Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center

Our goal was to determine the characteristics of trauma transfer patients with repeat imaging. A retrospective trauma registry review was performed to evaluate trauma patients who were transferred from referring institutions between January 2005 and December 2009. Patients were divided into those wh...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American surgeon 2012-06, Vol.78 (6), p.675-678
Hauptverfasser: YOUNG, Andrew Joseph, SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth, WOLFE, Luke, DUANE, Therese Marie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 678
container_issue 6
container_start_page 675
container_title The American surgeon
container_volume 78
creator YOUNG, Andrew Joseph
SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth
WOLFE, Luke
DUANE, Therese Marie
description Our goal was to determine the characteristics of trauma transfer patients with repeat imaging. A retrospective trauma registry review was performed to evaluate trauma patients who were transferred from referring institutions between January 2005 and December 2009. Patients were divided into those who had a duplicate computed tomography (CT) scan versus those who did not. There were 2678 patients included of whom 559 (21%) had at least one repeat CT scan, whereas 2119 (79%) did not have any repeat CT scans. Those with repeat CT scans were older (42.3 ± 27.3 years vs 37.3 ± 25.6 years), had a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (13.7 ± 8.7 vs 11.9 ± 8.8), and more likely to have blunt trauma (odds ratio, 4.7; confidence interval, 2.3 to 9.6) (P for all < 0.0007). Those with CT scans done only at the referring facility were younger, had a lower ISS, and shorter lengths of stay (P for all < 0.0003). ISS and age were independent predictors for repeat CT scans. Transfer patients had imaging repeated one-fifth of the time. The younger, less injured patient went without repeat imaging suggesting that they may have been adequately cared for at the outside institution.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/000313481207800621
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1017977513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2724008641</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-87c667f6dd6821b571355ddeb15c538241ec6d53fde3de390318b15f2e70f34d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpl0FFr2zAQB3AxVpa02xfYQxGMQV_c6SRLch5L6NpAoGMkj8Mo1ilzsS1Xsgv59lVI0kILAiHud8fpT8h3YNcAWv9ijAkQeQGc6YIxxeETmYKUMpsVXHwm0z3I9mJCzmN8TM9cSfhCJpyrXHAlpuTfX-zRDHTu234c0NKVb_02mP7_jjof6CqYsTX0jxlq7IZI153FsPV1t92Xuugw0MFTQ5f4jA1dnBrmSWP4Ss6caSJ-O94XZP37djW_z5YPd4v5zTKrciaHrNCVUtopa1XBYSM1CCmtxQ3ISoqC54CVslI4iyKdWfp2kWqOo2ZO5FZckKvD3D74pxHjULZ1rLBpTId-jCUw0DOtJYhEf7yjj34MXdouKcFAKMghKX5QVfAxBnRlH-rWhF1C5T788mP4qenyOHrctGhfW05pJ_DzCEysTONSgFUd35xKcwBAvADvFonA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030136141</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph ; SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth ; WOLFE, Luke ; DUANE, Therese Marie</creator><creatorcontrib>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph ; SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth ; WOLFE, Luke ; DUANE, Therese Marie</creatorcontrib><description>Our goal was to determine the characteristics of trauma transfer patients with repeat imaging. A retrospective trauma registry review was performed to evaluate trauma patients who were transferred from referring institutions between January 2005 and December 2009. Patients were divided into those who had a duplicate computed tomography (CT) scan versus those who did not. There were 2678 patients included of whom 559 (21%) had at least one repeat CT scan, whereas 2119 (79%) did not have any repeat CT scans. Those with repeat CT scans were older (42.3 ± 27.3 years vs 37.3 ± 25.6 years), had a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (13.7 ± 8.7 vs 11.9 ± 8.8), and more likely to have blunt trauma (odds ratio, 4.7; confidence interval, 2.3 to 9.6) (P for all &lt; 0.0007). Those with CT scans done only at the referring facility were younger, had a lower ISS, and shorter lengths of stay (P for all &lt; 0.0003). ISS and age were independent predictors for repeat CT scans. Transfer patients had imaging repeated one-fifth of the time. The younger, less injured patient went without repeat imaging suggesting that they may have been adequately cared for at the outside institution.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-1348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-9823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000313481207800621</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22643263</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMSUAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Surgical Congress</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Confidence intervals ; Digital transmission ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; General aspects ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Injuries ; Injury Severity Score ; Length of Stay - trends ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medical sciences ; Patient Transfer - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Radiology ; Registries ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Studies ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization ; Trauma centers ; Trauma Centers - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Wounds and Injuries - diagnostic imaging ; Wounds and Injuries - therapy</subject><ispartof>The American surgeon, 2012-06, Vol.78 (6), p.675-678</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Southeastern Surgical Congress Jun 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-87c667f6dd6821b571355ddeb15c538241ec6d53fde3de390318b15f2e70f34d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-87c667f6dd6821b571355ddeb15c538241ec6d53fde3de390318b15f2e70f34d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,789,790,23930,23931,25140,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26006111$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22643263$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WOLFE, Luke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUANE, Therese