Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R J Mullins

Publications and source records attributed to R J Mullins.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Anaphylaxis: risk factors for recurrence.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies on the incidence or recurrence of anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of anaphylaxis and risk factors for recurrence. METHODS: A prospective study of 432 patients referred to a community-based specialist practice in the Australian Capital Territory with anaphylaxis, followed by a survey to obtain information on recurrence. RESULTS: Of 432 patients (48% male, 73% atopic, mean 27.4 years, SD 19.5, median 26) with anaphylaxis, 260 patients were seen after their first episode; 172 experienced 584 previous reactions. fifty-four percent of index episodes were treated in hospital. Aetiology was identified in 91.6% patients: food (61%), stinging insects (20.4%) or medication (8.3%). The minimum occurrence and incidence of new cases of anaphylaxis was estimated at 12.6 and 9.9 episodes/100,000 patient-years, respectively. Follow-up data were obtained from 304 patients (674 patient-years). One hundred and thirty experienced further symptoms (45 serious), 35 required hospitalization and 19 administered adrenaline. Accidental ingestion of peanut/tree nut caused the largest number of relapses, but the highest risk of recurrence was associated with sensitivity to wheat and/or exercise. Rates of overall and serious recurrence were 57 and 10 episodes/100 patient-years, respectively. Of those prescribed adrenaline, 3/4 carried it, 2/3 were in date, and only 1/2 patients faced with serious symptoms administered adrenaline. Five patients each developed new triggers for anaphylaxis, or re-presented with significant psychiatric symptoms. CONCLUSION: In any 1 year, 1/12 patients who have suffered anaphylaxis will experience recurrence, and 1/50 will require hospital treatment or use adrenaline. Compliance with carrying and using adrenaline is poor. Occasional patients develop new triggers or suffer psychiatric morbidity.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Influence of trauma system implementation on process of care delivered to seriously injured patients in rural trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Statewide trauma systems are implemented by health care policy makers whose intent is to improve the process of care delivered to seriously injured patients. In Oregon, Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) training was mandated for all physicians employed in the emergency department of trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that mandatory ATLS training favorably influenced processes of care. METHODS: Seriously injured patients treated at 9 rural Level 3 and Level 4 hospitals were studied before (PRE) and after (POST) implementation of Oregon's trauma system. The processes of care evaluated on the basis of chart review were 20 diagnostic and therapeutic interventions advocated in the ATLS course. A cumulative process score (CPS) between 0 and 1 was assigned on the basis of the processes of care delivered. A CPS of 1 indicated optimal process of care. RESULTS: Mean CPS for 506 PRE period patients (0.44 +/- 0.27) was significantly lower than the mean CPS for 512 POST period patients (0.57 +/- 0.27) with an unpaired t test (P <.001). For the subgroup with injury severity score of 16 to 34, the mean CPS of survivors (0.67 +/- 0.19) was significantly higher than the mean CPS of decedents (0.57 +/- 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Process of care for seriously injured patients improved after categorization of rural trauma centers in Oregon. Evidence shows improved process of care may have benefitted patients with serious but survivable injuries. Measurement of process of care is an alternative to mortality analysis as an indication of the quality of care.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Outcomes of patients using a tiered trauma response protocol.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated processes of care and outcome for injured patients at a Level I trauma center who had been either treated as a full trauma team activation (FULL) or managed with a modified trauma team activation (MOD). METHODS: A retrospective methodology was used to evaluate all patients entered into the regional trauma system and transported from the scene to a Level I trauma center. Patients treated during a 2-year period of exclusively FULL trauma team protocols were compared with patients managed during a subsequent 2-year period after implementation of a two-tiered response. In the later era, trauma system patients were designated before hospital arrival as either FULL or MOD trauma team responses. An additional case-control analysis was conducted on a subset of MOD trauma team response patients who were undertriaged; that is, in retrospect, they met criteria for a FULL response. The outcomes in the case-control group were compared by chi2 tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Statistical significance was assumed for p < 0.05. RESULTS: During the presystem period, 1,740 patients were transported as trauma system entries to Oregon Health Sciences University. During the postsystem period, 2,333 patients were transported to Oregon Health Sciences University as either MOD trauma system entries (1,272 [55%]) or as FULL trauma system entries (1,061 [45%]). Postsystem patients had longer time intervals in the emergency department compared with presystem patients. Death rates for patients who died in the emergency department or before hospital discharge were similar. Among patients who were designated as MOD trauma system entries and were subsequently categorized as meeting FULL trauma team criteria, mortality rate was low. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the tiered response protocol led to a substantial change in the operational response in the emergency department. Although processes of care were nominally prolonged, adverse consequences were not identified. We concluded from this quality improvement review that implementation of a tiered response protocol was satisfactory and improved efficiency. Further work is required to improve accuracy of the categorization of trauma system patients as either MOD or FULL trauma codes.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Survival among injured geriatric patients during construction of a statewide trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes are presumed to vary during early implementation of a trauma system because of fluctuations in processes of care. This study estimates risk-adjusted survival for injured geriatric patients during implementation of the Washington State trauma system. METHODS: A presystem (1988-1992) versus early construction phase (1993-1995) retrospective cohort analysis of hospitalized geriatric injured patients in Washington State was conducted. Hospital data were cross-linked to death certificates, providing patient follow-up. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed survival to 60 days from hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 77,136 geriatric patients were assessed. No difference in survival was observed (before vs. after) for all geriatric injured patients. However, among severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score > 15), survival during the implementation phase increased by 5.1% compared with patients admitted during the presystem years (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved survival for seriously injured geriatric trauma patients during construction of the Washington State trauma system.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Mortality among seriously injured patients treated in remote rural trauma centers before and after implementation of a statewide trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Injury mortality in rural regions remains high with little evidence that trauma system implementation has benefited rural populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk-adjusted mortality in remote regions of Oregon before and after implementation of a statewide trauma system. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study assessing injury mortality through 30 days after hospital discharge. SETTING: Nine rural Oregon hospitals serving counties with populations <18 persons per square mile. SUBJECTS: Severely injured patients presenting to four level-3 and five level-4 trauma hospitals 3 years before and 3 years after trauma system implementation. MEASURES: Interhospital transfer, hospital death, and demise within 30 days following hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 940 patients were analyzed. After trauma system implementation, patients presenting to level-4 hospitals were more likely transferred to level-2 facilities (P <0.001). Interhospital transfer times from level-3 hospitals lengthened significantly after system implementation (P <0.001). Overall mortality rates were higher in the postsystem period (8.3%) than the presystem period (6.7%), but not significantly. Controlling for covariates, no additional benefit to risk-adjusted mortality was associated with trauma system implementation. Additional deaths, occurring after trauma system implementation, included head-injured patients transferred from rural hospitals to nonlevel-1 trauma center hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Increased injury survival after Oregon trauma system implementation, demonstrated in urban and statewide analyses, was not confirmed in remote regions of the state. Efforts to improve trauma systems in rural areas should focus on the processes of care for head-injured patients transferred to higher designation trauma centers.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

