TY - JOUR
T1 - Does the halo effect for level 1 trauma centers apply to high-acuity nonsurgical admissions?
AU - Hwalek, Ann E.
AU - Kothari, Anai N.
AU - Wood, Elizabeth H.
AU - Blanco, Barbara A.
AU - Brown, McKenzie
AU - Plackett, Timothy P.
AU - Kuo, Paul C.
AU - Posluszny, Joseph
N1 - Funding Information:
Support: This work was funded, in part, by NIH training grant T32GM008750 (AEH, ANK).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Osteopathic Association.
PY - 2020/5
Y1 - 2020/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Halo effect
KW - Inpatient mortality
KW - Nonsurgical medical conditions
KW - Trauma center
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083983030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85083983030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7556/jaoa.2020.049
DO - 10.7556/jaoa.2020.049
M3 - Article
C2 - 32337565
AN - SCOPUS:85083983030
SN - 0098-6151
VL - 120
SP - 303
EP - 309
JO - The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association
JF - The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association
IS - 5
ER -