A comparison of major trauma patients transported to trauma centres vs. non-trauma centres in metropolitan Perth.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 21334800.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.016.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Some major trauma patients in metropolitan Perth (area 5000 km(2)) are initially transported to a secondary hospital (non-trauma centre), rather than directly to a tertiary hospital (trauma centre). They are subsequently transferred to a tertiary hospital. We compared outcomes from these different systems of care. Major trauma (Injury Severity Score, ISS>15) data from the Trauma Registries, 1 July 1997-30 June 2006. Two groups were studied: group 1 (metropolitan major trauma transported directly to a tertiary hospital) and group 2 (metropolitan major trauma transported initially to a secondary hospital and then to a tertiary hospital). The primary endpoint was death. Group 1 (n = 2005) and group 2 (n = 1078) mean age (43.9 ± 24.3 yrs vs. 39.1 ± 24.3 yrs, p < 0.0001) both with a median ISS = 24 (p = 0.084). Group 2 had significantly more head/neck injuries (p < 0.0001) and significantly less thoracic, abdominal and pelvis/extremities injuries (p < 0.0001). There were also a significantly greater total number of regions injured in group 1 vs. group 2 (p < 0.0001). Mean times to definitive care were 59 min vs. 4.5h, respectively (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, ISS, RTS, total regions injured and time, the OR for death in group 2 was 0.99 (95% CI 0.58-1.68). There is an equivalent risk of major trauma death in these two systems of care. In our metropolitan area, we were unable to demonstrate a mortality benefit associated with time.
Medical subject headings
- Hospitals, Urban
- Transportation of Patients
- Trauma Centers
- Wounds and Injuries