Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 138
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment 6 Trauma Care The 1966 landmark report Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society was a clarion call to launch what it termed a "frontal attack" on the care of the injured. At the time, the problem of injury in the United States was met with public apathy, a dearth of 9-1-1 systems, and inadequate provision of care (NRC, 1966). Since then, much progress has been made in developing systems of care that strive to reduce injury-related morbidity and mortality. Trauma care systems deliver a continuum of prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation services. Yet, despite their public health mission, only a handful of states have put into place comprehensive regional systems of trauma care, although some of the system elements are present in many states and communities (West et al., 1988; Bazzoli et al., 1995). Trauma care is integral to the injury field because it is critical to lessening the consequences of injury. The purposes of this chapter are to describe trauma care systems, their organization, roles, and patient outcomes; to explore what is known about their costs and cost-effectiveness; to delve into the cardinal problem of financing the high cost of infrastructure and patient care, a problem that has been solved by some states through motor vehicle fees and other creative sources of financing; and to explore the impact of managed care on trauma care systems. The committee decided to focus on these issues rather than explore the fundamental issues related to trauma care and the rehabilitation sciences, since several other reports have discussed specific priorities for research in trauma care and rehabilitation (e.g., NCIPC [1993;]; IOM [1991, 1997a]; NIH ).
OCR for page 139
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment OVERVIEW OF TRAUMA CARE SYSTEMS A trauma care system is an organized and coordinated effort in a defined geographic area to deliver the full spectrum of care to an injured patient, from the time of the injury through transport to an acute care facility and to rehabilitative care (Eastman et al., 1991; Mendeloff and Cayten, 1991). A trauma care system consists of three major providers—prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation—that, when closely integrated, ensure a continuum of care. For general descriptions of prehospital, acute, and rehabilitative care, see Box 6.1. This chapter concentrates on prehospital and acute care rather than rehabilitation because the latter was the subject of two recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports (IOM, 1991, 1997a). In a trauma system, the integration of prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation providers is administered by a public agency whose cardinal roles are to provide leadership, coordinate service delivery, establish minimum standards of care, designate trauma centers (offering 24-hour specialized treatment for the most severely injured patients), and ensure system evaluation and refinement. Trauma care systems are best endowed with the following major clinical or operational components: medical direction, prevention, communication, training, triage, prehospital care, transportation, hospital care, public education, rehabilitation, and medical evaluation (ACEP, 1992; HRSA, 1992; ACS, 1993). How these components are configured, organized, and emphasized differs according to state, regional, and local circumstances, as there are many examples of trauma systems throughout the United States. An overarching goal of a trauma care system is to match the severity of the injury to the most appropriate and cost-effective level of care in a geographic region (ACEP, 1992; HRSA, 1992; ACS, 1993). Patient matching is thought to be accomplished best by an inclusive trauma care system (i.e., one that harnesses the resources of all hospitals and trauma care providers in a community or region to meet the needs of all injured patients, the majority of whom [85–90 percent] are not severely injured; ACS ). Most existing trauma systems are "exclusive" in orientation insofar as they focus mostly on the major trauma patient. Exclusive systems do not include all area hospitals, only prehospital providers and trauma centers to which the major trauma patient is triaged. Trauma centers are hospitals that are specially designed to care for the most critically injured patients. There are four levels of trauma center designation (Box 6.2), the pinnacle of which is the Level I center. Inclusive trauma care systems incorporate all hospitals and acute care facilities in a region to deliver quality care for all injured patients, regardless of severity. Inclusive trauma care systems marshal communitywide resources, broaden the number of stakeholders, enhance surveillance capacity, and seek to avert the overburdening of trauma centers with non-critically injured patients for whom expensive trauma center care is unnecessary. An inclusive philosophy of trauma care was espoused by federal legislation, the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-590),
OCR for page 140
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment which until 1995 encouraged the development of, and provided funding for, inclusive systems (see later discussion of financing). The effectiveness of an inclusive system has yet to be empirically evaluated (NCIPC, 1993). BOX 6.1 The Continuum of Care Prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Prehospital care is the gateway to the trauma care system and a major determinant of patient outcome (Jacobs et al., 1984; Rutledge et al., 1993; Regel et al., 1997). The goals of prehospital care are prompt arrival at the scene, assessment of patients' needs through medically approved protocols for triage (the classification of injury severity and the selection of a hospital destination that matches patients with appropriate clinical resources); preliminary resuscitation and treatment; and rapid transport to the nearest, most appropriate acute care facility (ACS, 1993; Jacobs and Jacobs, 1993). Access to prehospital care is provided almost universally throughout the United States by a telephone call to 9-1-1 (NHTSA, 1997a). There are four levels of EMS providers: (1) first responder, (2) emergency medical technician (EMT)-Basic, (3) EMT-Intermediate, and (4) EMT-Paramedic. The paramedic has substantially more training than the others and is the provider of most advanced life support given outside the hospital. Acute Care Hospitals and primary care providers diagnose and treat the majority of injured patients, but the cornerstone of the trauma care system is the trauma center. Trauma centers are highly sophisticated facilities geared to the most gravely injured. Four levels of trauma center, each with detailed qualifying criteria, have been established and revised by the American College of Surgeons (ACS, 1993). (See Box 6.2 for a description of Level I–IV trauma centers). Many states with the legal authority to designate trauma centers use the ACS's criteria for designation. Hospitals seeking designation in states where such formal authority is lacking often rely on verification by the ACS that they have met its criteria. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation forms the final, and generally the longest, phase of treatment in a trauma care system. The goals of rehabilitation are to improve physical and mental health, reduce disability, and enhance personal autonomy and productivity. Rehabilitation is defined as the process by which physical, sensory, or mental capacities are restored or developed. It is a process that is accomplished through functional improvements in the patient, as well as through changes in the physical and social environment (IOM, 1997a). Rehabilitation is offered on an inpatient or outpatient basis in a designated hospital unit, a freestanding rehabilitation hospital, or in a clinic. In a model trauma care system, rehabilitation begins at the earliest stage possible after admission to an acute care hospital (HRSA, 1992; NCIPC, 1993).
OCR for page 141
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment BOX 6.2 Levels of Trauma Centers Trauma centers are acute care facilities that are specially designed to care for the most critically injured patients. There are four types—or levels—of trauma centers, the qualifying criteria for which were established by the American College of Surgeons (ACS, 1993): Level I—A facility that meets criteria for a Level I trauma center has the highest degree of sophistication in treating the most severely injured patients. A Level I trauma center is a regional tertiary care facility required to have immediate availability of specialized surgeons, anesthesiologists, physician specialists, nurses, and resuscitation equipment. It also is required to conduct certain types of prevention and research activities. Level II—A facility that meets a Level II trauma center designation satisfies virtually all of the same clinical and facilities requirements as the Level I center, but is not required to conduct research and certain types of prevention activities. Most cities and suburban areas have Level I and/or II centers. Level III—A facility that meets a Level III trauma center designation is required to have emergency services and the availability of general surgeons, but it is not required to meet the extensive clinical and facilities criteria of a Level I or Level II center. A Level III center typically serves a rural area that does not have a Level I or Level II center. Level IV—A facility that meets a Level IV trauma center designation can be either a hospital or a clinic in a remote area where more sophisticated care is unavailable. It is new classification added by the ACS in 1993 to accommodate patients in the most rural areas by linking them to higher levels of care. The key role of a Level IV center is to resuscitate and stabilize patients and arrange for their transfer to the closest, most appropriate level of trauma center. The plight of rural areas has been a major factor propelling an inclusive philosophy of trauma care systems (Shackford, 1995). Rural emergency medical services have lagged behind their urban counterparts for a host of reasons, including greater transport times, insufficient volume of patients to maintain the skills of providers, and too sparse a population density to sustain local public financing (OTA, 1989; HRSA, 1990). In comparison with urban areas, rural areas experience higher mortality rates for motor vehicle crashes (Baker et al., 1987; Mueller et al., 1988; Flowe et al., 1995) and a higher proportion of deaths at the scene (Rogers et al., 1997b). To incorporate rural acute care facilities into an integrated system of care, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) created a new level of trauma center (Level IV) in 1993 and specified the organizational and clinical criteria needed for a facility to meet this level (Box 6.2). The facility may be a clinic or hospital, with or without a physician available. The purpose of
OCR for page 142
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment this classification was to provide optimal care in remote areas with limited resources and, when necessary, to ensure linkage to higher levels of care. Special Populations Children and the elderly are among the special populations that merit emphasis by trauma care systems. Injury is the foremost cause of death among children above 1 year of age and the fifth leading cause of death for the elderly age 65 or over (Chapter 2). Congress authorized the Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMS-C) Program in 1984 to ensure state-of-the-art emergency medical care for injured children and adolescents and to ensure that pediatric services are integrated into trauma systems. The program funds demonstration, implementation, and targeted-issues grants to states and medical schools for the provision of emergency medical services geared to children (IOM, 1993; NIH, 1995). The program grew out of the awareness that children have unique physiological responses to illness and injury and that their treatment requires specific training, equipment, and approaches not ordinarily available in systems designed for adults. The program focuses on the entire continuum of pediatric emergency services, from injury prevention through prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation services. The committee commends the collaborative efforts of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the EMS-C Program and urges similar collaborative efforts between MCHB and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for investigator-initiated research in the areas of childhood injury epidemiology and prevention. Research has demonstrated that specialized pediatric trauma care is associated with lower rates of pediatric morbidity and mortality compared with rates at adult trauma care centers (or national norms), although adult trauma centers with a pediatric component may be able to achieve outcomes comparable to those of pediatric trauma centers (Pollack et al., 1991; Fortune et al., 1992; Knudson et al., 1992; Nakayama et al., 1992; Cooper et al., 1993; Hall et al., 1993, 1996; Rhodes et al., 1993; Bensard et al., 1994; Hulka et al., 1997). As important, targeted pediatric injury prevention programs have been shown in population-based studies to result in substantial decreases in the incidence of serious childhood injuries (Davidson et al., 1994; Durkin et al., 1996). The National Pediatric Trauma Registry (NPTR), was established in 1985 to study the causes, circumstances, and consequences of injuries to children. Sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and by the American Pediatric Surgical Association, the NPTR has detailed information on over 50,000 cases of injuries to children. As of October 1996, there were 78 participating centers (pediatric trauma centers or children's hospitals with pediatric trauma units) located in 28 states, Puerto Rico, and Ontario, Canada (NPTR, 1998).
OCR for page 143
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment The elderly account for a disproportionate share of injury-related hospitalizations (see Chapter 2). Demographic projections suggest that their share of hospitalizations is likely to grow even more. The need for the full range of treatment efforts targeted to the elderly is especially critical, particularly the need for a seamless transition from prehospital to acute care to high-quality rehabilitation services tailored to their needs (IOM, 1997a). There is some evidence that the elderly with major trauma have an inferior quality of trauma care compared to other age groups. This problem may be the result of two factors: (1) inadequate triage criteria for dispatching an elderly patient to a trauma center, resulting in undertriage (Phillips et al., 1996; Ma, 1997), and (2) a higher risk of complications and death during hospitalization (DeMaria et al., 1987; Champion et al., 1989a; Finelli et al., 1989; Chen et al., 1995; Ma, 1997). More research is needed to identify causes, sequela, and interventions to ensure the highest quality of care for elderly patients. System Management and State or Regional Agencies It has long been recognized that trauma care systems are best managed on a regional basis by virtue of the opportunity to pool and centralize resources and the relative infrequency of major trauma (NRC, 1978; Eastman et al., 1987; Stewart et al., 1995). Major trauma generally accounts for a small percentage (10–12 percent) of overall injury admissions (MacKenzie et al., 1990; National Trauma Data Project, 1996). Injury admissions—of all types and levels of severity—ranged in 1993 from 6.19 to 9.02 admissions per thousand population (National Trauma Data Project, 1996). Consequently, state and regional agencies have come to play essential roles in establishing and coordinating regional and local trauma care systems, many of which receive assistance from the federal government. Federal legislation since the 1970s, such as the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act of 1973 and the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990, channeled funds to states and regions in order to cultivate the development of systems of care (Table 6.1 contains a chronology of federal trauma system legislation). The 1990 legislation not only authorized funding for development and planning activities (albeit unsustained funding; see later section on financing trauma systems), but also stipulated the creation of a Model Trauma Care System Plan (HRSA, 1992).
