Factors influencing admission among children with a traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) among children in Maryland and to examine factors that influence hospital admission. METHODS: Statewide mortality, hospital discharge, and ambulatory care data were used to identify all TBI-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths that occurred in 1998 to children aged 0-19 years according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's standard case definition and protocol. Inpatient admission was modeled as a function of patient, injury, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: The overall incidence of pediatric TBI (i.e., ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths) in 1998 was 670/100,000. After controlling for injury severity and other factors, uninsured children were 40% less likely to be hospitalized (95% CI = 0.43 to 0.82) and children with Medicaid were 90% more likely to be hospitalized (95% CI = 1.42 to 2.54) than were those with private insurance. The presence of a major associated injury significantly influenced the likelihood of hospitalization, especially among children with a minor (OR = 8.8) to moderate (OR = 11.6) TBI. Children who presented to a trauma center hospital were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than children treated at a non-trauma center hospital, although this varied depending on income (OR = 1.8 for high versus low) and hospital volume (OR = 2.6 for a small hospital and OR = 29.0 for a large hospital). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for TBI severity and the presence of associated injuries, significant differences in hospitalization rates may exist among different patient subgroups and hospitals for children who sustain TBIs.

Comparison of Maryland hospital discharge and trauma registry data.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the validity of using Maryland hospital discharge data to characterize injuries sustained by trauma patients. METHODS: Maryland hospital discharge and Maryland trauma registry data for 1999 were merged, and the extent of agreement regarding the presence and severity of injuries sustained was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean Injury Severity Score was 8.4 according to the Maryland hospital discharge data and 10 according to the Maryland trauma registry data (p < 0.0001). The Maryland hospital discharge data identified 95% or more of all moderate to severe injuries (Abbreviated Injury Score, > or =2) for all body regions except the head. There was substantial agreement between the two data sets for mechanism of injury (weighted kappa, 0.62), the number of preexisting conditions present (weighted kappa, 0.45) and final disposition (weighted kappa, 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The Maryland hospital discharge data are a valid source for documenting the nature and severity of injuries sustained by trauma patients, except for those with a relatively minor head injury.

Strategies to increase smoke alarm use in high-risk households.

A 3-year project was undertaken to evaluate two methods of promoting residential smoke alarm installation and maintenance in high risk households across the U.S. Five states (Arkansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina) participated. The two strategies under study were direct installation of smoke alarms and distribution of a voucher for free smoke alarms. The target population included occupants of high-risk households without working smoke alarms who were approached as part of a door-to-door canvassing program. Fire Safety education was provided to both groups. A follow up assessment conducted 6-12 months post intervention assessed the presence and functional status of smoke alarms in each of the two groups. Demographic and fire safety data were also collected at baseline and follow up for each group. 4,455 households were enrolled in the study [Installation Group: 2,206 (49.5%), Voucher Group: 2,249 (50.5%)]. Baseline characteristics of the groups within each state were comparable. Follow up data was obtained on 1,583 installation group households and 1,545 voucher group households. At follow up, 1,421 (89.8%) households in the installation group had working smoke alarms, compared with 997 (65%) households in the voucher group, Odds Ratio 4.82 (95% CI=3.97, 5.85) (p <.0001). On average, 47% of all households enrolled in the voucher group did not redeem their vouchers (range 26-63%). Direct installation of alarms by program staff resulted in working smoke alarms in 90% of households receiving the direct installation intervention. Only 65% of voucher households had functioning alarms at follow up, largely due to failure to redeem vouchers.