The effect of interfacility transfer on outcome in an urban trauma system.

BACKGROUND Transporting all trauma patients to regional trauma centers is inefficient; however, the bypass of nearer, nondesignated hospitals in deference to regional trauma centers decreases mortality in the severely injured. One approach to improving efficiency is to allow the initial assessment of selected patients at lower level (Level III/IV) designated centers. We set out to evaluate whether patients initially assessed at these centers and then transferred to a Level I facility were adversely affected by delays to definitive care. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study in which the primary exposure being evaluated is initial assessment at a Level III or IV trauma center before transport to a Level I center in an urban setting. The outcomes in this transfer cohort were compared with outcomes in patients transported directly from the scene to a Level I center (direct cohort). The outcomes of interest were mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics across these two cohorts. RESULTS Crude length of stay was comparable, whereas mortality was lower and charges were 40% higher in the transfer cohort (n = 281) compared with the direct cohort (n = 4,439). After adjusting for confounders, mortality and length of stay were similar and total charges were significantly greater in the transferred patients. CONCLUSION Interfacility transfers in a mature urban trauma system do not appear to impact on clinical outcome. However, transfer patients use significantly greater resources as measured by hospital charges. This effect is likely because of the nature of their injuries or, alternatively, delays in reaching definitive care.

[1]  S Greenland,et al.  Re: "The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. , 1989, American journal of epidemiology.

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

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

[4]  L. Rodewald,et al.  Stabilization of rural multiple-trauma patients at level III emergency departments before transfer to a level I regional trauma center. , 1995, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Progress in the development of trauma systems in the United States. Results of a national survey. , 1995, JAMA.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  W. Baxt,et al.  The impact of a regionalized trauma system on trauma care in San Diego County. , 1989, Annals of emergency medicine.

[9]  J. Sampalis,et al.  Direct transport to tertiary trauma centers versus transfer from lower level facilities: impact on mortality and morbidity among patients with major trauma. , 1997, The Journal of trauma.

[10]  W. Brady,et al.  Interhospital versus direct scene transfer of major trauma patients in a rural trauma system. , 1998, The American surgeon.

[11]  R. Cales.  Trauma mortality in Orange County: the effect of implementation of a regional trauma system. , 1984, Annals of emergency medicine.

[12]  J. G. West,et al.  Systems of trauma care. A study of two counties. , 1979, Archives of surgery.