PubMed · 12392010
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
John Yates. 2002-09-19. Wait watcher. Mixed message.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12392010/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: Trauma centers benefit thousands of injured individuals every day and play a critical role in responding to disasters. The last full accounting of the number and distribution of trauma centers identified 471 trauma centers in the United States in 1991. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number and configuration of trauma centers and identify gaps in coverage. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Interviews with trauma center directors (September 2001 to April 2002), data from the American Hospital Association's Annual Survey of Hospitals (2000), and the US Health Resources Administration's Area Resource File (2001) were used to determine characteristics of trauma center hospitals and the geographic areas they serve in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia. Characteristics of trauma centers were examined by level of care and compared with nontrauma centers. Hospitals are designated or certified as trauma centers by a state or regional authority or verified as trauma centers by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Trauma centers that treat only children (n = 31) were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total number of trauma centers and number of trauma centers per million population. RESULTS: In 2002, there were 1154 trauma centers in the United States, including 190 level I centers and 263 level II centers. Several states have categorized every hospital with an emergency department at some level of trauma care while others have designated a limited number of level I and level II centers only. The number of level I and II centers per million population ranges from 0.19 to 7.8 by state. When compared with nontrauma center hospitals, trauma centers are larger, more likely to be teaching hospitals, and more likely to offer specialized services. CONCLUSIONS: Although the availability of trauma centers has improved, challenges remain to ensure the optimal number, distribution, and configuration of trauma centers. These challenges must be addressed, especially in light of the recent emphasis on hospital preparedness and homeland security.
BACKGROUND: Mortality is the most tightly defined and used adverse event for audit and performance monitoring in surgery. However, to identify cause and therefore scope for improvement, accurate and timely data are required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the quality of measurement, reporting and monitoring of mortality as an outcome after surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was undertaken for the 7-year interval 1993-1999. Grey and unpublished literature was obtained through the Royal College of Surgeons of England, from UK national audits and routine national hospital data collections. RESULTS: Eligible monitoring systems included six UK national surgical audits, and cardiac and vascular surgery monitoring systems from North America and the UK. The definitions of 'surgical death' varied in several respects and deaths after discharge from hospital were rarely ascertained unless there was routine linkage to national death registers. There were very few published studies on validation of the completeness and accuracy of the data collection. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive data collection system is needed for improving clinical performance, with ownership, but not necessarily data collection, resting with the surgeons concerned. Recording of risk factors and deaths after discharge from hospital is essential, whatever data collection system is used.
Drug treatment programs are sites of opportunity for the delivery of hepatitis C (HCV) prevention and care services to drug users. Using data collected from a random nationwide sample (N = 595) of drug treatment programs in the United States, this study compares the provision of HCV services by drug-free and methadone maintenance treatment programs (MMTPs). It then examines and compares perceived inadequacies in this service provision from the perspective of the managers in these two types of programs. Findings indicate that MMTPs are providing more HCV services to their patients, and that a greater proportion of MMTPs are dissatisfied with their current level of HCV service provision. Managers of drug-free programs would like to be offering patients more HCV education, while MMTP managers would like to be providing more HCV testing to their patients, and more support and care for patients who are HCV+.