Regionalisation of trauma care in England

Journal article

Aims We aimed to determine whether there is evidence of improved patient outcomes in Major Trauma Centres following the regionalisation of trauma care in England. Patients and Methods An observational study was undertaken using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and national death registrations. The outcome measures were indicators of the quality of trauma care, such as treatment by a senior doctor and clinical outcomes, such as mortality in hospital. Results and Conclusion A total of 20 181 major trauma cases were reported to TARN during the study period, which was 270 days before and after each hospital became a Major Trauma Centre. Following regionalisation of trauma services, all indicators of the quality of care improved, fewer patients required secondary transfer between hospitals and a greater proportion were discharged with a Glasgow Outcome Score of “good recovery”. In this early post-implementation analysis, there were a number of apparent process improvements (e.g. time to CT) but no differences in either crude or adjusted mortality. The overall number of deaths following trauma in England did not change following the national reconfiguration of trauma services. Evidence from other countries that have regionalised trauma services suggests that further benefits may become apparent after a period of maturing of the trauma system.

Authors: Metcalfe, D; Perry, D; Bouamra, O; Salim, A; Woodford, M

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
• Journal: Bone and Joint Journal
• Volume: 98-B
• Issue: 9
• Pages: 1253-1261
• Publication date: 2016-09-01
• Acceptance date: 2016-05-09
• DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B9.37525
• EISSN: 2049-4408
• ISSN: 2049-4394
• Keywords: major trauma regionalisation; trauma centress; trauma systems