A comparison of patient characteristics and survival in two trauma centres located in different countries.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare patient characteristics and mortality in severely injured patients in two trauma centres located in different countries, allowing for differences in case-mix. It represents a direct bench-marking exercise between the trauma centres at the North Staffordshire Hospital (NSH), Stoke-on-Trent, UK and the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) Hospital, Portland, Oregon, USA. METHODS: Patients of all ages admitted to the two hospitals during 1995 and 1996 with an Injury Severity Score >15 were included, except for those who died in the emergency departments. Twenty-three factors were studied, including the Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Score, mechanism of injury and anatomical site of injury. Outcome analysis was based on mortality at discharge. RESULTS: The pattern of trauma differed significantly between Stoke and Portland. Patients from Stoke tended to be older, presented with a lower conscious level and a lower systolic blood pressure and were intubated less frequently before arriving at hospital. Mortality depended on similar factors in both centres, especially age, highest AIS score, systolic blood pressure and Glasgow Coma Score.The crude analysis of mortality showed a highly significant odds-ratio of 1.64 in Stoke compared with Portland. Single-factor adjustments were made for the above four factors, which had a similar influence on mortality in both centres. Adjusting for the first three factors individually did not alter the odds-ratio, which stayed in the range 1.53-1.59 and remained highly significant. Adjusting for the Glasgow Coma Score reduced the odds-ratio to 0.82 and rendered it non-significant. In a multi-factor logistic regression model incorporating all of the factors shown to influence mortality in either centre, the odds-ratio was 1.7 but was not significant. CONCLUSION: The analysis illustrates the limitations and pitfalls of making crude outcome comparisons between centres. Highly significant differences in crude mortality were rendered non-significant by case-mix adjustments, supporting the null hypothesis that the two centres were equally effective in terms of this short-term indicator of outcome. To achieve a meaningful comparison between centres, adjustments must be made for the factors which affect mortality.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Weaning injured patients with prolonged pulmonary failure from mechanical ventilation in a non-intensive care unit setting.

BACKGROUND: Injured patients with pulmonary failure often require prolonged length of stay in an intensive care unit (ICU), which includes weaning from ventilatory support. In the last decade, noninvasive ventilation modes have been established as safe and effective. One method for accomplishing this mode of ventilation uses a simple bilevel ventilator. Because this ventilator has been successfully used in hospital wards, we postulated that bilevel ventilators could provide sufficient support during weaning from mechanical ventilation of injured patients in a non-ICU setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma patients (August 1996-January 1999) undergoing bilevel positive pressure ventilation as the final phase of weaning was conducted. Before ward transfer with bilevel ventilation, conventionally ventilated ICU patients were changed to bilevel ventilation and were required to tolerate this mode for at least 24 hours. All patients had a tracheostomy as a secure airway. Outcomes analyzed included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, weaning success, complications, and survival. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (39 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 53 received more than 24 hours of bilevel positive pressure ventilation. Mean Injury Severity Score was 29, with blunt mechanisms of injury occurring in 90%. Chest or spinal cord injuries that affected pulmonary mechanics were present in 75% of patients. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was treated in 43% of patients. Mean ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay were 21 and 34 days, respectively. Weaning was successful in 89% of patients, whereas 11% were discharged to skilled nursing facilities still receiving bilevel positive pressure ventilation. Two patients died, neither from a pulmonary nor airway complication. Of the remaining 49 patients, 12 were weaned in the ICU and 37 were transferred to the ward with bilevel ventilatory support. The average length of ward ventilation was 6.5 +/- 5.4 days (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a program using bilevel ventilation to support the terminal phase of weaning seriously injured patients from mechanical ventilation was successful. After initiating this mode in the ICU, it was satisfactorily continued in standard surgical wards. Because this method enabled the withdrawal of ventilatory support in a non-ICU setting, its major advantage was reducing ICU length of stay.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Relationship of cerebral perfusion pressure and survival in pediatric brain-injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Adult brain injury studies recommend maintaining cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) above 70 mm Hg. We evaluated CPP and outcome in brain-injured children. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital courses of children at two Level I trauma centers who required insertion of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors for management of traumatic brain injury. ICP, CPP, and mean arterial pressure were evaluated hourly, and means were calculated for the first 48 hours after injury. RESULTS: Of 188 brain-injured children, 118 had ICP monitors placed within 24 hours of injury. They suffered severe brain injury, with average admitting Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 6 +/- 3. Overall mortality rate was 28%. No patient with mean CPP less than 40 mm Hg survived. Among patients with mean CPP in deciles of 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, or 70 mm Hg, no significant difference in Glasgow Outcome Scale distribution existed. CONCLUSION: Low mean CPP was lethal. In children with survivable brain injury (mean CPP > 40 mm Hg), CPP did not stratify patients for risk of adverse outcome.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Fatal cerebroembolism from nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis in a trauma patient: case report and review.

Nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis (NBTE) is a rare condition that may result in an unexpected and usually fatal cerebroembolism. It occurs in a variety of clinical situations, including malignancy, immune disorders, and sepsis, but it has rarely been reported after trauma. The formation of NBTE appears to require a hypercoagulable state and changes in valvular morphology, e.g., during a hyperdynamic state. Patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation have a 21% incidence of NBTE. Although NBTE is usually found at autopsy, premorbid detection by echocardiography is currently possible and feasible. Untreated patients have a high incidence of embolic events, but anticoagulation with heparin may be life-saving. A lethal case of NBTE in a severely injured patient is reported here with the purpose of increasing awareness among medical personnel caring for trauma patients. Recommendations have been made for surveillance echocardiography in high-risk patients, e.g., critically ill patients with sepsis or disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Statewide variation in the treatment of patients hospitalized with spleen injury.

HYPOTHESIS: Surgeons' treatment decisions for patients with spleen injuries in Washington State from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1994, were different in rural compared with urban communities. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Retrospective cohort analyses using the Death and Illness History Database for the state of Washington, which provides a cross-linked record of an individual's sequential hospitalizations. Counties were defined as metropolitan, urban, or rural on the basis of population density. PATIENTS: A total of 1905 patients (1927 hospitalizations) with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, discharge diagnosis code of 865. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician management decisions (perform a celiotomy or repair the spleen) were stratified by geographic region. RESULTS: Throughout the state, there was substantial variability in the treatment of spleen-injured patients. Factors associated with higher odds of splenectomy included older age, overall severity of injury, treatment in rural hospitals, and treatment in the earlier years of study. While the frequency of splenic salvage increased over time, hospital length of stay, rehospitalization, and 30-day mortality did not increase. CONCLUSIONS: Injury to the spleen is a common problem for which management decisions vary by geographic region, indicating that a single management protocol does not universally apply. To evaluate appropriateness of care by process measures, such as splenic injury management, will require that decision makers grant some latitude in management variability based on factors such as practice setting.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Trauma system impact on admission site: a comparison of two states.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a measure assessing statewide hospital admission patterns for trauma and evaluate its utility in identifying significant admission redistributions in neighboring states as a function of trauma system implementation. METHODS: A retrospective claims database analysis was performed of hospitalized trauma patients in Washington and Oregon. The site of hospitalization and diagnostic information were used to determine an admission rate difference for each hospital: the rate of index patient admissions minus the rate of non-index patient admissions. Mean admission rate differences for Level II and III versus other hospitals in each state were compared as a function of time. RESULTS: A bias in favor of admitting more serious injuries to Level II and III hospitals was seen with trauma system implementation in both states, but it was more pronounced in the Oregon trauma system. CONCLUSION: Assessment of admission rate differences is a helpful method of characterizing the evolution of statewide trauma systems.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Prediction of outcome in intensive care unit trauma patients: a multicenter study of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a multicenter study to validate the accuracy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II system, APACHE III system, Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology, and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system for prediction of mortality in ICU trauma patient admissions. METHODS: The study population consisted of retrospectively identified, consecutive ICU trauma admissions (n = 2,414) from six Level I trauma centers. Probabilities of death were calculated by using logistic regression analysis. The predictive power of each system was evaluated by using decision matrix analysis to compare observed and predicted outcomes with a decision criterion of 0.50 for risk of hospital death. The Youden Index (YI) was used to compare the proportion of patients correctly classified by each system. Measures of model calibration were based on goodness-of-fit testing (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic less than 15.5) and model discrimination were based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Overall, APACHE II (sensitivity, 38%; specificity, 99%; YI, 37%; H-L statistic, 92.6; AUC, 0.87) and TRISS (sensitivity, 52%; specificity, 94%; YI, 46%; H-L statistic, 228.1; AUC, 0.82) were poor predictors of aggregate mortality, because they did not meet the acceptable thresholds for both model calibration and discrimination. APACHE III (sensitivity, 60%; specificity, 98%; YI, 58%; H-L statistic, 7.0; AUC, 0.89) was comparable to the 24-hour ICU point system (sensitivity, 51%; specificity, 98%; YI, 50%; H-L statistic, 14.7; AUC, 0.89) with both systems showing strong agreement between the observed and predicted outcomes based on acceptable thresholds for both model calibration and discrimination. The APACHE III system significantly improved upon APACHE II for estimating risk of death in ICU trauma patients (p < 0.001). Compared with the overall performance, for the subset of patients with nonoperative head trauma, the percentage correctly classified was decreased to 46% for APACHE II; increased to 71% for APACHE III (p < 0.001 vs. APACHE II); increased to 59% for TRISS; and increased to 62% for 24-hour ICU points. For operative head trauma, the percentage correctly classified was increased to 60% for APACHE II; increased to 61% for APACHE III; decreased to 43% for TRISS (p < 0.004 vs. APACHE III); and increased to 54% for 24-hour ICU points. For patients without head injuries, all of the systems were unreliable and considerably underestimated the risk of death. The percentage of nonoperative and operative patients without head trauma who were correctly classified was decreased, respectively, to 26% and 30% for APACHE II; 33% and 29% for APACHE III; 33% and 19% for TRISS; 20% and 23% for 24-hour ICU points. CONCLUSION: For the overall estimation of aggregate ICU mortality, the APACHE III system was the most reliable; however, performance was most accurate for subsets of patients with head trauma. The 24-hour ICU point system also demonstrated acceptable overall performance with improved performance for patients with head trauma. Overall, APACHE II and TRISS did not meet acceptable thresholds of performance. When estimating ICU mortality for subsets of patients without head trauma, none of these systems had an acceptable level of performance. Further multicenter studies aimed at developing better outcome prediction models for patients without head injuries are warranted, which would allow trauma care providers to set uniform standards for judging institutional performance.

APACHE↗
PubMed1999

Surveyed opinion of American trauma surgeons on the prevention of the abdominal compartment syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the current opinion of American trauma surgeons on the use of the open abdomen to prevent the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). METHODS: On a questionnaire survey of expert trauma surgeons regarding 12 clinical factors influencing fascial closure at trauma celiotomy, surgeons graded their willingness to close the fascia in various scenarios on a scale of 1 to 5. The impact of six signs of clinical deterioration on willingness to perform abdominal decompression in a patient with postceliotomy elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was also queried. Of 292 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma active in abdominal trauma management, 248 members (85%) had experience with ACS one or more times in the previous year. RESULTS: Surgeons' responses to factors found at trauma celiotomy were divided into two distinct categories: factors decreasing willingness to close the fascia, and factors not changing or increasing willingness to close the fascia (p < 0.001). Factors disfavoring fascial closure were pulmonary or hemodynamic deterioration with closure, massive bowel edema, subjectively tight closure, planned reoperation, and packing. Factors not changing or favoring fascial closure were fecal contamination/peritonitis, massive transfusion, hypothermia, multiple abdominal injuries, acidosis, and coagulopathy. Five of the six signs of clinical deterioration increased surgeons' willingness to decompress a patient with elevated IAP (increased O2 requirement, decreased cardiac output, increased acidosis, increased airway pressures, and oliguria). Lowered gastric mucosal pH did not affect willingness. Seventy-one percent of surgeons indicated they would decompress elevated IAP in postceliotomy patient if one or two signs of clinical deterioration were present, but only 14% would decompress a patient for elevated IAP alone. CONCLUSION: A majority of expert American trauma surgeons have experience with ACS and would leave the abdomen open if ACS occurred. A majority would reopen a closed abdomen in cases of elevated IAP with signs of clinical deterioration. A minority would leave the abdomen open when there was only a risk of developing ACS.

Abdominal Injuries↗
PubMed1999

A historical perspective of trauma system development in the United States.

The concept of a trauma system as public health policy has developed substantially during the 30 years since publication of Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society. The military experience with casualties established the public expectation that grievously injured citizens should be expected to survive if a system enables a team of experts to work smoothly together. The federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in support of development of an infrastructure of emergency medical systems throughout the country, and trauma systems have benefited from timely prehospital care provided by trained professionals. State or regional metropolitan governments have initiated establishment of trauma systems as fusions of health care and the politics of health care policy. Trauma systems can be considered an experiment in health care policy because they have characteristics uncommon with other areas of medical practice. Hospitals have been categorized by means of outside review based on their capabilities to provide trauma care, which has led to designation, whereby individuals are transported to trauma centers after serious injury rather than the hospitals they might normally choose. The performance of hospitals and health providers in a trauma system is subjected to outside review and some form of public accountability. All of the effort, money, and work committed to trauma systems requires careful scrutiny to determine whether trauma systems are indeed beneficial. Have trauma systems reduced death, ameliorated disability, and successfully prevented the problems these public health policies intend to manage?

Health Care Costs↗
PubMed1999

Systematic review of published evidence regarding trauma system effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Provide a systematic review of the published literature assessing the affect of trauma center/system implementation on patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A bibliographic search of MEDLINE (1966-May of 1998), HealthSTAR (1995-May of 1998), and CINAHL (1982-May of 1998). Additional manuscripts were identified in the references of reviewed manuscripts. Literature was limited to English language reports on trauma systems in the United States and Canada. STUDY SELECTION: Initial inclusion criteria were based on methodologic criteria (i.e., a comparative [controlled] study). Authors independently assessed the strength of evidence demonstrated by each article. DATA EXTRACTION: Included articles were classified into three groups based on study design: panel review studies, trauma registry comparison studies, and population-based studies. Key demographic, sampling frame, study design, and outcome variables were tabulated for each included study. Potential sources of bias were also identified and tabled. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12, 11, and 17 studies were incorporated into individual evidence tables for panel review, registry comparison, and population-based studies, respectively. Included studies rely on weak evidence (Class III) to assess the impact of trauma systems on patient care and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: To date, studies assessing trauma system efficacy rely on hospital deaths as the primary indicator of effectiveness. Future research should use more sophisticated study designs (Class II) and expand available outcome measures to assess the entire continuum of care, including prehospital, rehabilitation outcomes, and long-term quality of life.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1999

Population-based research assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems.

OBJECTIVE: To review published evidence regarding the effectiveness of trauma systems by using population-based data. DESIGN: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature assessing the influence of trauma system implementation on the outcome of all injured patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature available in MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and CINHAL was reviewed for studies that use population-based data to assess the benefit of trauma system development. Studies were included that assessed trauma systems in North America and used a comparison or control group in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Published evidence, reported for eight of the nine trauma systems evaluated, demonstrates improved outcomes, principally measured as hospital survival. Improvement occurred after the trauma system or some component of a trauma system (e.g., sophisticated prehospital care) was established. CONCLUSION: Population-based evidence supports a 15 to 20% improved survival rate among seriously injured patients with trauma system implementation. Future study is required to determine whether trauma systems improve the outcome of all injured patients, not just high-risk subsets of the population.

Community Health Planning↗