ライフサイエンスコーパス: trauma center

1 s and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers).

2 an of the head) who presented to our level I trauma center.

3 1, was conducted at a university-based urban trauma center.

4 nors treated at a major metropolitan level I trauma center.

5 neral surgery patients admitted to a level I trauma center.

6 l trial was conducted at a single US level I trauma center.

7 rall, 54.5% in 2009 were admitted to the non-trauma center.

8 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011, at a level I trauma center.

9 rect transport from the scene of injury to a trauma center.

10 on 741 transfused trauma patients at a large trauma center.

11 d was defined as residing within 1 hour of a trauma center.

12 the level of injury severity and the type of trauma center.

13 the proportion of hospitals designated as a trauma center.

14 criteria for immediate transfer to a Level I Trauma Center.

15 iage of injured patients from the field to a trauma center.

16 April 2005 and September 2007 at our level I trauma center.

17 al injury being transported immediately to a trauma center.

18 .9% (n = 2378) received care at a designated trauma center.

19 ll TSCI patients be taken to a level I or II trauma center.

20 f major trauma patients admitted to a single trauma center.

21 Single-institution level 1 trauma center.

22 n open M&M conference at an academic level I trauma center.

23 of 424 trauma patients admitted to a level 1 Trauma Center.

24 Level I trauma center.

25 92 (10.4%) were transferred to a designated trauma center.

26 and, and Washington, DC, to a single level I trauma center.

27 California, Davis Medical Center, a level I trauma center.

28 was conducted at an urban, academic, level I trauma center.

29 T) over an 8-year period at an urban level 1 trauma center.

30 Level 1 trauma center.

31 rely injured children at a level 1 pediatric trauma center.

32 parison study at an urban, academic, level I trauma center.

33 merican College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center.

34 tember 2014 to May 2015 at an urban, level 1 trauma center.

35 h TSA and compared to the number of existing trauma centers.

36 3 and August 2016 at 2 United States Level-1 trauma centers.

37 ence of a survival benefit from treatment at trauma centers.

38 randomized, double-blind study at 5 level 1 trauma centers.

39 f TBI patients evaluated in less specialized trauma centers.

40 he hopes of increasing the role of level III trauma centers.

41 es targeting youth violence prevention at US trauma centers.

42 ource use intensity for injury deaths across trauma centers.

43 tcomes in 20 state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers.

44 ng reductions in alcohol intake across the 3 trauma centers.

45 ted on data from new patients recruited at 3 trauma centers.

46 ic decision instrument study at 9 US level I trauma centers.

47 n injury at all Canadian level 1 and level 2 trauma centers.

48 g and intervention procedures for PTSD at US trauma centers.

49 cit variation in diagnostic threshold across trauma centers.

50 ith similarly injured patients treated at US trauma centers.

51 attributed to the geographic distribution of trauma centers.

52 hort study was conducted at 5 European major trauma centers.

53 nd emergency services to level I or level II trauma centers.

54 y to severely injured patients to Level I/II Trauma Centers.

55 udy of 67,124 trauma patients admitted to 73 trauma centers.

56 children and adults to the most appropriate trauma centers.

57 been identified based on access to pediatric trauma centers.

58 cular repair is becoming commonplace in many trauma centers.

59 vival rates of MT patients vary widely among trauma centers.

60 uld translate into improvements for civilian trauma centers.

61 should be considered in the verification of trauma centers.

62 d at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers.

63 ult tertiary hospital with regional burn and trauma centers.

64 in patients admitted to the 131 contributing trauma centers.

65 n be feasibly and effectively delivered from trauma centers.

66 Three U.S. trauma centers.

67 nts who underwent definitive fixation at 216 trauma centers.

68 die than were patients treated in designated trauma centers.

69 ts [RR, 0.67 (0.50-0.90)], and in designated trauma centers 0.64 (0.46-0.88).

70 For patients transported to level II trauma centers, 1282 deaths (10.6%) were recorded after

71 A collaborative effort among Boston's trauma centers (2 level I adult, 3 combined level I adul

72 For patients transported to level I trauma centers, 2797 deaths (12%) were recorded after he

73 In Cook County, Illinois, where there are 19 trauma centers, 2842 of 9886 (28.7%) firearm-related inj

74 , managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to

75 ficantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative ri

76 A total of 101 trauma centers (76% response rate) rated the indicators

77 , trauma center and helicopter distribution, trauma center access, traffic congestion, and urbanicity

78 study of adults admitted for major injury to trauma centers across Canada (2006-2012).

79 NBATS predicts the need for 117 additional trauma centers across the United States in order to prov

80 alysis, paralysis was significantly lower at trauma centers (adjusted odds ratio 0.67; 95% confidence

81 tly better survival in level I than level II trauma centers (adjusted P = 0.017 and 0.023, respective

82 For every increase of 500 trauma center admissions, there was a 7% decreased odds

83 rely injured patients are not transferred to trauma centers after initially being seen at non-trauma

84 ents transported by helicopter left level II trauma centers against medical advice (0.5% vs 1.0%, P <

85 his score was used to estimate the number of trauma centers allocated to each TSA and compared to the

86 ients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers locate

87 is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regiona

88 s received surgical care at the regional eye trauma center and had significantly lower adjusted mean

89 ing helicopter utilization, injury severity, trauma center and helicopter distribution, trauma center

90 r idiopathic liver failure (DT) in a level 1 trauma center and large transplant center.

91 uly 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015, at a Level I trauma center and safety-net hospital.

92 of traumatic brain injury (TBI) at a level I trauma center and the utilization of resources as a resu

93 iving proximity to the nearest level I or II trauma center and/or rural designation in the Centers fo

94 ble-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers and 39 emergency medical services agencie

95 rginia, Washington), who were treated in 100 trauma centers and 601 nontrauma centers.

96 ischarge) were compared among level I and II trauma centers and between centers within the same level

97 Recruitment was from 24 UK major trauma centers and general hospitals.

98 military health care facilities and civilian trauma centers and hospitals between January 1, 2006, an

99 ned differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (no

100 That the effect is greatest in trauma centers and in units led by surgical intensivists

101 idemiologic and quality-improvement data for trauma centers and is particularly important under rapid

102 rural areas were cared for outside of major trauma centers and most rural trauma deaths occurred ear

103 Trauma centers and systems.

104 able differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers.

105 t of the evolving epidemiology of injury, of trauma centers and trauma systems, and of blood safety a

106 that required transport to US level I or II trauma centers and whose data were recorded in the 2007-

107 f 264 casualties were transported to level 1 trauma centers, and 22 (13.4%) required ophthalmology co

108 ity was significantly lower among designated trauma centers (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94) and highes

109 me and specialization seen at a regional eye trauma center are associated with lower costs in the sur

110 ients from the field to the most appropriate trauma center are in development.

111 Trauma centers are designated by the ACS into different

112 al guidelines to triage all such patients to trauma centers are followed little more than half the ti

113 y occur where transport distances to level I trauma centers are substantial and few level I centers e

114 nsertion at Boston Medical Center (a level I trauma center at Boston University School of Medicine) b

115 2013) prospective cohort study at a level I trauma center at the University of Arizona.

116 PTCs), mixed trauma centers (MTCs), or adult trauma centers (ATCs) offer a survival benefit compared

117 (PTCs) compared with those treated at adult trauma centers (ATCs), differences in mortality have not

118 m all patients treated for BCVI at a level I trauma center between April 1, 2005, and June 30, 2015,

119 erate or major injury admissions to an adult trauma center between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2012.

120 for major injury to a Canadian level I or II trauma center between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2012.

121 uckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center between April and October 2018.

122 merican College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma center between August 1, 2011, and January 1, 201

123 nsulted an emergency department of a level 1 trauma center between August 2016 and July 2017 if they

124 ears or older admitted to a level 1 academic trauma center between January 1, 2006, and December 31,

125 who underwent abdominopelvic CT at a level 1 trauma center between January 2004 and June 2006 were en

126 the intensive care unit of a single level I trauma center between January 2011 and May 2014 were ana

127 tted to 28 level I and level II Pennsylvania trauma centers between 2000 and 2009.

128 nts transported from the scene to 16 level 1 trauma centers between July 2005 and June 2006 were revi

129 urgical intensive care units in 2 US level I trauma centers between May 2006 and August 2012.