OCR for page 144
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment TABLE 6.1 Chronology of Trauma System Legislation 1966 Highway Safety Act authorizes funding for, and requires states to develop, regional EMS systems; also authorizes the Department of Transportation to develop standards for EMS provider training. 1973 Emergency Medical Services Systems Act (P.L. 93-154) authorizes additional federal guidelines and funding for the development of regional EMS systems. 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act consolidates EMS funding into state preventive health and health services block grants under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1984 Health Services, Preventive Health Services, and Home and Community-Based Services Act (P.L. 98-555) authorizes the Emergency Medical Services for Children Program. 1990 Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act (P.L. 101-590) authorizes funding for state and regional trauma systems development. 1995 Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is not reauthorized. The Model Trauma Care System Plan offers a framework for states to build trauma care systems once they have procured legislative authority.1 In broad terms, the plan calls for states to link prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation providers through leadership, systems development, planning, and evaluation, and through securing financing for system administration and patient care (HRSA, 1992). More specifically, the plan exhorts states to designate trauma centers, establish trauma registries, and ensure, in concert with communities, that triage and transport protocols are in place for the timely assessment and movement of patients to the most suitable acute care facility. Bazzoli and coworkers (1995) found that the most common problem for states was to limit the number of designated trauma centers based on community need. The ACS (1993) underscored the importance of states' limiting the number of designated centers for two primary reasons: (1) trauma teams must treat sufficient numbers of major trauma patients to maintain their expertise, and (2) unnecessary duplication of centers yields excessively high societal health care costs (see also Goldfarb et al. ). The importance of maintaining sufficient patient volume as a determi- 1 By 1992, 41 state and regional agencies had legal authority to coordinate and regulate trauma care systems (Bazzoli et al., 1995). Regional agencies generally refer to counties or groups of counties (Bazzoli et al., 1995) or, occasionally to, private organizations. In the absence of legislation, states have little ability to require the routing of patients to trauma centers (Mendeloff and Cayten, 1991; Bazzoli et al., 1995).
OCR for page 145
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment nant of patient survival has been confirmed (Smith et al., 1990; Konvolinka et al., 1995). Still, there is no consensus on the amount of patient volume necessary for optimal performance of a trauma center (Moore, 1995). Personnel and Training More than 30 years ago, the National Research Council (NRC, 1966) spotlighted the paucity of trained emergency personnel at every level of care. The growth in the number of prehospital providers and the increase in their level of training are among the major achievements of the past three decades. The number of prehospital providers is estimated today at about 650,000 nationwide (W.E. Brown, National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, personal communication, 1998). Accompanying this growth has been the creation and standardization of the prehospital curriculum. Since the enactment of the 1966 Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has spearheaded the development of standardized curricula for multiple types of prehospital personnel (U.S. DOT, 1996b). In a series of evaluations conducted from 1988 to 1994, NHTSA found that 72.5 percent of 40 states used standardized curricula (primarily NHTSA's) in training courses for prehospital providers (U.S. DOT, 1995). NHTSA's FY 1997 budget for the EMS division responsible for curriculum development is $1.5 million. By virtue of its leadership and support for prehospital training and state highway grants, NHTSA is the federal agency with the most consistent and long-standing presence in trauma systems development (U.S. DOT, 1996b). Certification of prehospital providers also has progressed, with all 50 states having some kind of certification procedure (BLS, 1997). However, there is much variability in requirements for certification (U.S. DOT, 1996b). Thirty-nine states certify prehospital providers who have passed written and practical examinations administered by the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, a nonprofit certifying organization (NREMT, 1998). Yet, most states do not adhere to the registry's biennial reregistration requirement. Less than one quarter of the estimated 650,000 emergency medical technicians (EMTs) nationwide maintained their registration as of November 1997 (W.E. Brown, National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, personal communication, 1998). There also has been considerable growth in the field of emergency medicine. The first emergency medicine residency program was formed in 1970. By 1998, the number of accredited residency programs had expanded to 120 (M. Schropp, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, personal communication, 1998). The first certifying examination was given in 1980, one year after emergency medicine was recognized as a specialty by the American Medical Association Committee on Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties. The number of board-certified emergency physicians catapulted to 15,202 by 1997 (American Board of Emergency Medicine, personal communi-
OCR for page 146
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment cation, 1998). The stature of the profession has also improved with the ascension of emergency medicine to full department status in many academic medical centers. Finally, the profession of emergency nursing has grown and flourished. The field emerged as a nursing specialty around 1970, when the Emergency Nurses Association was formed. By 1997, membership in this organization rose to about 24,000, as did membership in related organizations such as the Society of Trauma Nurses. Emergency nurses practice mostly in the prehospital and acute care setting. They typically are responsible for assessing and initiating care to stabilize and resuscitate patients and for care during transport of critical care patients. The role of the emergency nurse in the prehospital arena is continuing to evolve (Adams and Trimble, 1994). ROLE OF TRAUMA SYSTEMS IN PRIMARY PREVENTION, SURVEILLANCE, AND RESEARCH Community-based primary prevention programs have been demonstrated to avert injury-related morbidity and mortality and to reduce health care costs. Trauma care systems have traditionally focused on secondary and tertiary prevention (i.e., efforts to reduce re-injury and to curtail the impact of an injury once it has occurred). Yet consensus has emerged that health professionals who manage trauma patients also should engage in primary prevention to keep an injury from occurring in the first place (U.S. DHHS, 1992; NCIPC, 1993; U.S. DOT, 1996a; Garrison et al., 1997). The rationale for broadening the role of trauma providers to include primary prevention is that these health professionals have unique and direct experience with, and knowledge of, the consequences of injury, as well as a professional obligation to improve health and safety and to control health care costs. After reviewing the biomedical literature on existing and recommended primary prevention activities for out-of-hospital providers (Kinnane et al., 1997), a consensus statement on prevention by the EMS community was prepared under the aegis of the National Association of EMS Physicians. The statement recommended leadership activities and knowledge areas that are either essential or desirable. Some of the leadership activities deemed to be essential were the provision of education to EMS providers on primary injury prevention, the protection of individual EMS providers from injury, and the collection and use of injury data (Garrison et al., 1997). Although a number of primary prevention programs by prehospital. and acute care providers have been implemented in various states or regions, none has been evaluated as yet (Kinnane et al., 1997). The committee suggests that enhanced emphasis be placed on the development and evaluation of prevention programs by these providers, as well as by rehabilitation providers to prevent secondary complications of injuries. Further, the committee believes that primary injury prevention should be incorporated into training curricula and continuing medical education pro-
OCR for page 147
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment grams for prehospital and acute care providers. Finally, the committee believes that there are financial incentives for employers, insurers, and others who pay for health care to adopt injury prevention, a point discussed later in the section on health care financing. Surveillance data from trauma systems are indispensable for monitoring outcomes, assessing system performance, determining the etiology and scope of the injury problem in a community, and influencing public policy. Yet no nationwide or nationally representative surveillance systems are operational for trauma systems as a whole nor for their separate elements (i.e., prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation services). Most surveillance systems currently in place are kept by individual trauma centers as a condition of trauma center designation (Pollock and McClain, 1989).2 In addition, although 48 percent of states have some type of hospital-based trauma registries, there is great variability in their nature, scope, purpose, and data elements (Shapiro et al., 1994). To instill greater uniformity, federal agencies and professional organizations have taken the initiative to develop and encourage the use of a variety of uniform data sets from prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation providers. Working with the EMS community, NHTSA sponsored a conference in 1993, the final product of which was a proposed set of 81 uniform prehospital EMS data elements, either essential or desirable, for patient severity and treatment, cause of injury, response, and transfer times, but not for outcomes (under the rationale that these would have required linkages to the emergency department) (U.S. DOT, 1994). CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) supported the development of a uniform data set for 24-hour, hospital-based emergency departments, the Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems (DEEDS) (NCIPC, 1997a). The ACS developed, specifically for trauma centers, the National Trauma Data Bank to serve as a voluntary national repository of data from trauma centers. The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation was developed with support from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to capture the severity of patient disability and the outcomes of rehabilitation. A number of states and regions have implemented laws that mandate inclusive trauma systems with comprehensive trauma registries. These registries include data retrieved from prehospital services, police and ambulance records, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and medical examiners' files. These data systems are driven by E-codes (see Chapter 3) and have disease- and severity-specific information, as well as length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and charge information. Linkages between data sets covering prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation providers are envisioned as a pivotal means of integrating information across trauma systems nationwide and of formulating public policy. 2 ACS criteria require Levels I–III to collect minimal registry data, whereas Level IV is encouraged, but not required, to maintain a registry.
OCR for page 148
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment However, experience thus far points to the difficulty of performing such linkages for outcome studies (Copes et al., 1996). The committee supports the widespread adoption of uniform surveillance data sets, such as those recommended by NHTSA for prehospital care, by NCIPC for emergency department care, and by the ACS for trauma centers. Once adopted, demonstration projects should be developed to determine the most cost-effective means of establishing linkages between prehospital care, acute care, and rehabilitation data sets. Research has been instrumental in the evolution of trauma systems. It has formed the underpinning for improved patient care and survival, reduced morbidity, and a national investment in trauma systems. In recognition of its vital role in advancing the trauma field, the ACS requires Level I trauma centers to conduct an active research program. Nevertheless, many prehospital, hospital, and rehabilitation providers do not participate in basic or clinical research, despite the existence of major gaps in knowledge across the entire spectrum, from basic research in tissue injury to health services research in trauma care systems. There is a dearth of funding for research on trauma systems design, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The existing research support is fragmentary at best, and there is no critical mass of support and leadership. The modest level of support comes mostly from NCIPC and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) (NCIPC, 1997b). NCIPC has sustained an investment in trauma systems research, even though its extramural research program is beset by funding limitations. The overall problem is that trauma systems research falls under health services research, an area that has not fared well in the research hierarchy and competition for resources. Health services research, despite a critical need, is a field whose recognition and importance have come only in the past decade, at a time of persistent pressures to reduce the federal budget deficit. Health services research has not grown to a level commensurate with its significance to society. As the major benefactor, AHCPR is among the newest and least-endowed agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The purview of AHCPR extends well beyond trauma systems to cover all areas of clinical practice. Expectations for a research center at the National Institutes of Health were temporarily aroused in 1994 with the publication of A Report of the Task Force on Trauma Research , a congressionally mandated report for research recommendations to launch a trauma research program, including research in trauma systems (NIH, 1994). However, the report went largely unnoticed; Congress did not appropriate funds for its implementation. A subsequent section of this chapter contains a recommendation to augment trauma systems evaluation and related research. GROWTH IN TRAUMA CARE SYSTEMS All indications point to a progressive increase in the development of trauma systems in the United States since the 1970s, yet documenting the growth is not
OCR for page 167
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment being driven more by cost containment pressures than by empirical evaluation to ensure their effectiveness in matching patient needs with available resources. With one exception (Neely, 1998), very few such evaluations have been published thus far. Managed care has extensively penetrated rehabilitation services in some major cities and is growing rapidly elsewhere (DeJong et al., 1996). There is a paucity of research on the impact of managed care on rehabilitation services. So many questions remain unanswered that a blueprint for research on managed care and people with disabilities has been developed (U.S. DHHS, 1995; IOM, 1997a). Although 70 percent of working Americans are enrolled in managed care, the need to demonstrate the relationship between quality of trauma care and rehabilitation and costs and outcomes is important for all Americans. This information is needed for defining best practices and for shaping treatment guidelines. It is also essential to the development of innovative service delivery models that benefit the patient while attending to the escalating costs of health care. The committee recommends intensified trauma outcomes research, including research on the delivery and financing of acute care services and rehabilitation. The committee envisions that HRSA and other appropriate federal agencies (e.g., NCIPC, AHCPR) will collaborate on this research. Specific areas of research that should be addressed include the following: the cost-effectiveness of specific clinical and service interventions to establish best practices in trauma care; the most efficient and effective strategies for organizing and financing the delivery of both acute care services and rehabilitation, including the impact of managed care arrangements on access to services, quality of care, and outcomes; and the development of improved methods for measuring the severity of injury, particularly for those at high risk of adverse outcomes. Finally, managed care accrediting organizations should support the development, coordination, and implementation of trauma care systems. They should mandate, as a condition of facility accreditation, participation in an inclusive trauma care system in states and regions with such systems and should promote the development of trauma care systems in states and regions without them. SUMMARY Great strides have been made over the past decades in developing trauma systems covering a continuum of prehospital, acute care, and rehabilitation
OCR for page 168
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment services. Public health organizations and providers have embraced the need for a broader, more inclusive philosophy that shifts the focus from the trauma center to a system of trauma care that attends to the needs of all trauma patients over the full course of treatment. Trauma care is lifesaving, yet expensive. The costs of trauma systems development should be shared by federal, state, and local governments. About half of the states report having some kind of trauma systems, although their nature and extent are not well documented. Some of the most successful statewide trauma systems have flourished with dedicated sources of funding through motor vehicle fees and other creative approaches. Research has begun to demonstrate that the investment in systems of care can be cost-effective in terms of long-term health care costs and productivity. However, there always may be vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, for whom cost-effectiveness may be difficult to demonstrate. More research is needed on vulnerable populations, patient outcomes, system configuration, and cost-effectiveness. A focal point at the federal level has to be reinstated to support research and to cultivate the growth of state and regional trauma systems. A federal program had been in place until 1995, when budget pressures led to the program's demise. The financing of patient care continues to constrain trauma systems. The growth of managed care has placed further financial burdens on hospitals and trauma centers. The impact of managed care on trauma patient access, utilization, quality, and financing is essential to monitor but has been largely unexamined in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature. Financing constraints reinforce the public health imperative of primary injury prevention. REFERENCES AAAM (Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine). 1990. The Abbreviated Injury Scale. Des Plaines, IL: AAAM AAAM (Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine). 1994. The Injury Impairment Scale, 1994. Des Plaines, IL: AAAM. ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians). 1992. Guidelines for trauma care systems. Annals of Emergency Medicine 22:1079–1100. ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians). 1993. America's Health Care Safety Net, Emergency Medicine: 1968–1993 and Beyond. Dallas, TX: ACEP. ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians). 1998. ACEP [World Wide Web document]. URL http://www.acep.org (accessed January 1998). ACS (American College of Surgeons). 1993. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. Chicago: ACS. ACS (American College of Surgeons). 1995. Trauma funding is threatened. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons 80:7. Adams BL, Trimble MP. 1994. Nurses. In: Kuehl AE, ed. Prehospital Systems and Medical Oversight, 2d edition. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book. Pp. 76–80. Baker SP, O'Neill B. 1976. The injury severity score: An update. Journal of Trauma 16(11):882–885.
