This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (74)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Results of a National Survey

Gloria J. Bazzoli, PhD; Karen J. Madura, MPH; Gail F. Cooper; Ellen J. MacKenzie, PhD; Ronald V. Maier, MD

JAMA. 1995;273(5):395-401.

Abstract
Objective.
—To examine the status of trauma system development and key structural and operational characteristics of these systems.

Design and Setting.
—National survey of trauma systems with enabling state statute, regulation, or executive orders and for which designated trauma centers were present.

Participants.
—Trauma system administrators and directors of 37 state and regional organizations that had legal authority to administer trauma systems, which represented a response rate of 90.2%.

Main Outcome Measures.
—Trauma system components that had been implemented or were under development.

Results.
—From 1988 to 1993, the number of states meeting one set of criteria for a complete trauma system criteria increased from two to five. The most common deficiency in establishing trauma systems was failure to limit the number of designated trauma centers based on community need. Although most existing trauma systems have developed formal processes for designating trauma centers, prehospital triage protocols to allow hospital bypass, and centralized trauma registries, several systems lack standardized policies for interhospital transfer and systemwide evaluation.

Conclusion.
—State and regional organizations have accomplished a great deal but still have substantial work ahead in developing comprehensive trauma systems. Research is needed to better understand the relationship between trauma volume and outcomes of care as well as the impact of trauma system structure and operational characteristics on care delivery. Improved measures of patient outcome are also needed so that effective system evaluation can take place.

(JAMA. 1995;273:395-401)

Author Affiliations
From the Hospital Research and Educational Trust, Chicago, III (Dr Bazzoli and Ms Madura); Department of Emergency Medical Services, San Diego County, San Diego, Calif (Ms Cooper); Center for Injury Research and Policy, School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (Dr MacKenzie); and Northwest Regional Trauma Center, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Wash (Dr Maier).

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Hospital Research and Educational Trust, 1 N Franklin St, Chicago, IL 60606 (Dr Bazzoli).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Access to Trauma Centers in the United States
Branas et al.
JAMA 2005;293:2626-2633.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

National Inventory of Hospital Trauma Centers
MacKenzie et al.
JAMA 2003;289:1515-1522.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Relationship Between Trauma Center Volume and Outcomes
Nathens et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1164-1171.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Effect of Organized Systems of Trauma Care on Motor Vehicle Crash Mortality
Nathens et al.
JAMA 2000;283:1990-1994.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Complications of Trauma and Their Associated Costs in a Level I Trauma Center
O'Keefe et al.
Arch Surg 1997;132:920-924.
ABSTRACT  

Trauma Systems: A Model for Regionalized Care
Trunkey
JAMA 1995;273:421-422.
ABSTRACT