130 rted from the scene of injury to our level I trauma center by air or ground (January 1, 2000-December

131 tion (18.2%) of those transported to level I trauma centers by helicopter were discharged to rehabili

132 lthough the future performance of individual trauma centers can be predicted using performance metric

133 create a new paradigm in which high-quality trauma centers can serve as learning laboratories to ide

134 Lack of access to trauma center care has frequently been attributed to the

135 Trauma center care is associated with reduced paralysis

136 Alternatively, impeded access to trauma center care might be due to suboptimal triage pra

137 Potential access to trauma center care was evaluated using network-based spa

138 Realized access to trauma center care was evaluated using population-based

139 We hypothesized a priori that trauma center care, by contrast to nontrauma center care

140 ffective, and cheap in the context of modern trauma center care.

141 triage criteria for transfer to higher-level trauma center care.

142 atients, 10,237 (38%) had realized access to trauma center care; patients in only 4 counties (8%) had

143 40,711 persons (60%) had potential access to trauma center care; persons in 11 counties (22%) had hig

144 c emergency departments in level I pediatric trauma centers (Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of Uni

145 The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation = 0.02, 95% con

146 The eye trauma center continued to have lower adjusted costs ($4

147 over time, and cases managed at MTS (level-1 trauma centers) demonstrated better functional outcomes.

148 effect of American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma center designation and trauma volume on outcome i

149 The criteria for trauma center designation are arbitrary and have never b

150 The trauma center designation process should consider volume

151 06 to assess temporal trends in paralysis by trauma center designation.

152 proportion of patients treated in designated trauma centers died during the first 24 hours of hospita

153 ncreased among children (14.0 cases per 1000 trauma center discharges in 2007 to 18.5 case per 1000 t

154 ter discharges in 2007 to 18.5 case per 1000 trauma center discharges in 2012; P = .001) and adults (

155 among trauma patients was 5.7 cases per 1000 trauma center discharges.

156 ) were collected prospectively at 6 European trauma centers during 2008 to 2013.

157 rease in risk-adjusted mortality in Canadian trauma centers during the study period, representing 248

158 nationally weighted population of 19,312 non-trauma center ED encounters for major trauma.

159 9, a total of 4513 observations from 636 non-trauma center EDs were available for analysis, represent

160 h severe injuries initially evaluated at non-trauma center EDs were less likely to be transferred if

161 fied 118 patients who presented to a level 1 trauma center emergency department and who underwent dua

162 utions after evaluation in a level III or IV trauma center emergency department.

163 ma centers after initially being seen at non-trauma center emergency departments (EDs).

164 ce; their career in a tertiary care, level 1 trauma center environment is unlikely to be sustainable.

165 eir use in military settings and in civilian trauma centers, explored for several years, is not repor

166 ured individuals treated at an urban level I trauma center following the crash of Asiana Airlines fli

167 everity Score (ISS) >=10, treated by a Major Trauma Center for the period January 2008 to December 20

168 tient trauma deaths at a high-volume level I trauma center from 1996 to 2004 inclusive were audited.

169 h abdominal gunshot injuries admitted to our trauma center from April 1, 2004 to September 30, 2009.

170 We studied patients from a level I trauma center from August 1 through October 31, 2011, an

171 related specialties at an academic, level I trauma center from December 1, 2011, through January 31,

172 spective series of all patients at a Level I trauma center from January 2000 to December 2005.

173 lled adult trauma patients seen at a level I trauma center from March 1, 2010, to March 5, 2014.

174 nts (age >/= 16) presenting alive to level 1 trauma centers from 2002 to 2005 with blunt or penetrati

175 Modification, who were admitted to 2 level I trauma centers from January 1, 2008, through December 31

176 Trauma patients admitted to a single French trauma center had an equal chance of survival compared w

177 Trauma centers had a 16-fold higher admission caseload (

178 ported by helicopter to level I and level II trauma centers had higher Injury Severity Scores.

179 Timely care in a designated trauma center has been shown to reduce mortality by 25%.

180 Level I trauma centers have better outcomes than lower-level cen

181 The majority of trauma centers have migrated from laboratory-based trans

182 n model, for patients transported to level I trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with

183 For patients transported to level II trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with

184 hospital in the United Kingdom and a level 1 trauma center hospital in the United States.

185 Most improvements were seen in major trauma centers; however, systems implementation did not

186 Trauma centers improve outcome for injured patients with

187 Acute care level one trauma center in an inner city of the state of Connectic

188 ality outcomes between patients treated at a trauma center in France and matched patients in the Unit

189 s following hospitalization in any of the 57 trauma centers in a Canadian trauma system (2013-2016).

190 tor vehicle crash (MVC) treated at 3 level I trauma centers in Boston between 2015 and 2018.

191 erity Score (ISS) >=9] admitted to 3 Level-I trauma centers in Boston were assessed via telephone bet

192 t 3, 1998, and January 5, 2012, at 2 level I trauma centers in Boston, Massachusetts.

193 cal trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2

194 e receiving care in 6 urban academic level-I trauma centers in France between March 2015 and March 20

195 ured patients who arrived at 1 of 12 level I trauma centers in North America directly from the scene

196 uma (Injury Severity Score, >15) seen at non-trauma centers in patients aged 18 to 64 years.

197 122,408 patients in 22 level I and level II trauma centers in Pennsylvania.

198 y was set in state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers in Pennsylvania.

199 there is no standardized method to benchmark trauma centers in terms of in-hospital complications, to

200 Five level I trauma centers in the Netherlands (2008-2009).

201 Trauma centers in the United States were more likely tha

202 emonstrates broad implementation in verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Austral

203 loped by the panel were sent to 133 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia,

204 The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia,

205 ariation among injured patients cared for in trauma centers in the United States.

206 Two level-one trauma centers in the United States.

207 rauma patients screened for VTE at 3 level I trauma centers in the United States.

208 of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study.

209 Nonetheless, variability might exist between trauma centers in timeliness of fixation.

210 of which 84% were taken directly to a major trauma center, in contrast to 16% in NCEPOD.

211 High-level trauma center infrastructure seems to facilitate the vol

212 cidence of secondary overtriage in our rural trauma center is 26%, with head and neck injuries being

213 At least one additional trauma center is needed in 49% of trauma service areas.

214 Transfer to pediatric trauma centers is common; time from injury to laboratory

215 ty of spiral computed tomography scanners in trauma centers limits the use of transesophageal echocar

216 Elmhurst City Hospital is a level 1 trauma center located in Elmhurst, New York, USA.

217 a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states.

218 atients with acute TBI admitted to 3 level I trauma centers (<24 hours after injury) and 21 patients

219 ed injured patients from an academic level-1 trauma center meeting criteria for MTP activation.

220 We observed significant variation in trauma center mortality across Canadian provinces, speci

221 To measure the variation in trauma center mortality across Canadian trauma systems,

222 ether pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), mixed trauma centers (MTCs), or adult trauma centers (ATCs) of

223 dian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 trauma centers; n = 57,524).

224 In 104 patients enrolled from two level-1 trauma centers, ncDNA and mtDNA concentrations were incr

225 vel 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers).

226 patients with moderate-to-severe injuries to trauma centers occurred infrequently, with significant v

227 o adult major trauma patients from 2 level 1 trauma centers (October 2006 to March 2007) were followe

228 ort study of adults admitted to the 57 adult trauma centers of a Canadian integrated trauma system (2

229 We developed a QI to benchmark trauma centers on in-hospital complications among injury

230 patients received care at the participating trauma centers on that day.

231 en the prevalent use of abdominopelvic CT in trauma centers, opportunistic screening for radiologic i

232 a chiefs, preferably those based at the main trauma centers or public receiving facilities.

233 This remains controversial for trauma center outcomes.

234 ted tomographic angiography at a high-volume trauma center over a 10-year period.

235 , observational study conducted at 6 Level 1 Trauma Centers over 12-months.

236 servational study was performed at 7 level I trauma centers over a 16-month period.

237 a femoral shaft fracture at a level I or II trauma center participating in ACS TQIP (2012-2015) were

238 Data from level I and II trauma centers participating in the 2010 National Trauma

239 ty in delayed fixation (>/=24 hours) between trauma centers participating in the American College of

240 enced domestic violence and who presented to trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data

241 anuary 1, 2008, and December 31, 2010, at US trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data

242 Significant variation exists in how trauma centers perform QI activities.

243 d outcomes for children treated at pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) compared with those treated at adu

244 Whether pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), mixed trauma centers (MTCs), or a

245 ovides the first international comparison of trauma center QI programs and demonstrates broad impleme

246 Trauma center quality based on historical data is associ

247 of the literature and international audit of trauma center quality improvement practices.

248 th 1 or more previous admissions to an urban trauma center (recidivists) were identified and compared

249 after urgent trauma laparotomy at a level I trauma center revealed 524 patients.

250 h a decline in transfers directly to level I trauma centers [risk ratio (RR) = 0.91; 95% confidence i

251 r of minimally injured patients to a level I trauma center (secondary overtriage) can cause inefficie

252 the trauma intensive care unit at a level 1 trauma center serving 4 states were enrolled and followe

253 Mortality rates at trauma centers should only be compared after adjusting f

254 Trauma centers should strive to minimize delays in fixat

255 In this large cohort study of 216 trauma centers, significant practice variability was obs

256 ma system should offer patients triaged to a trauma center (TC) a survival advantage and cost-effecti

257 ma patients who were treated at a designated trauma center (TC) in Pennsylvania during the period 199

258 ) benefit from stabilization and transfer to trauma centers (TCs) for definitive care.

259 gnificantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for

260 al mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent v

261 Patients currently admitted to trauma centers that are classified as low-quality center

262 luated at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center (the highest number at any of the receivin

263 greater among patients treated in designated trauma centers, these patients were substantially in wor

264 arding trauma admissions at 747 level I to V trauma centers throughout the United States and Canada.

265 ed blood cells (PRBCs) has led many civilian trauma centers to adopt this resource intensive strategy

266 4, 2011, among 1213 patients at 8 US level 1 trauma centers to investigate effects of citicoline vs p

267 major trauma admitted to level I or level II trauma centers, transport by helicopter compared with gr

268 The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury

269 The process of trauma center verification assures a relatively high sta

270 ical directors and program managers from 330 trauma centers verified by professional trauma organizat

271 To evaluate the association of trauma center volume change over time with mortality.

272 As trauma center volume increased, nonorgan dysfunction com

273 Increased trauma center volume was associated with increased survi

274 The associations with higher trauma center volume were similar for the traumatic brai

275 Data were derived from 252 US level I and II trauma centers voluntarily participating in the American

276 g critical resources were cared for in major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients.

277 esources were initially transported to major trauma centers vs 88.7% of urban patients.

278 computed tomography) presenting to a level I trauma center was analyzed for patient demographics, inj

279 d emergency department visitors in a level I trauma center was placed in paired BACTEC Plus and BacT/

280 sport of patients with TBI to level I and II trauma centers was associated with improved survival, in

281 ting patients in average- and high-mortality trauma centers was similar.

282 nine for brain injury at a public hospital's trauma center, we consulted three sets of community repr

283 the trauma intensive care unit of a level I trauma center were enrolled in an observational study th

284 jury severity score >=9 treated at 3 Level-I trauma centers were contacted 6-12 months post-injury to

285 injury in emergency departments of 3 LEVEL I trauma centers were enrolled prospectively.

286 The trauma databases of two urban level 1 trauma centers were queried over a period of more than 5

287 Injured patients from 3 trauma centers were screened for heavy drinking and rand

288 trauma survivors from two level 1 emergency trauma centers, which uses routinely collectible data fr

289 s study was conducted at an academic level 1 trauma center with adults 65 years of age and older admi

290 stulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries

291 ata were used to calculate index LOS (LOS in trauma center with highest designation level) and were l

292 s) hospitalized at a level 1 urban Pediatric Trauma Center with MTBI were prospectively enrolled.

293 315 patients who were admitted to a level 1 trauma center with open extremity fractures from Septemb

294 lunt injured patients in shock arriving at a trauma center within 2 hours of injury were included fro

295 not they were transferred to a level I or II trauma center within 24 hours of presentation, and used

296 the emergency department of a large level I trauma center within 24 hours of trauma.

297 n children do not have access to a pediatric trauma center within 60 min.

298 patients have access to a verified pediatric trauma center within an hour assuming ground and air tra

299 United States have access to a level 1 or 2 trauma center within an hour, and 71.5% of pediatric pat

300 iculty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiv