Analysis of compliance and outcomes in a trauma system with a 2-hour transfer rule.

HYPOTHESIS Minimizing time to definitive care in an effort to optimize outcomes is the goal of trauma systems. Toward this end, some systems have imposed standards on time to interfacility transfer. This study evaluates compliance and outcome in a system with a 2-hour transfer rule. DESIGN Retrospective review. SETTING State trauma registry data from 1999 to 2003. PATIENTS Trauma patients who underwent interfacility transfer and those who did not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to transfer; Injury Severity Score; mortality; and time to operating room at second facility. These variables were then stratified by time to transfer. RESULTS During the study period, there were 22 447 interfacility transfers. Overall transfer rate was 10.4%. Of the transfers, 4502 (20%) occurred within 2 hours. Median transfer time was 2 hours 21 minutes. Injury Severity Score, mortality, and number of patients with operation performed on same day of transfer were all higher for the group transferred within 2 hours in comparison with patients transferred on the same day of injury at greater than 2 hours. CONCLUSIONS While the majority of transfers occur at greater than the mandated 2-hour interval, the most seriously injured patients are reaching definitive care within 2 hours. Markers of acuity for patients transferred at greater than 2 hours parallel those of the general trauma patient population. These data suggest that, in this system, provider-determined transfer time that exceeds 2 hours has no adverse effect on patient outcome. It appears to accomplish recognition and rapid transport of the most seriously ill. This may obviate the need for onerous system mandates that are not feasible or have poor compliance.

[1]  R. Gamelli,et al.  Socioeconomic factors, medicolegal issues, and trauma patient transfer trends: Is there a connection? , 2006, The Journal of trauma.

[2]  C. Goldfarb,et al.  A Prospective Evaluation of Patients With Isolated Orthopedic Injuries Transferred to a Level I Trauma Center , 2006, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[3]  K. Koval,et al.  Are patients being transferred to level-I trauma centers for reasons other than medical necessity? , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  Walter L Biffl,et al.  Transfer Times to Definitive Care Facilities Are Too Long: A Consequence of an Immature Trauma System , 2005, Annals of surgery.

[5]  David C Grossman,et al.  The effect of interfacility transfer on outcome in an urban trauma system. , 2003, The Journal of trauma.

[6]  J. Hedges,et al.  Mortality Among Seriously Injured Patients Treated in Remote Rural Trauma Centers Before and After Implementation of a Statewide Trauma System , 2001, Medical care.

[7]  M. Copass,et al.  Payer status: the unspoken triage criterion. , 2001, The Journal of trauma.

[8]  F P Rivara,et al.  The effect of organized systems of trauma care on motor vehicle crash mortality. , 2000, JAMA.

[9]  N. Mann,et al.  Introduction to the Academic Symposium to Evaluate Evidence Regarding the Efficacy of Trauma Systems. , 1999, The Journal of trauma.

[10]  T. Osler,et al.  Study of the outcome of patients transferred to a level I hospital after stabilization at an outlying hospital in a rural setting. , 1999, Journal of Trauma.

[11]  P. Kearney,et al.  Outcome of patients with blunt trauma transferred after diagnostic or treatment procedures or four-hour delay. , 1991, Annals of emergency medicine.

[12]  F P Rivara,et al.  Effectiveness of state trauma systems in reducing injury-related mortality: a national evaluation. , 2000, The Journal of trauma.