OCR for page 169
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Baker SP, Whitfield MA, O'Neill B. 1987. Geographic variation in mortality from motor vehicle crashes. New England Journal of Medicine 316:1384–1387. Bass R. 1997. Data Obtained from a Survey by the National Association of State EMS Directors. Presented to the National Association of EMS Physicians, EMS Research Meeting, July 10. Lake Tahoe, NV. Bazzoli GJ, MacKenzie EJ. 1995. Trauma centers in the United States: Identification and examination of key characteristics. Journal of Trauma 38(1):103–110. Bazzoli GJ, Madura KJ, Cooper GF, MacKenzie EJ, Maier RV. 1995. Progress in the development of trauma systems in the United States: Results of a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 273(5):395–401. Bazzoli GJ, Meersman PJ, Can C. 1996. Factors that enhance continued trauma center participation in trauma systems. Journal of Trauma 41(5):876–885. Bensard DD, McIntyre RC, Moore EE, Moore FA. 1994. A critical analysis of acutely injured children managed in an adult level I trauma center. Journal of Trauma 35:384–393. Bergner M, Bobitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. 1985. The SIP: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care 19:787–805. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 1997. Occupational Outlook Handbook [World Wide Web document]. URL http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos101.htm (accessed July 1998). Boyd CR, Tolson MS, Copes WS. 1987. Evaluating trauma care: The TRISS method. Journal of Trauma 27:370–378. Boyd DR. 1983. The history of emergency medical systems in the United States of America. In: Boyd DR, Edlich RF, Micik SH, eds. Systems Approach to Emergency Medical Care. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Bull JP. 1985. Disabilities caused by road traffic accidents and their relation to severity scores. Accident Analysis and Prevention 17:355–366. Cales RH, Trunkey DD. 1985. Preventable trauma deaths: A review of trauma care systems development. Journal of the American Medical Association 254(8):1059–1063. Campbell AR, Vittinghoff E, Morabito D, Paine M, Shagoury C, Praetz P, Grey D, McAninch JW, Schecter WP. 1995. Trauma centers in a managed care environment. Journal of Trauma 39(2):246–251. Cayten CG, Stahl WM, Murphy JG, Agarwal N, Byrne DW. 1991. Limitations of the TRISS Method for interhospital comparisons: A multihospital study. Journal of Trauma 31(4):471–482. Champion HR, Mabee MS. 1990. An American Crisis in Trauma Care Reimbursement . Washington, DC: Washington Hospital Center. Champion HR, Teter H. 1988. Trauma care systems: The federal role. Journal of Trauma 28(6):877–879. Champion HR, Copes WS, Buyer D, Flanagan ME, Bain L, Sacco WJ. 1989a. Major trauma in geriatric patients. American Journal of Public Health 79(9):1278–1282. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan, ME. 1989b. A revision of the trauma score. Journal of Trauma 29(5):623–629. Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Keast SL, Bain LW, Flanagan ME, Frey CF. 1990. The major trauma outcome study: Establishing national norms for trauma care. Journal of Trauma 30:1356–1365. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS. 1992. Improvement in outcome from trauma center care. Archives of Surgery 127:333–338.
OCR for page 170
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ. 1994. The major trauma outcome study: Establishing norms for trauma care. Journal of Trauma 36:499–503. Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ, Frey CF, Folcroft JW, Hoyt DB, Weigelt JA. 1996. Improved predictions from A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT) over Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): Results of an independent evaluation. Journal of Trauma 40:40–49. Chen B, Maio RF, Green PE, Burney RE. 1995. Geographic variation in preventable deaths from motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Trauma 38(2):228–232. Cooper A, Barlow B, DiScalla C, String D, Ray K, Mottley L. 1993. Efficacy of pediatric trauma care: Results of a population-based study. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 31:72–77. Cope DN, O'Lear J. 1993. A clinical and economic perspective on head injury rehabilitation. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 8:1–14. Copes WS, Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Keast SL, Bain LW. 1988. The injury severity score revisited. Journal of Trauma 28(1):69–77. Copes WS, Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Gann DS, Gennarelli T, MacKenzie E, Schwaitzberg S. 1990. Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. Journal of Trauma 30(10):1200–1207. Copes WS, Stark MM, Lawnick MM, Tepper S, Wilderson D, DeJong G, Brannon R, Hamilton BB. 1996. Linking data from national trauma and rehabilitation registries. Journal of Trauma 40(3):428–436. Dailey JT, Teter H, Cowley RA. 1992. Trauma center closures: A national assessment. Journal of Trauma 33:539–547. Davidson LL, Durkin MS, Kuhn L, O'Connor P, Barlow B, Heagarty MC. 1994. The impact of the Safe Kids/Healthy Neighborhoods Injury Prevention Program in Harlem, 1988 through 1991. American Journal of Public Health 84:580–586. DeJong G, Wheatley B, Sutton J. 1996. Perspective and analysis: Medical rehabilitation undergoing major shakeout in advanced managed care markets. Bureau of National Affairs' Managed Care Reporter 2:138–141. DeMaria E, Kenney PR, Merriam MA, Casanova LA, Gann DS. 1987. Survival after trauma in geriatric patients. Annals of Surgery 206(6):738–743. Derlet RW. 1997. Locked gates: Profit and pain. Academic Emergency Medicine 4:1099–1100. Derlet RW, Young GP. 1997. Managed care and emergency medicine: Conflicts, federal law, and California legislation. Annals of Emergency Medicine 30:292–300. Durkin MS, Kuhn L, Davidson LL, Laraque D, Barlow B. 1996. Epidemiology and prevention of severe assault and gun injuries to children in an urban community. Journal of Trauma 41:667–673. Eastman AB, Lewis FR, Champion HR, Mottox KL. 1987. Regional trauma system design: Critical concepts. American Journal of Surgery 154:79–87. Eastman AB, Rice CL, Bishop GS, Richardson JD. 1991. An analysis of the critical problem of trauma center reimbursement. Journal of Trauma 31:920–960. Eastman AB, Bishop GS, Walsh JC, Richardson JD, Rice CL. 1994. The economic status of trauma centers on the eve of health care reform. Journal of Trauma 36(6):835–844. Eisen M, Donald CA, Ware JE, Brook RH. 1980. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Children in the Health Insurance Study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Publication No. R-2313. HEW.
