Evaluation of Rural vs Urban Trauma Patients Served by 9-1-1 Emergency Medical Services
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
i

Superseded

This Document Has Been Replaced By:

i

Retired

This Document Has Been Retired

i

Up-to-date Information

This is the latest update:

Evaluation of Rural vs Urban Trauma Patients Served by 9-1-1 Emergency Medical Services
Filetype[PDF-470.55 KB]


Details:
  • Alternative Title:
    JAMA Surg
  • Description:
    Importance Despite a large rural US population, there are potential differences between rural and urban regions in the processes and outcomes following trauma. Objectives To describe and evaluate rural vs urban processes of care, injury severity, and mortality among injured patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services (EMS). Design, Setting, and Participants This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a prospective cohort enrolled from January 1 through December 31, 2011, and followed up through hospitalization. The study included 44 EMS agencies transporting to 28 hospitals in 2 rural and 5 urban counties in Oregon and Washington. A population-based, consecutive sample of 67047 injured children and adults served by EMS (1971 rural and 65 076 urban) was enrolled. Among the 53 487 patients transported by EMS, a stratified probability sample of 17 633 patients (1438 rural and 16 195 urban) was created to track hospital outcomes (78.9% with in-hospital follow-up). Data analysis was performed from June 12, 2015, to May 20, 2016. Exposures Rural was defined at the county level by 60 minutes or more driving proximity to the nearest level I or II trauma center and/or rural designation in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ambulance fee schedule by zip code. Main outcomes and Measures Mortality (out-of-hospital and in-hospital), need for early critical resources, and transfer rates. Results Of the 53 487 injured patients transported by EMS (17 633 patients in the probability sample), 27 535 were women (51.5%); mean (SD) age was 51.6 (26.1) years. Rural vs urban sensitivity of field triage for identifying patients requiring early critical resources was 65.2% vs 80.5%, and only 29.4% of rural patients needing critical resources were initially transported to major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients. After accounting for transfers, 39.8% of rural patients requiring critical resources were cared for in major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients. Overall mortality did not differ between rural and urban regions (1.44% vs 0.89%; P = .09); however, 89.6% of rural deaths occurred within 24 hours compared with 64% of urban deaths. Rural regions had higher transfer rates (3.2% vs 2.7%) and longer transfer distances (median, 97.4 km; interquartile range [IQR], 51.7-394.5 km; range, 47.8-398.6 km vs 22.5 km; IQR, 11.6-24.6 km; range, 3.5-97.4 km). Conclusions and Relevance Most high-risk trauma patients injured in rural areas were cared for outside of major trauma centers and most rural trauma deaths occurred early, although overall mortality did not differ between regions. There are opportunities for improved timeliness and access to major trauma care among patients injured in rural regions.
  • Subject:
  • Pubmed ID:
    27732713
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC5409522
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:
No Related Documents.

You May Also Like: