Sierra Lane, Jeffry Nahmias, Michael Lekawa, John Christian Fox, Carrie Chandwani, Shahram Lotfipour, Areg Grigorian
{"title":"Comparison of Emergency Department Disposition Times in Adult Level I and Level II Trauma Centers.","authors":"Sierra Lane, Jeffry Nahmias, Michael Lekawa, John Christian Fox, Carrie Chandwani, Shahram Lotfipour, Areg Grigorian","doi":"10.5811/westjem.20523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The efficient utilization of resources is a crucial aspect of healthcare, particularly in both Level I and Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers. The effect of resource allocation on emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS) of trauma patients has remained under-investigated. As ED crowding has become more prevalent, especially at quaternary care centers, an evaluation of the potential disparities in ED-LOS between Level I and Level II trauma centers is warranted. We hypothesized a longer ED-LOS at Level I centers compared to Level II centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We queried the 2017-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Process (TQIP) database for trauma patients ≥18 years of age presenting to either a Level-I or -II center. The TQIP defines ED-LOS as the time from arrival until the time an ED disposition (admission or discharge) order is written. We excluded transferred patients and those with missing data regarding ACS trauma center verification level. We performed bivariate analyses, as well as subgroup analyses based on location of disposition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2,225,067 trauma patients, 59.3% (1,318,497) received treatment at Level I centers. No significant differences were found in Injury Severity Scores between patients admitted to the operating room or non-intensive care unit (ICU) locations, or discharged home from Level-I and -II centers (all <i>P</i> < 0.05). The ED-LOS for trauma patients was longer at Level-I centers for all patient categories: overall (198 vs 145 minutes [min], <i>P</i> < 0.001), discharged home (286 vs 160 min, <i>P</i> < 0.001), non-ICU admissions (234 vs 164 min, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and those requiring surgery (126 vs 101 min, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even when treating patients with similar injury severity, trauma patients at Level I trauma centers had longer ED-LOS compared to Level II centers, irrespective of the patients' final disposition (surgery, non-ICU admission, or discharge). To optimize resource utilization and alleviate ED saturation, further research must delve into the underlying causes of these discrepancies to identify best practices and solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 6","pages":"938-945"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610736/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.20523","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The efficient utilization of resources is a crucial aspect of healthcare, particularly in both Level I and Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers. The effect of resource allocation on emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS) of trauma patients has remained under-investigated. As ED crowding has become more prevalent, especially at quaternary care centers, an evaluation of the potential disparities in ED-LOS between Level I and Level II trauma centers is warranted. We hypothesized a longer ED-LOS at Level I centers compared to Level II centers.
Methods: We queried the 2017-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Process (TQIP) database for trauma patients ≥18 years of age presenting to either a Level-I or -II center. The TQIP defines ED-LOS as the time from arrival until the time an ED disposition (admission or discharge) order is written. We excluded transferred patients and those with missing data regarding ACS trauma center verification level. We performed bivariate analyses, as well as subgroup analyses based on location of disposition.
Results: Of 2,225,067 trauma patients, 59.3% (1,318,497) received treatment at Level I centers. No significant differences were found in Injury Severity Scores between patients admitted to the operating room or non-intensive care unit (ICU) locations, or discharged home from Level-I and -II centers (all P < 0.05). The ED-LOS for trauma patients was longer at Level-I centers for all patient categories: overall (198 vs 145 minutes [min], P < 0.001), discharged home (286 vs 160 min, P < 0.001), non-ICU admissions (234 vs 164 min, P < 0.001), and those requiring surgery (126 vs 101 min, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Even when treating patients with similar injury severity, trauma patients at Level I trauma centers had longer ED-LOS compared to Level II centers, irrespective of the patients' final disposition (surgery, non-ICU admission, or discharge). To optimize resource utilization and alleviate ED saturation, further research must delve into the underlying causes of these discrepancies to identify best practices and solutions.
资源的有效利用是医疗保健的一个重要方面,特别是在美国外科医师学会(ACS)认证的一级和二级创伤中心。资源分配对创伤患者急诊科住院时间(ED-LOS)的影响尚未得到充分研究。随着急诊科拥挤的情况越来越普遍,尤其是在四级护理中心,对一级和二级创伤中心的急诊科los的潜在差异进行评估是有必要的。我们假设一级中心的ED-LOS较二级中心长。方法:我们查询了2017-2021年创伤质量改善过程(TQIP)数据库中出现在i级或ii级中心的≥18岁的创伤患者。TQIP将ED- los定义为从到达到ED处置(入院或出院)命令被写的时间。我们排除了转院患者和ACS创伤中心验证水平数据缺失的患者。我们进行了双变量分析,以及基于处置地点的亚组分析。结果:在2,225,067例创伤患者中,59.3%(1,318,497)在一级中心接受治疗。在进入手术室或非重症监护病房(ICU)的患者,或从一级和二级中心出院的患者之间,损伤严重程度评分没有显着差异(所有P P P P P P)结论:即使在治疗损伤严重程度相似的患者时,与二级中心相比,一级创伤中心的创伤患者ED-LOS更长,无论患者的最终处置(手术、非ICU入院或出院)如何。为了优化资源利用和缓解ED饱和,必须进一步研究这些差异的潜在原因,以确定最佳实践和解决方案。
期刊介绍:
WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.