Assessing trauma readiness costs in level III and level IV trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Readiness costs are expenses incurred by trauma centers to maintain essential infrastructure. Although the components for readiness are described in the American College of Surgeons' Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient , the cost associated with each component is not well defined. Previous studies describe readiness costs for levels I and II trauma centers based on these criteria. The purpose of this study was to quantify the cost of levels III and IV trauma center readiness. METHODS: The state trauma commission, along with trauma medical directors, program managers, and trauma center financial staff, standardized definitions for each component of trauma center readiness costs and developed a survey tool for reporting. Readiness costs were grouped into four categories: Administrative/Program Support Staff, Clinical Medical Staff, and Education/Outreach. A financial auditor analyzed all data to verify consistent cost reporting. Trauma center outliers were evaluated to validate variances. All levels III and IV trauma centers (n = 14) completed the survey on 2019 data. RESULTS: Average annual readiness cost is $1,715,025 for a level III trauma center and $81,620 for level IV centers. Among the costliest components were clinical medical staff for level IIIs and administrative costs for level IVs, representing 54% and 97% of costs, respectively. Although education/outreach is mandated, levels III and IV trauma centers only spend approximately $8,000 annually on this category (0.8-3%). CONCLUSION: This study defines the cost associated with each readiness component outlined in the Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient manual. The average readiness cost for a level III trauma center is $1,715,025 and $81,620 for a level IV, underscoring the need for additional trauma center funding to meet the requirements set forth by the American College of Surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Value-Based Evaluations; Level III.

Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems 2, is it ready for primetime? A natural experiment testing its reliability.

INTRODUCTION: Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems 2 (NBATS-2) attempts to predict the impact on patient volume and travel time for patients when a new trauma center (TC) is added to the system. The purpose of this study was to examine NBATS-2 predictive accuracy regarding expected volume and travel times of trauma patients at a newly designated TC and nearby legacy TCs when compared with actual data. METHODS: Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems predictive model for volume of trauma patients at the new TC was run based on 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of both state and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) patients per 100 TC beds. This was compared with the actual number of trauma patients from the State Discharge Data set before (2011-2012) and after (2016-2017) designation of the TC. Analysis was then augmented using the geographic information system (ArcGIS) spatial modeling to characterize median travel times for actual trauma patients, before and after designation of the TC. RESULTS: Both state and NTDB 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles resulted in significant overestimation of volume at the new TC in 2016. After another year of TC maturation (2017), overestimation decreased but was still present. The 25th percentile from state and NTDB data sets provided the most accurate predictions. For the legacy TCs, the model switched from under to overestimation as the state and NTDB percentiles increased. The geographic information system accurately showed patients traveling <40 minutes to a TC nearly doubled. CONCLUSION: Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems 2 provides an excellent template for state strategic planning; however, it overestimates new TC volume and under/overestimates volumes for legacy TCs depending on the state and NTDB percentiles used. This study shows that population density of the county in which the new or legacy TC is located should be considered when choosing the appropriate state or NTDB percentile. The geographic information system appropriately showed a decrease in trauma patient travel times after TC designation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care Management, level V.

Building capacity for injury prevention: a process evaluation of a replication of the Cardiff Violence Prevention Programme in the Southeastern USA.

OBJECTIVES: Violence is a major public health problem in the USA. In 2016, more than 1.6 million assault-related injuries were treated in US emergency departments (EDs). Unfortunately, information about the magnitude and patterns of violent incidents is often incomplete and underreported to law enforcement (LE). In an effort to identify more complete information on violence for the development of prevention programme, a cross-sectoral Cardiff Violence Prevention Programme (Cardiff Model) partnership was established at a large, urban ED with a level I trauma designation and local metropolitan LE agency in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. The Cardiff Model is a promising violence prevention approach that promotes combining injury data from hospitals and LE. The objective was to describe the Cardiff Model implementation and collaboration between hospital and LE partners. METHODS: The Cardiff Model was replicated in the USA. A process evaluation was conducted by reviewing project materials, nurse surveys and interviews and ED-LE records. RESULTS: Cardiff Model replication centred around four activities: (1) collaboration between the hospital and LE to form a community safety partnership locally called the US Injury Prevention Partnership; (2) building hospital capacity for data collection; (3) data aggregation and analysis and (4) developing and implementing violence prevention interventions based on the data. CONCLUSIONS: The Cardiff Model can be implemented in the USA for sustainable violent injury data surveillance and sharing. Key components include building a strong ED-LE partnership, communicating with each other and hospital staff, engaging in capacity building and sustainability planning.

How much green does it take to be orange? Determining the cost associated with trauma center readiness.

BACKGROUND: Readiness costs are real expenses incurred by trauma centers to maintain essential infrastructure to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. Although the components for readiness are well described in the American College of Surgeons' Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient, the cost associated with each component is not well defined. We hypothesized that meeting the requirements of the 2014 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient would result in significant costs for trauma centers. METHODS: The state trauma commission in conjunction with trauma medical directors, program managers, and financial officers of each trauma center standardized definitions for each component of trauma center readiness cost and developed a survey tool for reporting. Readiness costs were grouped into four categories: administrative/program support staff, clinical medical staff, in-house operating room, and education/outreach. To verify consistent cost reporting, a financial auditor analyzed all data. Trauma center outliers were further evaluated to validate variances. All level I/level II trauma centers (n = 16) completed the survey on 2016 data. RESULTS: Average annual readiness cost is US $10,078,506 for a level I trauma center and US $4,925,103 for level IIs. Clinical medical staff was the costliest component representing 55% of costs for level Is and 64% for level IIs. Although education/outreach is mandated, levels I and II trauma centers only spend approximately US $100,000 annually on this category (1%-2%), demonstrating a lack of resources. CONCLUSION: This study defines the cost associated with each component of readiness as defined in the Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient manual. Average readiness cost for a level I trauma center is US $10,078,506 and US $4,925,103 for a level II. The significant cost of trauma center readiness highlights the need for additional trauma center funding to meet the requirements set forth by the American College of Surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and value-based evaluations, level III.

Evaluation of the Georgia trauma system using the American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems tool.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool was developed to help determine the optimal regional distribution of designated trauma centers (DTC). The objectives of our current study were to compare the current distribution of DTCs in Georgia with the recommended allocation as calculated by the NBATS tool and to see if the NBATS tool identified similar areas of need as defined by our previous analysis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Injury Severity Score (ICISS). METHODS: Population counts were acquired from US Census publications. Transportation times were estimated using digitized roadmaps and patient zip codes. The number of severely injured patients was obtained from the Georgia Discharge Data System for 2010 to 2014. Severely injured patients were identified using two measures: ICISS<0.85 and Injury Severity Score >15. RESULTS: The Georgia trauma system includes 19 level I, II, or III adult DTCs. The NBATS guidelines recommend 21; however, the distribution differs from what exists in the state. The existing DTCs exactly matched the NBATS recommended number of level I, II, or III DTCs in 2 of 10 trauma service areas (TSAs), exceeded the number recommended in 3 of 10 TSAs, and was below the number recommended in 5 of 10 TSAs. Densely populated, or urban, areas tend to be associated with a higher number of existing centers compared with the NBATS recommendation. Other less densely populated TSAs are characterized by large rural expanses with a single urban core where a DTC is located. The identified areas of need were similar to the ones identified in the previous gap analysis of the state using the ICISS methodology. DISCUSSION: The tool appears to underestimate the number of centers needed in extensive and densely populated areas, but recommends additional centers in geographically expansive rural areas. The tool signifies a preliminary step in assessing the need for state-wide inpatient trauma center services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level IV.

Descriptive Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism in Georgia Trauma Centers Compared with National Trauma Centers Participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

This study was designed to compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Georgia trauma centers with other national trauma centers participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). The use of chemoprophylaxis and characteristics of patients who developed VTE were also examined. We conducted a retrospective observational study of 325,703 trauma admissions to 245 trauma centers from 2013 to 2014. Patient demographics, rate of VTE, as well as the use, type, and timing of chemoprophylaxis were compared between patients admitted to Georgia and non-Georgia trauma centers. The rate of VTE in Georgia trauma centers was 1.9 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent in other national trauma centers. Overall, 49.6 per cent of Georgia patients and 45.5 per cent of patients in other trauma centers had documented chemoprophylaxis. Low molecular weight heparin was the most commonly used medication. Most patients who developed VTE did so despite receiving prophylaxis. The rate of VTE despite prophylaxis was 3.2 per cent in Georgia and 3.1 per cent in non-Georgia trauma centers. Mortality associated with VTE was higher in Georgia trauma centers compared with national TQIP benchmarks. The incidence of VTE and use of chemoprophylaxis within Georgia trauma centers were similar to national TQIP data. Interestingly, most patients who developed VTE in both populations received VTE prophylaxis. Further research is needed to develop best-practice guidelines for prevention, early detection, and treatment in high-risk populations.

What Are the Costs of Trauma Center Readiness? Defining and Standardizing Readiness Costs for Trauma Centers Statewide.

Trauma center readiness costs are incurred to maintain essential infrastructure and capacity to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. These costs are not captured by traditional hospital cost accounting, and no national consensus exists on appropriate definitions for each cost. Therefore, in 2010, stakeholders from all Level I and II trauma centers developed a survey tool standardizing and defining trauma center readiness costs. The survey tool underwent minor revisions to provide further clarity, and the survey was repeated in 2013. The purpose of this study was to provide a follow-up analysis of readiness costs for Georgia's Level I and Level II trauma centers. Using the American College of Surgeons Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient guidelines, four readiness cost categories were identified: Administrative, Clinical Medical Staff, Operating Room, and Education/Outreach. Through conference calls, webinars and face-to-face meetings with financial officers, trauma medical directors, and program managers from all trauma centers, standardized definitions for reporting readiness costs within each category were developed. This resulted in a survey tool for centers to report their individual readiness costs for one year. The total readiness cost for all Level I trauma centers was $34,105,318 (avg $6,821,064) and all Level II trauma centers was $20,998,019 (avg $2,333,113). Methodology to standardize and define readiness costs for all trauma centers within the state was developed. Average costs for Level I and Level II trauma centers were identified. This model may be used to help other states define and standardize their trauma readiness costs.

A Decade Evaluation of a State Trauma System: Has Access to Inpatient Trauma Care at Designated Trauma Centers Improved?

Recently, the trauma center component of the Georgia trauma system was evaluated demonstrating a 10 per cent probability of increased survival for severely injured patients treated at designated trauma centers (DTCs) versus nontrauma centers. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a state trauma system to provide access to inpatient trauma care at DTCs for its residents. We reviewed 371,786 patients from the state's discharge database and identified 255,657 treated at either a DTC or a nontrauma center between 2003 and 2012. Injury severity was assigned using the International Classification Injury Severity Score method. Injury was categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were also categorized by age and injury type. Access improved over time in all severity levels, age groups, and injury types. Although elderly had the largest improvement in access, still only 70 per cent were treated at a DTC. During the study period, increases were noted for all age groups, injury severity levels, and types of injury. A closer examination of the injured elderly population is needed to determine the cause of lower utilization by this age group. Overall, the state's trauma system continues to mature by providing patients with increased access to treatment at DTCs.

An analysis of the effectiveness of a state trauma system: treatment at designated trauma centers is associated with an increased probability of survival.

BACKGROUND: States struggle to continue support for recruitment, funding and development of designated trauma centers (DTCs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the probability of survival for injured patients treated at DTCs versus nontrauma centers. METHODS: We reviewed 188,348 patients from the state's hospital discharge database and identified 13,953 severely injured patients admitted to either a DTC or a nontrauma center between 2008 and 2012. DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. Injury Severity Scores (ICISS), an accepted indicator of injury severity, was assigned to each patient. Severe injury was defined as an ICISS less than 0.85 (indicating ≥15% probability of mortality). Three subgroups of the severely injured patients were defined as most critical, intermediate critical, and least critical. A full information maximum likelihood bivariate probit model was used to determine the differences in the probability of survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: After controlling for injury severity, injury type, patient demographics, the presence of comorbidities, as well as insurance type and status, severely injured patients treated at a DTC have a 10% increased probability of survival. The largest improvement was seen in the intermediate subgroup. CONCLUSION: Treatment of severely injured patients at a DTC is associated with an improved probability of survival. This argues for continued resources in support of DTCs within a defined statewide network. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.