Building trauma capability: using geospatial analysis to consider military treatment facilities for trauma center development.

Background: The Military Health System must develop and sustain experienced surgical trauma teams while facing decreased surgical volumes both during and between deployments. Military trauma resources may enhance local trauma systems by accepting civilian patients for care at military treatment facilities (MTFs). Some MTFs may be able to augment their regional trauma systems by developing trauma center (TC) capabilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the geographical proximity of MTFs to the continental US (CONUS) population and relative to existing civilian adult TCs, and then to determine which MTFs might benefit most from TC development. Methods: Publicly available data were used to develop a list of CONUS adult civilian level 1 and level 2 TCs and also to generate a list of CONUS MTFs. Census data were used to estimate adult population densities across zip codes. Distances were calculated between zip codes and civilian TCs and MTFs. The affected population sizes and reductions in distance were tabulated for every zip code that was found to be closer to an MTF than an existing TC. Results: 562 civilian adult level 1 and level 2 TCs and 33 military medical centers and hospitals were identified. Compared with their closest civilian TCs, MTFs showed mean reductions in distance ranging from 0 to 30 miles, affecting populations ranging from 12 000 to over 900 000 adults. Seven MTFs were identified that would offer clinically significant reductions in distance to relatively large population centers. Discussion: Some MTFs may offer decreased transit times and improved care to large adult populations within their regional trauma systems by developing level 1 or level 2 TC capabilities. The results of this study provide recommendations to focus further study on seven MTFs to identify those that merit further development and integration with their local trauma systems. Level of evidence: IV.

Geographic Distance to Extracorporeal Life Support Centers for Pediatric Patients Within the Continental United States.

OBJECTIVES: Distance to subspecialty surgical care is a known impediment to the delivery of high-quality healthcare. Extracorporeal life support is of benefit to pediatric patients with specific medical conditions. Despite a continued increase in the number of extracorporeal life support centers, not all children have equal access to extracorporeal life support due to geographic constraints, creating a potential disparity in healthcare. We attempted to better define the variation in geographic proximity to extracorporeal life support centers for pediatric patients using the U.S. Decennial Census. DESIGN: A publicly available listing of voluntarily reporting extracorporeal life support centers in 2019 and the 2010 Decennial Census were used to calculate straight-line distances between extracorporeal life support zip code centroids and census block centroids. Disparities in distance to care associated with urbanization were analyzed. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: Large database review. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 136 centers providing pediatric extracorporeal life support in 2019. The distribution varied by state with Texas, California, and Florida having the most centers. Over 16 million children (23% of the pediatric population) live greater than 60 miles from an extracorporeal life support center. Significant disparity exists between urban and rural locations with over 47% of children in a rural setting living greater than 60 miles from an extracorporeal life support center compared with 17% of children living in an urban setting. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in proximity to extracorporeal life support centers were present and persistent across states. Children in rural areas have less access to extracorporeal life support centers based upon geographic distance alone. These findings may affect practice patterns and treatment decisions and are important to the development of regionalization strategies to ensure all children have subspecialty surgical care available to them, including extracorporeal life support.

From far and wide: Geographic distance to pediatric surgical care across Canada.

PURPOSE: Canada is the second largest country in the world, with most of the population located in the southern-most portion of its geography. We sought to define the relative distribution of pediatric surgeons to potential pediatric patients using data from the Canadian census. METHODS: The 2011 Canadian Census and a convenience sample of current Canadian pediatric surgeons were used to calculate straight-line distances between pediatric surgeon postal code centroids and census dissemination block centroids. RESULTS: Currently, there are 74 practicing pediatric surgeons in Canada; 493,345 populated census blocks were identified, and 7,752,075 children were enumerated. The median (IQR) kilometers to the closest pediatric surgeon was 27.99 (11.35, 85.47) kilometers, and 22.7% of Canadian children lived more than 100 km from care. Nearly 13% of children lived greater than 200 km from the nearest pediatric surgeon. CONCLUSION: More than 1.7 million Canadian children, nearly one quarter of all Canadian children, live greater than 100 km from the closest pediatric surgeon. This identifies a disparate group of patients who do not have an equal access-to-care as compared to others in the country. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Geographic distance to pediatric surgical care within the continental United States.

PURPOSE: Geographic proximity to pediatric surgical care has not been evaluated using the Decennial Census nor have racial, ethnic, gender, or urbanization variations been reported. This study's aim is to describe proximity of children living in the continental U.S. to a pediatric surgeon with respect to these variations. METHODS: The 2010 American Pediatric Surgical Association member file and the 2010 Decennial Census were used to calculate straight-line distances between pediatric surgeons' zip code centroids and census block centroids. RESULTS: In 2010, 716 practicing pediatric surgeons were identified, 6,182,882 populated Census blocks were identified, and 73,690,271 children were enumerated. Of white non-Hispanic children, 30.1% lived greater than 40 miles from care. Of Native American children, 40.5% lived more than 60 miles from care. Among children 0-5 years of age, the median (IQR) miles to closest pediatric surgeon was 14.2 (6.2, 39.6), and 3,010,698 of these children lived more than 60 miles from care. CONCLUSION: More than 10 million children lived greater than 60 miles from a pediatric surgeon in 2010. Racial, ethnic, age, and urbanization variations in proximity to pediatric surgeons were present. This method is feasible to describe distance-to-care with the upcoming 2020 Decennial Census and may benefit future allocation of pediatric surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.