Interfacility Transfer is Associated With Lower Mortality in Undertriaged Gunshot Wound Patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment at a Level I trauma center yields better outcomes for patients with moderate-to-severe injury as compared with treatment in nontrauma centers. We examined the association between interfacility transfer to a level I or II trauma center and mortality for gunshot wound patients, among patients initially transported to a lower level or undesignated facility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients from the National Trauma Data Bank (2010-2015) with firearm as the external cause of injury, who met CDC criteria for emergency medical services triage to a higher level (American College of Surgeons [ACS] Level II or above) trauma center. We compared outcomes between patients (a) treated in an ACS level III or below facility and not transferred versus (b) transferred to an ACS level II or above facility, adjusting for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weights. RESULTS: Of the total 62,277 patients, 10,968 (17.6%) were transferred to a level II center or above, and 51,309 (82.4%) were treated at a level III or below or undesignated center. In adjusted analysis comparing transferred versus not transferred patients, risk was lower for mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.95 P = 0.011) but similar for any complication (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25 P = 0.87) and the five most common complications. Results were consistent when accounting for data missing at random, and when including state trauma center designations in the definition of Level II or greater versus III and below. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found lower mortality but similar complication risk associated with interfacility transfer for undertriaged gunshot wound patients. This suggests that transfer to a higher level center is warranted among these patients, with improved care potentially outweighing potential harms because of transfer.

Differences in trauma mortality between ACS-verified and state-designated trauma centers in the US.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of deaths worldwide, and designated trauma centers are crucial to preventing these. In the US, trauma centers can be designated as level I-IV by states and/or the American College of Surgeons (ACS), reflecting the resources available for care. We examined whether state- and ACS-verified facilities of the same level (I-IV) had differences in mortality, complications, and disposition, and whether differences varied by center level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using all admissions reported to the National Trauma Data Bank 2010-2015, we estimated risk ratios for the association between current ACS verification (vs. state designation) and patient mortality and complications, adjusting for trauma level and facility, injury, and demographic characteristics. We tested the interaction between trauma level and ACS verification, stratifying by trauma level in the presence of significant statistical interaction. RESULTS: Overall, patients admitted to ACS-verified vs state-designated facilities had similar adjusted mortality risk [RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.03] and lower risk of discharge to intermediate care facilities [RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.78]. However, Level III and IV facilities had lower adjusted mortality risk when ACS-verified, with much lower mortality risk in ACS-verified Level IV facilities [RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.54]. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that while outcomes are similar between ACS-verified and state-designated Level I and II centers, state-designated Level III and particularly Level IV centers show poorer outcomes relative to their ACS-verified counterparts. Further research could explore mechanisms for these differences, or inform potential changes to state designation processes for lower-level centers.