BACKGROUND Readiness costs are real expenses incurred by trauma centers to maintain essential infrastructure to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. Although the components for readiness are well described in the American College of Surgeons' Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient, the cost associated with each component is not well defined. We hypothesized that meeting the requirements of the 2014 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient would result in significant costs for trauma centers. METHODS The state trauma commission in conjunction with trauma medical directors, program managers, and financial officers of each trauma center standardized definitions for each component of trauma center readiness cost and developed a survey tool for reporting. Readiness costs were grouped into four categories: administrative/program support staff, clinical medical staff, in-house operating room, and education/outreach. To verify consistent cost reporting, a financial auditor analyzed all data. Trauma center outliers were further evaluated to validate variances. All level I/level II trauma centers (n = 16) completed the survey on 2016 data. RESULTS Average annual readiness cost is US $10,078,506 for a level I trauma center and US $4,925,103 for level IIs. Clinical medical staff was the costliest component representing 55% of costs for level Is and 64% for level IIs. Although education/outreach is mandated, levels I and II trauma centers only spend approximately US $100,000 annually on this category (1%–2%), demonstrating a lack of resources. CONCLUSION This study defines the cost associated with each component of readiness as defined in the Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient manual. Average readiness cost for a level I trauma center is US $10,078,506 and US $4,925,103 for a level II. The significant cost of trauma center readiness highlights the need for additional trauma center funding to meet the requirements set forth by the American College of Surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Economic and value-based evaluations, level III.

The family is a mechanism of social control and is essential for reducing crime in urban areas. Recent urban disadvantage and violence research has shifted attention to family disruption as a predictor of crime. Unexplored by this literature is the impact of diversity in family structures on violence. Because the family has taken on multiple forms in urban areas, the authors incorporate this literature into the study of types of race-specific homicide. They estimate constructs of family structure, separate from family disruption, on race-specific family-, acquaintance-, and stranger-related homicide rates. The results indicate that measures of family structure differ both theoretically and empirically from constructs of family disruption. Moreover, when controlling for urban disadvantage, family types do not contribute to homicide in the same manner as family disruption, with differences emerging along racial lines. The authors call for a more inclusive look at the family in the study of urban violence.An underlying theme in the criminological literature is that of the family as an essential source of community functioning, stability, and supervision that forms a barrier against violence. This literature offers the family as a mechanism of social control and a fundamental feature of urban areas to reduce crime (specifically homicide). When incorporating family constructs into the study of race-specific violence, attention shifts to family disruption, particularly as the family responds to urban disadvantage. Family disruption has been typically defined as divorce rates and the presence of female-headed households in much of this literature (see Parker, McCall, and Land 1999 for a review of studies). Moreover, a relatively large body of literature depicts the family as taking on multiple forms in the urban context. These family forms,

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma. (

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool was developed to help determine the optimal regional distribution of designated trauma centers (DTC). The objectives of our current study were to compare the current distribution of DTCs in Georgia with the recommended allocation as calculated by the NBATS tool and to see if the NBATS tool identified similar areas of need as defined by our previous analysis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Injury Severity Score (ICISS).MethodsPopulation counts were acquired from US Census publications. Transportation times were estimated using digitized roadmaps and patient zip codes. The number of severely injured patients was obtained from the Georgia Discharge Data System for 2010 to 2014. Severely injured patients were identified using two measures: ICISS<0.85 and Injury Severity Score >15.ResultsThe Georgia trauma system includes 19 level I, II, or III adult DTCs. The NBATS guidelines recommend 21; however, the distribution differs from what exists in the state. The existing DTCs exactly matched the NBATS recommended number of level I, II, or III DTCs in 2 of 10 trauma service areas (TSAs), exceeded the number recommended in 3 of 10 TSAs, and was below the number recommended in 5 of 10 TSAs. Densely populated, or urban, areas tend to be associated with a higher number of existing centers compared with the NBATS recommendation. Other less densely populated TSAs are characterized by large rural expanses with a single urban core where a DTC is located. The identified areas of need were similar to the ones identified in the previous gap analysis of the state using the ICISS methodology.DiscussionThe tool appears to underestimate the number of centers needed in extensive and densely populated areas, but recommends additional centers in geographically expansive rural areas. The tool signifies a preliminary step in assessing the need for state-wide inpatient trauma center services.Level of evidenceEconomic, level IV.

No abstract