BACKGROUND:Our prior research has demonstrated that increasing the number of trauma centers (TCs) in a state does not reliably improve state-level injury-related mortality. We hypothesized that many new TCs would serve populations already served by existing TCs, rather than in areas without ready TC access. We also hypothesized that new TCs would also be less likely to serve economically disadvantaged populations.
METHODS:All state-designated adult TCs registered with the American Trauma Society in 2014 and 2019 were mapped using ArcGIS Pro (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA). Trauma centers were grouped as Level 1 or 2 (Lev12) or Level 3, 4 or 5 (Lev345). We also obtained census tract-level data (73,666 tracts), including population counts and percentage of population below the federal poverty threshold. Thirty-minute drive-time areas were created around each TC. Census tracts were considered "served" if their geographic centers were located within a 30-minute drive-time area to any TC. Data were analyzed at the census tract level.
RESULTS:A total of 2,140 TCs were identified in 2019, with 256 new TCs and 151 TC closures. Eighty-two percent of new TCs were Levels 3 to 5. Nationwide, coverage increased from 75.3% of tracts served in 2014 to 78.1% in 2019, representing an increased coverage from 76.0% to 79.4% of the population. New TC served 17,532 tracts, of which 87.3% were already served. New Lev12 TCs served 9,100 tracts, of which 91.2% were already served; new Lev345 TCs served 15,728 tracts, of which 85.9% were already served. Of 2,204 newly served tracts, those served by Lev345 TCs had higher mean percentage poverty compared with those served by Lev12 TCs (15.7% vs. 13.2% poverty, p < 0.05). DISCUSSION:Overall, access to trauma care has been improving in the United States. However, the majority of new TCs opened in locations with preexisting access to trauma care. Nationwide, Levels 3, 4, and 5 TCs have been responsible for expanding access to underserved populations.
Our previous research found seven specific factors that cause system delays in ST-elevation Myocardial infarction management in developing countries. These delays, in conjunction with a lack of organized STEMI systems of care, result in inefficient processes to treat AMI in developing countries. In our present opinion paper, we have specifically explored the three most pertinent causes that afflict the seven specific factors responsible for system delays. In doing so, we incorporated a unique strategy of global STEMI expertise. With this methodology, the recommendations were provided by expert Indian cardiologist and final guidelines were drafted after comprehensive discussions by the entire group of submitting authors. We expect these recommendations to be utilitarian in improving STEMI care in developing countries.
BackgroundThe saline load test has not been well explored in the elbow. We aimed to determine 1) the saline infusion volume needed for 90%, 95%, and 99% sensitivity in detecting elbow arthrotomy; and 2) factors associated with higher volume at detection using sixteen forequarter upper extremity amputation cadavers.
MethodsSixteen fresh-frozen forequarter upper extremity amputations were procured, and demographic data, including age, body mass index (BMI), and laterality, were recorded. The olecranon process, radial head, and the lateral epicondyle were palpated, and elbow arthrotomy was consistently performed at the direct lateral arthroscopic portal site. The elbow joint was loaded with saline mixed with methylene blue (concentration: 2 mg/300 mL) using an 18-gauge needle inserted just medial to the triceps tendon 2 cm superior to the olecranon.
ResultsMean volume for extravasation was 12.2 mL ±6.26. Volume needed for 90%, 95%, and 99% sensitivities were 21 mL, 23 mL, and 25.4 mL. Linear regression demonstrated that increasing age was associated with lower volume to extravasation (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.932; p=0.037), while BMI (p=0.571) and extremity laterality (p=0.747) did not affect the volume.
ConclusionsThe saline load test can be effective in diagnosing the violation of the elbow joint in traumatic injuries. This test should be used in conjunction with the clinical examination and radiographs before operative decisions are made. We recommend using ≥26 mL to rule out traumatic elbow arthrotomy.
Background Resident physicians are using the Internet to gather information about graduate medical education programs. The content of fellowship websites has been demonstrated to influence applicants’ decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content of the surgical critical care fellowship (SCCF) program websites. Methods A list of Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) SCCF programs was obtained, and compared to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) list of accredited programs. The accessibility of each website was assessed through Google®. Content areas were assessed for each SCCF website. Results At the time of this study, 76 SCCF were listed on the EAST website and an additional 14 were supplied by the AAST database. 125 programs were listed in the ACGME database. Of the 76 SCCF listed by EAST, 44 (58%), 32 (42%), and 7 (9%) of SCCF programs had an EAST listing that was 3, 5, or 10 years or more out of date, respectively. Of the 90 SCCF programs listed on EAST or AAST sites, 36 programs (40%) had an inaccurate PD named on their listing. One hundred and nineteen of the 125 (95%) SCCF programs had websites accessible through Google®. Only 25 (20%) programs had a website containing a program description, faculty list, curriculum, and current/past fellows list. Conclusions Many SCCF websites lacked information regarding program specifics. Valuable information for potential applicants was inadequate across SCCF websites.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.