BACKGROUND: Single-center experience has shown that American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma verification can improve outcomes. The current objective was to compare mortality between ACS-verified and state-designated centers in a national sample. METHODS: Subjects 16 years or older from ACS-verified or state-designated Level I and II centers were identified in the National Trauma Databank 2007 to 2008. A predictive mortality model was constructed using Trauma Quality Improvement Project methodology. Imputation was used for missing data. Probability of mortality in the model determined expected deaths. Observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios with 90% confidence interval (CI) and outliers (90% CI more than or less than 1.0) were compared across ACS and state Level I and II centers. The mortality model was repeated with ACS versus state included. RESULTS: There were 900,274 subjects. The model had an area under the curve of 0.92 to predict death. Level I ACS centers had a lower median O/E ratio compared with state centers (0.95 [interquartile range, 0.82-1.05] vs. 1.02 [interquartile range, 0.87-1.15]; p < 0.01), with no difference in Level II centers. Level II state centers had more high O/E outliers. ACS verification was an independent predictor of survival in Level II centers (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.20-1.32; p < 0.01) but not in Level I centers (p = 0.84). CONCLUSION: Level II centers have a disproportionate number of high mortality outliers, and ACS verification is a predictor of survival. Level I ACS centers have lower O/E ratios overall, but no difference in outliers. ACS verification seems beneficial. These data suggest that Level II centers benefit most, and promoting Level II ACS verification may be an opportunity for improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.
BACKGROUND: Single-center experience has shown that American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma verification can improve outcomes. The current objective was to compare mortality between ACS-verified and state-designated centers in a national sample. METHODS: Subjects 16 years or older from ACS-verified or state-designated Level I and II centers were identified in the National Trauma Databank 2007 to 2008. A predictive mortality model was constructed using Trauma Quality Improvement Project methodology. Imputation was used for missing data. Probability of mortality in the model determined expected deaths. Observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios with 90% confidence interval (CI) and outliers (90% CI more than or less than 1.0) were compared across ACS and state Level I and II centers. The mortality model was repeated with ACS versus state included. RESULTS: There were 900,274 subjects. The model had an area under the curve of 0.92 to predict death. Level I ACS centers had a lower median O/E ratio compared with state centers (0.95 [interquartile range, 0.82-1.05] vs. 1.02 [interquartile range, 0.87-1.15]; p < 0.01), with no difference in Level II centers. Level II state centers had more high O/E outliers. ACS verification was an independent predictor of survival in Level II centers (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.20-1.32; p < 0.01) but not in Level I centers (p = 0.84). CONCLUSION: Level II centers have a disproportionate number of high mortality outliers, and ACS verification is a predictor of survival. Level I ACS centers have lower O/E ratios overall, but no difference in outliers. ACS verification seems beneficial. These data suggest that Level II centers benefit most, and promoting Level II ACS verification may be an opportunity for improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.
Authors: Ellen J MacKenzie; David B Hoyt; John C Sacra; Gregory J Jurkovich; Anthony R Carlini; Sandra D Teitelbaum; Harry Teter Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rodney Durham; Etienne Pracht; Barbara Orban; Larry Lottenburg; Joseph Tepas; Lewis Flint Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Mark R Hemmila; Avery B Nathens; Shahid Shafi; J Forrest Calland; David E Clark; H Gill Cryer; Sandra Goble; Christopher J Hoeft; J Wayne Meredith; Melanie L Neal; Michael D Pasquale; Michelle D Pomphrey; John J Fildes Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-02
Authors: Shahid Shafi; Nadine Rayan; Sunni Barnes; Neil Fleming; Larry M Gentilello; David Ballard Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Barbara Haas; Therese A Stukel; David Gomez; Brandon Zagorski; Charles De Mestral; Sunjay V Sharma; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Avery B Nathens Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Michael F Rotondo; Michael R Bard; Scott G Sagraves; Eric A Toschlog; Paul J Schenarts; Claudia E Goettler; Mark A Newell; Matthew J Robertson Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-11
Authors: Martha-Conley E Ingram; Monica Nagalla; Ying Shan; Brian J Nasca; Arielle C Thomas; Susheel Reddy; Karl Y Bilimoria; Anne Stey Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: M T Zacher; K-G Kanz; M Hanschen; S Häberle; M van Griensven; R Lefering; V Bühren; P Biberthaler; S Huber-Wagner Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 6.939