OCR for page 171
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Finelli FC, Jonsson J, Champion HR, Morelli S, Fouty WJ. 1989. A case control study for major trauma in geriatric patients. Journal of Trauma 29(5):541–548. Flowe KM, Cunningham PR, Foil B. 1995. Rural trauma systems in evolution. Surgery Annual 27:29–39. Fortune JB, Sanchez J, Graca L, Haselbarth J, Kuehler DH, Wallace JR, Edge W, Feustel PJ. 1992. A pediatric trauma center without a pediatric surgeon: A four-year outcome analysis. Journal of Trauma 33(1):130–137. Foster Higgins. 1995. National Survey of Employer Sponsored Health Plans, 1995. New York: Foster Higgins. GAO (General Accounting Office). 1991. Trauma Care: Lifesaving System Threatened by Unreimbursed Costs and Other Factors. Washington, DC: GAO. HRD-91-57. Garrison HG, Benson NH, Whitley TW. 1989. Helicopter use by rural emergency departments to transfer trauma victims: A study of time-to-requests intervals. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 7:384–386. Garrison HG, Foltin GL, Becker LR, Chew JL, Johnson M, Madsen GM, Miller DR, Ozmar BH. 1997. The role of emergency medical services in primary injury prevention. Annals of Emergency Medicine 30(1):84–91. Gearhart PA, Wuerz R, Localio AR. 1997. Cost-effectiveness analysis of helicopter EMS for trauma patients. Annals of Emergency Medicine 30:500–506. Gold MR, Hurley R, Lake T, Ensor T, Berenson R. 1995. A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians. New England Journal of Medicine 333(25):1678–1683. Goldfarb MG, Bazzoli GJ, Coffey RM. 1996. Trauma systems and the costs of trauma care. Health Services Research 31 (1):71–95. Goodspeed DG. 1997. Benchmarking emergency medical services: Trauma systems funding in the United States. Best Practices and Benchmarking in Healthcare 2(2):45–51. Hackey RB. 1995. Politics of trauma system development. Journal of Trauma 39(6):1045–1053. Hall JR, Reyes HM, Meller JL, Stein RJ. 1993. Traumatic death in urban children, revisited. American Journal of Diseases of Children 147:102–107. Hall JR, Reyes HM, Meller JL, Loeff DS, Dembek R. 1996. The outcome for children with blunt trauma is best at a pediatric trauma center. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 31(1):72–76. Holbrook TL, Anderson JP, Sieber WJ, Browner D, Hoyt DB. 1998. Outcome after major trauma: Discharge and 6-month follow-up results from the Trauma Recovery Project. Journal of Trauma 45(2):315–324. Hossfeld G, Ryan M. 1989. HMOs and utilization of emergency medical services: A metropolitan survey. Annals of Emergency Medicine 18(4):374–377. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). 1990. Success and Failure: A Study of Rural Emergency Medical Services. Prepared by the National Rural Health Association. Rockville, MD: HRSA. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). 1992. Model Trauma Care System Plan. Rockville, MD: HRSA Division of Trauma and Emergency Medical Systems. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). 1995. Five-Year Plan: Emergency Medical Services for Children, 1995–2000. Washington, DC: Emergency Medical Services for Children National Resource Center.
OCR for page 172
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Hulka F, Mullins RJ, Mann NC, Hedges JR, Rowland D, Worrall WH, Sandoval RD, Zechnich A, Trunkey DD. 1997. Influence of a statewide trauma system on pediatric hospitalization and outcome. Journal of Trauma 42:514–519. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1989. Controlling Costs and Changing Patient Care? The Role of Utilization Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1991. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1993. Emergency Medical Services for Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1996. Pathways of Addiction: Opportunities in Drug Abuse Research. Washington DC: National Academy Press. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1997a. Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1997b. Managing Managed Care: Quality Improvement in Behavioral Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jacobs BB, Jacobs L. 1993. Prehospital emergency medical services. In: Kravis TC, Warner CG, Jacobs LM, eds. Emergency Medicine, 3d edition. New York: Raven Press. Pp. 1–29. Jacobs LM, Sinclair A, Beiser A, D'Agostino RB. 1984. Prehospital advance life support: Benefits in trauma. Journal of Trauma 24(1):8–13. Kaiser Family Foundation. 1998. Fact sheet: Medicaid and Managed-Care. [World Wide Web document]. URL http://www.kff.org:80/archive/health_policy/kcfm/mmcare/mmcare.html (accessed May 1998). Kaplan RM, Anderson JB, Wu AW, Mathers WC, Kozin F, Orenstein D. 1989. The quality of well-being scale: Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis and arthritis. Medical Care 27(3):S27–S43. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. 1987. The functional independence measure: A new tool for rehabilitation. In: Eisenberg MG, ed. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. Vol. 1. New York: Springer. Pp. 6–18. Kilborn PT. 1997. Fitting managed care into emergency rooms. New York Times, December 28, p. 10. Kinnane JM, Garrison HG, Coben JH, Alonso-Serra HM. 1997. Injury prevention: Is there a role for out-of-hospital emergency medical services? Academic Emergency Medicine 4(4):306–312. Knudson MM, Shagoury C, Lewis FR. 1992. Can adult trauma surgeons care for injured children? Journal of Trauma 32(6):729–737. Konvolinka CW, Copes WS, Sacco WJ. 1995. Institution and per surgeon volume vs. survivor outcome in Pennsylvania's trauma centers. American Surgeon 170:333–340. Ma MH-M. 1997. System Performance and Appropriateness of Care for Elderly Trauma Patients. Doctoral dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. MacKenzie EJ, Shapiro S, Moody M, Siegel JH, Smith RT. 1986. Predicting posttrauma functional disability for individuals without severe brain injury. Medical Care 24(5):377–387. MacKenzie EJ, Shapiro S, Smith RT, Siegel JH, Moody M, Pitt A. 1987. Influencing return to work following hospitalization for traumatic injury. American Journal of Public Health 77(3):329–334. MacKenzie EJ, Morris JA, Edelstein SL. 1989. Effect of pre-existing disease on length of stay in trauma patients. Journal of Trauma 29(6):757–765.
OCR for page 173
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment MacKenzie EJ, Morris JA, Smith GS, Fahey M. 1990. Acute hospital costs of trauma in the U.S.: Implications for regionalized systems of care. Journal of Trauma 30(9):1096–1103. MacKenzie EJ, Steinwachs DM, Ramzy AI, Ashworth JW, Shankar B. 1991. Trauma case mix and hospital payment: The potential for refining DRGs. Health Services Research 26(1):5–26. MacKenzie EJ, Steinwachs DM, Bone LR, Floccare DJ, Ramzy AI. 1992. Inter-rater reliability of preventable death judgments. The Preventable Death Study Group. Journal of Trauma 33(2):292–302. MacKenzie EJ, Damiano A, Miller T, Luchter S. 1996. The development of the functional capacity index. Journal of Trauma 41(5):799–807. McClure RJ, Douglas RM. 1996. The public health impact of minor injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28:443–451. Mendeloff JM, Cayten CG. 1991. Trauma systems and public policy. Annual Review of Public Health 12:401–424. Miller RH, Luft HS. 1994. Managed care plan performance since 1980: A literature analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 271:1512–1519. Miller TR, Levy DT. 1995. The effect of regional trauma care systems on costs. Archives of Surgery 130:188–193. Moore EE. 1995. Trauma systems, trauma centers, and trauma surgeons: Opportunities in managed competition. Journal of Trauma 39(1):1–11. Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, Mallangoni MA, Shackford SR, Champion HR. 1995. Organ Injury Scaling: Spleen and liver (1994 Revision). Journal of Trauma 38(3):323–324. Mueller BA, Rivara, FB, Bergman A. 1988. Urban-rural location and a risk of dying in a pedestrian-vehicle collision. Journal of Trauma 28:91–94. Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. 1990. Classification of Long Bone Fractures. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mullins RJ, Veum-Stone J, Helfand M, Zimmer-Gembeck M, Hedges JR, Southard PA, Trunkey DD. 1994. Outcome of hospitalized injured patients after institution of a trauma system in an urban area. Journal of the American Medical Association 271(24):1919–1924. Mullins RJ, Veum-Stone J, Hedges JR, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Mann NC, Southard PA, Helfand M, Gaines JA, Trunkey DD. 1996. Influence of a statewide trauma system on location of hospitalization and outcome of injured patients. Journal of Trauma 40(4):536–545. Mullins RJ, Mann NC, Hedges JR, Worrall W, Jurkovich GJ. 1998. Preferential benefit of implementation of a statewide trauma system in one of two adjacent states. Journal of Trauma 44(4):609–616. Mustalish AC, Post C. 1994. History. In: Kuehl AE, ed. Prehospital Systems and Medical Oversight. 2d edition. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book. Pp. 3–23. Nakayama DK, Copes WS, Sacco W. 1992. Difference in trauma care among pediatric and nonpediatric trauma centers. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 27(4):427–431. National Trauma Data Project. 1996. A Report to the Division of Trauma and Emergency Medical Systems, Health Resources and Services Administration . Conducted by John V. Udell, Augusta, ME. NCIPC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control). 1993. Injury Control in the 1990s: A National Plan for Action. A Report to the Second World Conference on Injury Control. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
OCR for page 174
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment NCIPC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control). 1997a. Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems (DEEDS) [World Wide Web document]. URL http:www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/deedspage.htm (accessed December 1997). NCIPC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control). 1997b. Inventory of Federally Funded Research in Injury Prevention and Control . Atlanta, GA: NCIPC. Neely K. 1997. Demand management: The new view of EMS? Prehospital Emergency Care 1(2):114–118. Neely K. 1998. Can Emergency Medical Service Dispatchers Identify Callers Suitable For Non-Emergency Medical Service Resources? Presentation at the 1998 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Research Forum, Steamboat Springs, CO. January 1998. Neely K, Drake ME, Moorhead JC. 1997. Multiple options and unique pathways: A new direction for EMS? Annals of Emergency Medicine 30:797–799. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 1997a. Emergency Access: Extending the Nation's Emergency Medical Safety Net. Washington, DC : NHTSA. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 1997b. Working with managed care organizations. EMS and Managed Care Bulletin. [World Wide Web document]. URL http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov:80/people.injury/ems/bulletin/bullet97.htm (accessed July 1998). NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1994. A Report of the Task Force on Trauma Research. Bethesda, MD: NIH. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1995. Disease-Specific Estimates of Direct and Indirect Costs of Illness and NIH Support. Bethesda, MD: NIH. NPTR (National Pediatric Trauma Registry). 1998. The National Pediatric Trauma Registry. [World Wide Web document]. URL http://www.nemc.org/rehab/nptrhome.htm (accessed September 1998). NRC (National Research Council). 1966. Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC (National Research Council). 1978. Emergency Medical Services at Midpassage. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NREMT (National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians). 1998. NREMT [World Wide Web document]. URL http://www.nremt.org (accessed January 1998). Offner PJ, Jurkovich GJ, Gurney J, Rivara FP. 1992. Revision of TRISS for intubated patients . Journal of Trauma 32(1):32–35. O'Keefe GE, Maier RV, Diehr P, Grooseman D, Jurkovich GJ, Conrad D. 1997. The complications of trauma and their associated costs in a level I trauma center. Archives of Surgery 132(8):920–924. Osler T, Baker S, Long W. 1997. A modification of the Injury Severity Scale that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. Journal of Trauma 43:922–926. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1989. Rural Emergency Medical Services—Special Report. Washington, DC: OTA. OTA-H-445. Phillips S, Rond PC, Kelly SM, Swartz PD. 1996. The failure of triage criteria to identify geriatric patients with trauma: Results from the Florida Trauma Triage Study. Journal of Trauma 40(2):278–283. Pollack MM, Alexander SR, Clarke N, Ruttimann UE, Tesselaar HM, Bachulis AC. 1991. Improved outcomes from tertiary center pediatric intensive care: A statewide comparison of tertiary and nontertiary facilities . Critical Care Medicine 19(2):150–159.
OCR for page 175
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Pollock DA, McClain PW. 1989. Trauma registries: Current status and future prospects. Journal of the American Medical Association 226:2280–2283. Powers RD. 1997. Medicaid managed care and the emergency department: The first 100 days. Journal of Emergency Medicine 15(3):393–396. Regel G, Stalp M, Lehmann U, Seekamp A. 1997. Prehospital care, importance of early intervention on outcome. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Supplementum 110:71–76. Relman AS. 1988. Assessment and accountability: The third revolution in medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 319:1220–1222. Retchin SM. 1997. Heterogeneity of health maintenance organizations and quality of care. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89(22):1654–1655. Rhee PM, Grossman D, Rivara F, Mock C, Jurkovich G, Maier RV. 1997. The effect of payer status on utilization of hospital resources in trauma care. Archives of Surgery 132(4):399–404. Rhodes M, Aronson J, Moerkirk G, Petrash E. 1988. Quality of life after the trauma center. Journal of Trauma 8(7):931–938. Rhodes M, Smith S, Boorse D. 1993. Pediatric patients in an ''adult" trauma center. Journal of Trauma 35:384–393. Rice DP, MacKenzie EJ, Jones AS, Kaufman SR, deLissovoy GV, Max W, McLoughlin E, Miller TR, Robertson LS, Salkever DS, Smith GS. 1989. Cost of Injury in the United States. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health and Aging, University of California and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins University. Rogers FB, Osler TM, Shackford SR, Cohen M, Camp L. 1997a. Financial outcome of treating trauma in a rural environment. Journal of Trauma 43(1):65–72. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Hoyt DB, Camp L, Osler TM, MacKersie RC, Davis JW. 1997b. Trauma deaths in a mature urban vs. rural trauma system. Archives of Surgery 132(4):376–381. Roy PD. 1987. The value of trauma centers: A methodological review. Canadian Journal of Surgery 30:17–22. Rutledge R, Fakhry SM, Meyer A, Sheldon GF, Baker CC. 1993. An analysis of the association of trauma centers with per capita hospitalization and death rates from injury. Annals of Surgery 218(4):512–524. Rutledge R, Hoyt D, Eastman AB, Sise MJ, Velky T, Canty T, Wachtel T, Osler TM. 1997. Comparison of the ISS and ICD-9 diagnoses codes as predictors of outcome in injury. Journal of Trauma 42(3):477–489. Rutledge R, Osler T, Emery S, Kromhout-Schiro S. 1998. The end of ISS and the TRISS: ICISS outperforms both ISS and TRISS as predictors of trauma patient survival, hospital charges and hospital length of stay. Journal of Trauma 44:41–49. Schwartz RJ, Jacobs LM, Yaezel D. 1989. Impact of pre-trauma center care on length of stay and hospital charges. Journal of Trauma 29:1611–1615. Shackford SR. 1995. The evolution of modern trauma care. Surgical Clinics of North America 75(2):147–156. Shackford SR, Hollingsworth-Fridlund P, Cooper GF, Eastman AB. 1986. The effect of regionalization upon quality of trauma care as assessed by concurrent audit before and after institution of a trauma system: A preliminary report. Journal of Trauma 26(9):812–820. Shapiro MJ, Cole KE, Keegan M, Prasad CN, Thompson RJ. 1994. National survey of state trauma registries—1992. Journal of Trauma 37(5):835–840.
OCR for page 176
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Smith JS, Martin LF, Young WW, Macioce DP. 1990. Do trauma centers improve outcome over non-trauma centers? The evaluation of regional trauma care using discharge abstract data and patient management categories. Journal of Trauma 30(12):1533–1538. Spaite DW, Valenzuela TD, Meislin HW. 1993. Barriers to EMS system evaluation: Problems associated with field data collection. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 8:S35–S40. Stewart TC, Lane PL, Stefanits T. 1995. An evaluation of patient outcomes before and after trauma center designation using trauma and injury severity score analysis. Journal of Trauma 39:1036–1040. Stout JL. 1994. System financing. In: Roush WR, ed. Principles of EMS Systems. Dallas: American College of Emergency Physicians. Pp. 451–473. Swor R. 1994. Funding strategies. In: Kuehl AE, ed. Prehospital Systems and Medical Oversight, 2d edition. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book. Pp. 76–80. Trunkey D, Lewis FR. 1991. Preventable mortality. In: Trunkey D, Lewis FR, eds. Current Therapy of Trauma, 3d edition. Philadelphia, PA: Decker. Pp. 3–4. U.S. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 1991. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (PHS) 91-50212. U.S. DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1992. Position Papers from the Third National Injury Conference, Setting the National Agenda for Injury Control in the 1990s, April 22–25, 1991, Denver, CO. Washington, DC: DHHS. U.S. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 1995. Managed Care for People with Disabilities: Developing a Research Agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. DHHS. U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation). 1994. Uniform PreHospital EMS Data Conference Final Report, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT. DOT-3P0081. U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation). 1995. EMS Systems Development: Results of the Statewide EMS Assessment Program. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT. DOT-3P0067. U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation). 1996a. Consensus Statement on the EMS Role in Primary Injury Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT. DOT-3P0081. U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation). 1996b. Emergency Medical Services: Agenda for the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT. DOT HS 808 441; NTS-42. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 1992–1995. Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Years 1992–1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valenzuela TD, Criss EA, Spaite D, Meislin HW, Wright AL, Clark L. 1990. Cost effectiveness analysis of paramedic emergency medical services in the treatment of prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Annals of Emergency Medicine 19(12):1407–1411. Ware JE. 1995. The status of health assessment 1994. Annual Review of Public Health 16:327–354. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. 1992. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Medical Care 30:473–483. West JG, Williams MJ, Trunkey DD, Wolferth CC. 1988. Trauma systems: Current status—future challenges. Journal of the American Medical Association 259(24):3597–3600.
OCR for page 177
Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment Wilson IB, Cleary PD. 1995. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: A conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association 273(1):59–65. Young GP, Lowe RA. 1997. Adverse outcomes of managed care gate keeping. Academic Emergency Medicine 4(12):1129–1135.
Representative terms from entire chapter: