Analysis of hospital ability to provide trauma services: a comparison between teaching and community hospitals.

K. W. Neely, Robert Norton, E. Bartkus, J. A. Schiver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiography (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry. RESULTS: With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS, and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p less than .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Community Hospital
Teaching Hospitals
Wounds and Injuries
Trauma Centers
Operating Rooms
Intensive Care Units
Allied Health Personnel
Hospital Emergency Service

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{53748c36fd334d1db0adc948cd0f2e1e,
title = "Analysis of hospital ability to provide trauma services: a comparison between teaching and community hospitals.",
abstract = "HYPOTHESIS: Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiography (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry. RESULTS: With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS, and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p less than .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.",
author = "Neely, {K. W.} and Robert Norton and E. Bartkus and Schiver, {J. A.}",
year = "1991",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "455--458",
journal = "Prehospital and Disaster Medicine",
issn = "1049-023X",
publisher = "World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of hospital ability to provide trauma services

T2 - a comparison between teaching and community hospitals.

AU - Neely, K. W.

AU - Norton, Robert

AU - Bartkus, E.

AU - Schiver, J. A.

PY - 1991/10

Y1 - 1991/10

N2 - HYPOTHESIS: Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiography (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry. RESULTS: With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS, and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p less than .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.

AB - HYPOTHESIS: Teaching hospitals (TH) can maintain the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) criteria for Level II trauma care more consistently than can community hospitals (CH). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2,091 trauma system patients was done to determine if TH in an urban area are better able to meet the criteria for Level II trauma care than are CH. During the study period, a voluntary trauma plan existed among five hospitals; two TH and three CH. A hospital could accept patients that met trauma system entry criteria as long as, at that moment, it could provide the resources specified by ACSCOT. Hospitals were required to report their current resources accurately. A centralized communications center maintained a computerized, inter-hospital link which continuously monitored the availability of all participating hospitals. Trauma system protocols required paramedics to transport system patients to the closest available trauma hospital that had all the required resources available. Nine of the required ACSCOT Level II trauma center criteria were monitored for each institution emergency department (ED); trauma surgeon (TS); operating room (OR); angiography (ANG); anesthesiologist (ANE); intensive care unit (ICU); on-call surgeon (OCS); neurosurgeon (NS); and CT scanner (CT) available at the time of each trauma system entry. RESULTS: With the exception of OR, TH generally maintained the required staff and services more successfully than did CH. Further, less day to night variation in the available resources occurred at the TH. Specifically, ANE, ICU, TS, NS, and CT were available more often both day and night, at TH than CH. However, OR was less available at TH than CH during both day and night (p less than .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this community, TH provided a greater availability of trauma services than did CH. This study supports the designation of TH as trauma centers. A similar availability can be performed in other communities to help guide trauma center designation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026232307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026232307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10149685

AN - SCOPUS:0026232307

VL - 6

SP - 455

EP - 458

JO - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine

JF - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine

SN - 1049-023X

IS - 4

ER -