We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article


Mancuso C, Barnoski A, Tinnell C, Fallon W. J. Trauma 2000; 48(4): 629-34; discussion 635-6.


Trauma Foundation of Northeast Ohio, Department of Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, USA.


(Copyright © 2000, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)






BACKGROUND: Presently, no trauma system exists in Ohio. Since 1993, all hospitals in Cuyahoga County (CUY), northeast Ohio (n = 22) provide data to a trauma registry. In return, each received hospital-specific data, comparison data by trauma care level and a county-wide aggregate summary. This report describes the results of this approach in our region. METHODS: All cases were entered by paper abstract or electronic download. Interrater reliability audits and z score analysis was performed by using the Major Trauma Outcome Study and the CUY 1994 baseline groups. Risk adjustment of mortality data was performed using statistical modeling and logistic regression (Trauma and Injury Severity Score, Major Trauma Outcome Study, CUY). Trauma severity measures were defined. RESULTS: In 1995, 3,375 patients were entered. Two hundred ninety-one died (8.6%). Severity measures differed by level of trauma care, indicating differences in case mix. Probability of survival was lowest in the Level I centers, highest in the acute care hospitals. Outcomes z scores demonstrated survival differences for all levels. CONCLUSIONS: In a functioning trauma system, the most severely injured patients should be cared for at the trauma centers. A low volume at acute care hospitals is desirable. By using Trauma and Injury Severity Score with community-specific constants, NE Ohio is accomplishing these goals. The Level I performance data are an interesting finding compared with the data from the Level II centers in the region


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley