementation of an overnight emergency medicine pharmacist at a Level I Trauma, Comprehensive Stroke Center.

AIM: To investigate the cost-avoidance associated with implementation of an overnight emergency medicine pharmacist (EMP) through documented clinical interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively tracked interventions in a single Level I Trauma, Comprehensive Stroke Center, from November 25, 2020 through March 12, 2021 during expanded emergency medicine service hours (2300-0700). INTERVENTIONS: One of 45 clinical patient-care recommendations associated with cost-avoidance were available to be selected and documented by the EMP; more than one intervention was allowed per patient, though one clinical intervention could not be counted as multiple items. Documented services were associated with monetary cost avoidance based upon available literature assessing pharmacy clinical interventions. Differences in time from imaging to systemic thrombolytics and percentage of patients meeting door-to-alteplase benchmarks were compared with and without the availability of EMPs. RESULTS: Overnight EMPs documented 820 interventions during 107 overnight shifts with a cost avoidance of $612,974. The most common interventions were bedside monitoring (n = 127; $50,694), drug information consultation (97; $11,269), and antimicrobial therapy initiation and streamlining (95; $60,101). When categorizing interventions, 378 (46%; $292,484) were input as hands-on care, 216 (26%; $94,899) as individualization of patient care, 135 (17%; $25,897) as administrative and supportive tasks, 84 (10%; $121,746) as adverse drug event prevention, and 7 (1%; $77,964) as resource utilization. All patients (n = 6) with an acute ischemic stroke during the evaluation period received systemic thrombolytics ≤45 min in the presence of EMPs compared with 50% receiving thrombolytics ≤45 min without EMPs. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded overnight coverage by EMPs provided clinical bedside pharmacotherapy expertise to critically ill patients otherwise not available prior to study implementation. Clinical interventions were associated with substantial cost-avoidance.

Emergency Department Trauma Activation Fees by Payer Type.

This cross-sectional study examines the wide variations in prices of emergency medical services at US hospitals.

Cost Savings of Whole Blood Versus Component Therapy at a Community Level 1 Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Blood product component-only resuscitation (CORe) has been the standard of practice in both military and civilian trauma care with a 1:1:1 ratio used in attempt to recreate whole blood (WB) until recent data demonstrated WB to confer a survival advantage, leading to the emergence of WB as the contemporary resuscitation strategy of choice. Little is known about the cost and waste reduction associated with WB vs CORe. METHODS: This study is a retrospective single-center review of adult trauma patients admitted to a community trauma center who received WB or CORe as part of their massive transfusion protocol (MTP) resuscitation from 2017 to 2021. The WB group received a minimum of one unit WB while CORe received no WB. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed. Statistical analysis was conducted using a 95% confidence level. Non-normally distributed, continuous data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: 576 patients were included (201 in WB and 375 in CORe). Whole blood conveyed a survival benefit vs CORe (OR 1.49 P < .05, 1.02-2.17). Whole blood use resulted in an overall reduction in products prepared (25.8%), volumes transfused (16.5%), product waste (38.7%), and MTP activation (56.3%). Cost savings were $849 923 annually and $3 399 693 over the study period. DISCUSSION: Despite increased patient volumes over the study period (43.7%), the utilization of WB as compared to CORe resulted in an overall $3.39 million cost savings while improving mortality. As such, we propose WB should be utilized in all resuscitation strategies for the exsanguinating trauma patient.

Predictors of Episode-of-Care Costs for Ankle Fractures.

Ankle fractures are one of the most resource-consuming traumatic orthopedic injuries. Few studies have successfully evaluated the episode-of-care costs (EOCC) of common traumatic orthopedic injuries. The objective of this study was to determine the EOCC associated with the surgical management of ankle fractures. A retrospective cohort study of 105 consecutive patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of an isolated ankle fracture at a Canadian Level-1 trauma center was conducted. Episode-of-care costs were generated using an activity-based costing framework. The median global episode-of-care cost for ankle fracture surgeries performed at the studied institution was $3,487 CAD [IQR 880] ($2,685 USD [IQR 616]). Patients aged 60 to 90 years had a significantly higher median EOCC than younger patients (p = .01). Supination-adduction injuries had a significantly higher median EOCC than other injury patterns (p = .01). The median EOCC for patients who underwent surgery within 10 days of their injury ($3,347 CAD [582], $2,577 USD [448]) was significantly lower than the cost for patients who had their surgery delayed 10 days or more after the injury ($3,634 CAD [776], $2,798 USD [598]) (p = .03). Patient sex, anesthesia type, ASA score and surgeon's fellowship training did not affect the EOCC. This study provides valuable data on predictors of EOCC in the surgical management of ankle fractures. Delaying simple ankle fracture cases due to operating time constraints can increase the total cost and burden of these fractures on the healthcare system. In addition, this study provides a framework for future episode-of-care cost analysis studies in orthopedic surgery.

Effect of trauma quality improvement initiatives on outcomes and costs at community hospitals: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Due to complex geography and resource constraints, trauma patients are often initially transported to community or rural facilities rather than a larger Level I or II trauma center. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize evidence on interventions that improved the quality of trauma care and/or reduced healthcare costs at non-Level I or II facilities. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to identify studies implementing a Quality Improvement (QI) initiative at a non-major trauma center (i.e., non-Level I or II trauma center [or equivalent]). We searched 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL) and the grey literature (relevant networks, organizations/associations). Methodological quality was evaluated using NIH and JBI study quality assessment tools. Studies were included if they evaluated the effect of implementing a trauma care QI initiative on one or more of the following: 1) trauma outcomes (mortality, morbidity); 2) system outcomes (e.g., length of stay [LOS], transfer times, provider factors); 3) provider knowledge or perception; or 4) healthcare costs. Pediatric trauma, pre-hospital and tele-trauma specific studies were excluded. RESULTS: Of 1046 data sources screened, 36 were included for full review (29 journal articles, 7 abstracts/posters without full text). Educational initiatives including the Rural Trauma Team Development Course and the Advanced Trauma Life Support course were the most common QI interventions investigated. Study outcomes included process metrics such as transfer time to tertiary care and hospital LOS, along with measures of provider perception and knowledge. Improvement in mortality was reported in a single study evaluating the impact of establishing a dedicated trauma service at a community hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our review captured a broad spectrum of trauma QI projects implemented at non-major trauma centers. Educational interventions did result in process outcome improvements and high rates of self-reported improvements in trauma care. Given the heterogeneous capabilities of community and rural hospitals, there is no panacea for trauma QI at these facilities. Future research should focus on patient outcomes like mortality and morbidity, and locally relevant initiatives.

A pilot project of a Post Discharge Care Team for firearm injury survivors decreases emergency department utilization, hospital readmission days, and cost.

BACKGROUND: Persons of low socioeconomic status are overrepresented in the firearm injury patient population and may experience challenges in accessing complex outpatient health systems. Consequently, outpatient care for these patients is plagued by poor follow-up and increased emergency department (ED) utilization. We developed a Post Discharge Care Team (PDCT) consisting of a dedicated trauma nurse navigator and medical social worker to bridge the gap between hospital discharge and outpatient care to improve recovery. METHODS: Adult firearm injury survivors admitted to the trauma service were randomized 1:1 to receive either PDCT services or standard of care (SOC) workflows. The PDCT nurse provided education and set expectations regarding injuries, wound care, and outpatient follow-up. The PDCT social worker performed a comprehensive assessment to identify concerns including housing and financial instability, food insecurity, or transportation issues. The primary outcome was ED utilization, with secondary outcomes including readmissions and overall health care costs compared between groups. RESULTS: In the first 6 months of the study, a total of 44 patients were randomized to PDCT and 47 to SOC. There were 10 patients who visited the ED in the PDCT group compared with 16 in the SOC group ( p = 0.23) for a total of 14 and 23 ED visits, respectively. There were 14 patients in the PDCT and 11 patients in the SOC groups who were readmitted ( p = 0.31), but the PDCT group was readmitted for 27.9 fewer hospital days. After accounting for programmatic costs, the PDCT had a hospital savings of $34,542.71. CONCLUSION: A collaborative, specialized PDCT for firearm injury survivors consisting of a dedicated trauma nurse navigator and medical social worker decreased outpatient ED utilization, readmission days, and was cost effective. Trauma centers with high volumes of penetrating trauma should consider a similar model to improve outpatient care for firearm injury survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Dollars and Sense: The Financial Argument for Dedicated Posttrauma Center Care.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that the creation of a Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) is not cost-prohibitive but is a revenue generator for the institution. BACKGROUND: A dedicated CTS has been demonstrated to increase adherence with follow-up visits and improve overall aftercare in severely injured patients discharged from the trauma center. A potential impediment to the creation of similar centers is its assumed prohibitive cost. METHODS: This pre and post-cohort study examines the financial impact of patients treated by the CTS. Patients in the PRE cohort were those treated in the year before CTS inception. Eligibility criteria are trauma patients admitted who are ≥18 years of age and have a New Injury Severity Score ≥16 or intensive care unit stay ≥2 days. Financial data were obtained from the hospital's billing and cost accounting systems for a 1-year time period after discharge. RESULTS: There were 176 patients in the PRE and 256 in the CTS cohort. The CTS cohort generated 1623 subsequent visits versus 748 in the PRE cohort. CTS patients underwent more follow-up surgery in their first year of recovery as compared with the PRE cohort (98 vs 26 procedures). Each CTS patient was responsible for a $7752 increase in net revenue with a positive contribution margin of $4558 compared with those in the PRE group. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated CTS increases subsequent visits and necessary procedures and is a positive revenue source for the trauma center. The presumptive financial burden of a CTS is incorrect and the creation of dedicated centers will improve patients' outcomes and the institution's bottom line.

Does the implementation of a trauma system affect injury-related morbidity and economic outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma accounts for a huge burden of disease worldwide. Trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries across the globe, aiming to link and optimise multiple aspects of the trauma care pathway, and while they have been shown to reduce overall mortality, much less is known about their cost-effectiveness and impact on morbidity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to explore the impact the implementation of a trauma system has on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All comparator study types published since 2000 were included, both retrospective and prospective in nature, and no limits were placed on language. Data were reported as a narrative review. RESULTS: Seven articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria, all of which reported a pre-trauma and post-trauma system implementation comparison in high-income settings. The overall study quality was poor, with all studies demonstrating a severe risk of bias. Five studies reported across multiple types of trauma patients, the majority describing a positive impact across a variety of morbidity and health economic outcomes following trauma system implementation. Two studies focused specifically on traumatic brain injury and did not demonstrate any impact on morbidity outcomes. DISCUSSION: There is currently limited and poor quality evidence that assesses the impact that trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes. While trauma systems have a fundamental role to play in high-quality trauma care, morbidity and disability data can have large economic and cultural consequences, even if mortality rates have improved. The sociocultural and political context of the surrounding healthcare infrastructure must be better understood before implementing any trauma system, particularly in resource-poor and fragile settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348529 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Trends in Management and Cost Burden of Facial Fractures: A 14-Year Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss patient demographics and management and better understand the economic impact associated with the treatment of facial fractures at a major metropolitan level 1 trauma center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: We identified 5088 facial fractures in 2479 patients who presented from 2008 to 2022. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, treatment information, and hospital charges were collected and analyzed to determine factors associated with surgical management and increased cost burden. RESULTS: Our 14-year experience identified 1628 males and 851 females with a mean age of 45.7 years. Orbital fractures were most common (41.2%), followed by maxilla fractures (20.8%). The most common mechanism was fall (43.0%). Surgical management was recommended for 41% of patients. The odds of surgical management was significantly lower in female patients, patients age 65 and older, and patients who presented after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The odds of surgical management was significantly higher for patients who had a mandible fracture or greater than 1 fracture. The average cost of management was highest for naso-orbito-ethmoidal fractures ($37,997.74 ± 52,850.88), followed by LeFort and frontal fractures ($29.814.41 ± 42,155.73 and $27,613.44 ± 39.178.53, respectively). The highest contributor to the total average cost of management was intensive care unit-related costs for every fracture type, except for mandible fractures for which the highest contributor was operating room (OR)-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the largest comprehensive databases of facial fractures and one of the first to provide a descriptive cost analysis of facial trauma management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:3120-3126, 2024.

The invisible scars: Unseen financial complications worsen every aspect of long-term health in trauma survivors.

BACKGROUND: Trauma survivors are susceptible to experiencing financial toxicity (FT). Studies have shown the negative impact of FT on chronic illness outcomes. However, there is a notable lack of data on FT in the context of trauma. We aimed to better understand prevalence, risk factors, and impact of FT on trauma long-term outcomes. METHODS: Adult trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 treated at Level I trauma centers were interviewed 6 months to 14 months after discharge. Financial toxicity was considered positive if patients reported any of the following due to the injury: income loss, lack of care, newly applied/qualified for governmental assistance, new financial problems, or work loss. The Impact of FT on Patient Reported Outcome Measure Index System (PROMIS) health domains was investigated. RESULTS: Of 577 total patients, 44% (254/567) suffered some form of FT. In the adjusted model, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.2-0.81) and stronger social support networks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74) were protective against FT. In contrast, having two or more comorbidities (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.28), lower education levels (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 95%, 1.26-3.03), and injury mechanisms, including road accidents (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.51-4.77) and intentional injuries (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.44-12.86) were associated with higher toxicity. No significant relationship was found with ISS, sex, or single-family household. Patients with FT had worse outcomes across all domains of health. There was a negative linear relationship between the severity of FT and worse mental and physical health scores. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is associated with long-term outcomes. Incorporating FT risk assessment into recovery care planning may help to identify patients most in need of mitigative interventions across the trauma care continuum to improve trauma recovery. Further investigations to better understand, define, and address FT in trauma care are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Charges, length of stay, and complication associations with trauma center ownership in adult patients with mild to moderate trauma.

BACKGROUND: For-profit (FP) trauma centers (TCs) charge more for trauma care than not-for-profit (NFP) centers. We sought to determine charges, length of stay (LOS), and complications associations with TC ownership status (FP, NFP, and government) for three diagnoses among patients with overall low injury severity. METHODS: Adult patients treated at TCs with an International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity score (ICISS) survival probability ≥ 0.85 were identified. Only those who with a principal diagnosis of femur, tibial or rib fractures were included. RESULTS: Total charges were significantly higher at FP centers than NFP and lower at government centers (89.6% and -12.8%, respectively). FP TCs had a 12.5% longer LOS and government TCs had a 20.4% longer LOS than NFP TCs. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting to FP TCs with mild/moderate femur, tibial, or rib fractures experienced higher charges and increased LOS compared with government or NFP centers. There was no difference in overall complication rates.

Three months in a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit: What is a registrar worth?

BACKGROUND: South Africa has a high burden of traumatic injuries that is predominantly managed in the public healthcare system, despite the relative disparity in human resources between the public and private sectors. Because of budget and theatre time constraints, the trauma waiting list often exceeds 50 - 60 patients who need urgent and emergent surgery in high-volume orthopaedic trauma centres. This situation is exacerbated by other surgical disciplines using orthopaedic theatre time for life-threatening injuries because of lack of own theatre availability. One of the proposed solutions to this problem is outsourcing of some of the cases to private medical facilities. OBJECTIVES: To establish the volume of work done by an orthopaedic registrar during a 3-month trauma rotation, and to calculate the implant and theatre costs, as well as compare the salary of a registrar with the theoretical private surgeon fees for procedures performed by the registrar in the 3-month period. METHODS: In a retrospective study, the surgical logbook of a single registrar during a 3-month rotation, from 14 January to 14 April 2019, was reviewed. Surgeon fees were calculated for these procedures, according to current medical aid rates, without additional modifier codes being added. RESULTS: During the 3-month study period, a total of 157 surgical procedures was performed, ranging from total hip arthroplasty to debridement of septic hands. Surgeon fees amounted to ZAR186 565.10 per month ‒ double the gross salary of a registrar. Total implant costs amounted to ZAR1 272 667. Theatre costs were ZAR1 301 976 for the 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Although this analysis was conducted over a short period, it highlights the significant amount of trauma work done by a single individual at a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit. With increasing budget constraints, pressure on theatre time and a growing population, cost-effective expansion of resources is needed. From this study, it appears that increasing capacity in the state sector could be cheaper than private outsourcing, although a more in-depth analysis needs to be conducted.

Futile trauma transfers: An infrequent but costly component of regionalized trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate interfacility transfers are a key component of highly functioning trauma systems but transfer of unsalvageable patients can overburden the resources of higher-level centers. We sought to identify the occurrence and associated reasons for futile transfers within our trauma system. METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from our system database, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify patients who underwent interfacility transfer to our American College of Surgeons level I center. Adult patients from June 2017 to June 2019 who died, had comfort measures implemented, were discharged, or went to hospice care within 48 hours of admission without significant operation, procedure, or radiologic intervention were examined. Futility was defined as resulting in death or hospice discharge within 48 hours of transfer without major operative, endoscopic, or radiologic intervention. RESULTS: A total of 1,241 patients transferred to our facility during the study period. Four hundred seven patients had a length of stay less than or equal to 48 hours. Eighteen (1.5%) met the criteria for futility. The most common reason for transfer in the futile population was traumatic brain injury (56%) and need for neurosurgical capabilities (62%). Futile patients had a median age and Injury Severity Score of 75 and 21. The main transportation method was ground 9 (50%) with 8 (44.4%) being transported by helicopter and 1 (5.6%) being transported by both. Combining transport costs with hospital charges, each futile transfer was estimated to cost US $56,396 (interquartile range, 41,889-106,393) with a total cost exceeding US $1.7 million. With an estimated 33,000 interfacility transfers annually for trauma in the United States, the cost of futile transfers to the American trauma system would exceed 27 million dollars each year. CONCLUSION: Futile transfers represent a small but costly portion transfer volume. Identification of patients whose conditions preclude the benefit of transfer due to futility and development of appropriate support for referral will significantly improve appropriate allocation of health care resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic; Care management, level IV.

Trends in utilization of whole-body computed tomography in blunt trauma after MVC: Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: The use of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) in awake, clinically stable injured patients is controversial. It is associated with unnecessary radiation exposure and increased cost. We evaluate use of computed tomography (CT) imaging during the initial evaluation of injured patients at American College of Surgeons Levels I and II trauma centers (TCs) after blunt trauma. METHODS: We identified adult blunt trauma patients after motor vehicle crash (MVC) from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2007 and 2016 at Level I or II TCs. We defined awake clinically stable patients as those with systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or higher with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Computed tomography imaging had to have been performed within 2 hours of arrival. Whole-body computed tomography was defined as simultaneous CT of the head, chest and abdomen, and selective CT if only one to two aforementioned regions were imaged. Patients were stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS). RESULTS: There were 217,870 records for analysis; 131,434 (60.3%) had selective CT, and 86,436 (39.7%) had WBCT. Overall, there was an increasing trend in WBCT utilization over the study period (p < 0.001). In patients with ISS less than 10, WBCT was utilized more commonly at Level II versus Level I TCs in patients discharged from the emergency department (26.9% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), which had no surgical procedure(s) (81.4% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.001) and no injury of the head (53.7% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.008) or abdomen (83.8% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.001). The risk-adjusted odds of WBCT was two times higher at Level II TC vs. Level I (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval 1.82-1.94; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Whole-body computed tomography utilization is increasing relative to selective CT. This increasing utilization is highest at Level II TCs in patients with low ISSs, and in patients without associated head or abdominal injury. The findings have implications for quality improvement and cost reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, Level IV.