Does the Halo Effect for Level 1 Trauma Centers Apply to High-Acuity Nonsurgical Admissions?

IF 1.1
Ann E Hwalek, Anai N Kothari, Elizabeth H Wood, Barbara A Blanco, McKenzie Brown, Timothy P Plackett, Paul C Kuo, Joseph Posluszny
{"title":"Does the Halo Effect for Level 1 Trauma Centers Apply to High-Acuity Nonsurgical Admissions?","authors":"Ann E Hwalek,&nbsp;Anai N Kothari,&nbsp;Elizabeth H Wood,&nbsp;Barbara A Blanco,&nbsp;McKenzie Brown,&nbsp;Timothy P Plackett,&nbsp;Paul C Kuo,&nbsp;Joseph Posluszny","doi":"10.7556/jaoa.2020.049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The halo effect describes the improved surgical outcomes at trauma centers for nontrauma conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether level 1 trauma centers have improved inpatient mortality for common but high-acuity nonsurgical diagnoses (eg, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia [PNA]) compared with non--level 1 trauma centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Patients who were admitted with AMI, CHF, and PNA between 2006-2011 in Florida and California were included. Level 1 trauma centers were matched to non-level 1 trauma centers using propensity scoring. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted inpatient mortality for each diagnosis (AMI, CHF, or PNA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 190,474 patients who were hospitalized for AMI, CHF, or PNA, 94,037 patients (49%) underwent treatment at level 1 trauma centers. The inpatient mortality rates at level 1 trauma centers vs non-level 1 trauma centers for patients with AMI was 8.10% vs 8.40%, respectively (P=.73); for patients with CHF, 2.26% vs 2.71% (P=.90); and for patients with PNA, 2.30% vs 2.70% (P=.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Level 1 trauma center designation was not associated with improved mortality for high-acuity, nonsurgical medical conditions in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":47816,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7556/jaoa.2020.049","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2020.049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Context: The halo effect describes the improved surgical outcomes at trauma centers for nontrauma conditions.

Objective: To determine whether level 1 trauma centers have improved inpatient mortality for common but high-acuity nonsurgical diagnoses (eg, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia [PNA]) compared with non--level 1 trauma centers.

Methods: The authors conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Patients who were admitted with AMI, CHF, and PNA between 2006-2011 in Florida and California were included. Level 1 trauma centers were matched to non-level 1 trauma centers using propensity scoring. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted inpatient mortality for each diagnosis (AMI, CHF, or PNA).

Results: Of the 190,474 patients who were hospitalized for AMI, CHF, or PNA, 94,037 patients (49%) underwent treatment at level 1 trauma centers. The inpatient mortality rates at level 1 trauma centers vs non-level 1 trauma centers for patients with AMI was 8.10% vs 8.40%, respectively (P=.73); for patients with CHF, 2.26% vs 2.71% (P=.90); and for patients with PNA, 2.30% vs 2.70% (P=.25).

Conclusion: Level 1 trauma center designation was not associated with improved mortality for high-acuity, nonsurgical medical conditions in this study.

一级创伤中心的光环效应是否适用于高敏度非手术入院?
背景:光环效应描述了创伤中心非创伤条件下手术效果的改善。目的:确定与非一级创伤中心相比,一级创伤中心是否改善了常见但高急性非手术诊断(如急性心肌梗死[AMI]、充血性心力衰竭[CHF]和肺炎[PNA])的住院死亡率。方法:作者进行了一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究,分析了来自医疗成本和利用项目国家住院患者数据库和美国医院协会年度调查数据库的数据。纳入了2006-2011年间在佛罗里达州和加利福尼亚州因AMI、CHF和PNA入院的患者。使用倾向评分法将一级创伤中心与非一级创伤中心进行匹配。主要结局是每一种诊断(AMI、CHF或PNA)的经风险调整的住院死亡率。结果:在190,474名因AMI、CHF或PNA住院的患者中,94,037名患者(49%)在1级创伤中心接受了治疗。AMI患者在一级创伤中心和非一级创伤中心的住院死亡率分别为8.10%和8.40% (P= 0.73);CHF患者为2.26% vs 2.71% (P= 0.90);PNA患者为2.30% vs 2.70% (P= 0.25)。结论:在本研究中,1级创伤中心指定与高敏度非手术医疗条件下死亡率的改善无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association is the official scientific publication of the American Osteopathic Association, as well as the premier scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of the osteopathic medical profession. The JAOA"s mission is to advance medicine through the scholarly publication of peer-reviewed osteopathic medical research. The JAOA"s goals are: 1. To be the authoritative scholarly publication of the osteopathic medical profession 2. To advance the traditional tenets of osteopathic medicine while encouraging the development of emerging concepts relevant to the profession"s distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信