Marie</creatorcontrib><title>Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center</title><title>The American surgeon</title><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><description>Our goal was to determine the characteristics of trauma transfer patients with repeat imaging. A retrospective trauma registry review was performed to evaluate trauma patients who were transferred from referring institutions between January 2005 and December 2009. Patients were divided into those who had a duplicate computed tomography (CT) scan versus those who did not. There were 2678 patients included of whom 559 (21%) had at least one repeat CT scan, whereas 2119 (79%) did not have any repeat CT scans. Those with repeat CT scans were older (42.3 ± 27.3 years vs 37.3 ± 25.6 years), had a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (13.7 ± 8.7 vs 11.9 ± 8.8), and more likely to have blunt trauma (odds ratio, 4.7; confidence interval, 2.3 to 9.6) (P for all &lt; 0.0007). Those with CT scans done only at the referring facility were younger, had a lower ISS, and shorter lengths of stay (P for all &lt; 0.0003). ISS and age were independent predictors for repeat CT scans. Transfer patients had imaging repeated one-fifth of the time. The younger, less injured patient went without repeat imaging suggesting that they may have been adequately cared for at the outside institution.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Digital transmission</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Injury Severity Score</subject><subject>Length of Stay - trends</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Patient Transfer - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</subject><subject>Trauma centers</subject><subject>Trauma Centers - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - therapy</subject><issn>0003-1348</issn><issn>1555-9823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpl0FFr2zAQB3AxVpa02xfYQxGMQV_c6SRLch5L6NpAoGMkj8Mo1ilzsS1Xsgv59lVI0kILAiHud8fpT8h3YNcAWv9ijAkQeQGc6YIxxeETmYKUMpsVXHwm0z3I9mJCzmN8TM9cSfhCJpyrXHAlpuTfX-zRDHTu234c0NKVb_02mP7_jjof6CqYsTX0jxlq7IZI153FsPV1t92Xuugw0MFTQ5f4jA1dnBrmSWP4Ss6caSJ-O94XZP37djW_z5YPd4v5zTKrciaHrNCVUtopa1XBYSM1CCmtxQ3ISoqC54CVslI4iyKdWfp2kWqOo2ZO5FZckKvD3D74pxHjULZ1rLBpTId-jCUw0DOtJYhEf7yjj34MXdouKcFAKMghKX5QVfAxBnRlH-rWhF1C5T788mP4qenyOHrctGhfW05pJ_DzCEysTONSgFUd35xKcwBAvADvFonA</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph</creator><creator>SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth</creator><creator>WOLFE, Luke</creator><creator>DUANE, Therese Marie</creator><general>Southeastern Surgical Congress</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center</title><author>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph ; SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth ; WOLFE, Luke ; DUANE, Therese Marie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-87c667f6dd6821b571355ddeb15c538241ec6d53fde3de390318b15f2e70f34d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Digital transmission</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Injury Severity Score</topic><topic>Length of Stay - trends</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Patient Transfer - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</topic><topic>Trauma centers</topic><topic>Trauma Centers - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WOLFE, Luke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUANE, Therese Marie</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>YOUNG, Andrew Joseph</au><au>SADLER MEYERS, Kenneth</au><au>WOLFE, Luke</au><au>DUANE, Therese Marie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center</atitle><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>675</spage><epage>678</epage><pages>675-678</pages><issn>0003-1348</issn><eissn>1555-9823</eissn><coden>AMSUAW</coden><abstract>Our goal was to determine the characteristics of trauma transfer patients with repeat imaging. A retrospective trauma registry review was performed to evaluate trauma patients who were transferred from referring institutions between January 2005 and December 2009. Patients were divided into those who had a duplicate computed tomography (CT) scan versus those who did not. There were 2678 patients included of whom 559 (21%) had at least one repeat CT scan, whereas 2119 (79%) did not have any repeat CT scans. Those with repeat CT scans were older (42.3 ± 27.3 years vs 37.3 ± 25.6 years), had a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (13.7 ± 8.7 vs 11.9 ± 8.8), and more likely to have blunt trauma (odds ratio, 4.7; confidence interval, 2.3 to 9.6) (P for all &lt; 0.0007). Those with CT scans done only at the referring facility were younger, had a lower ISS, and shorter lengths of stay (P for all &lt; 0.0003). ISS and age were independent predictors for repeat CT scans. Transfer patients had imaging repeated one-fifth of the time. The younger, less injured patient went without repeat imaging suggesting that they may have been adequately cared for at the outside institution.</abstract><cop>Atlanta, GA</cop><pub>Southeastern Surgical Congress</pub><pmid>22643263</pmid><doi>10.1177/000313481207800621</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-1348
ispartof The American surgeon, 2012-06, Vol.78 (6), p.675-678
issn 0003-1348
1555-9823
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1017977513
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Confidence intervals
Digital transmission
Female
Follow-Up Studies
General aspects
Hospitals
Humans
Injuries
Injury Severity Score
Length of Stay - trends
Male
Medical imaging
Medical sciences
Patient Transfer - statistics & numerical data
Radiology
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Studies
Tomography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization
Trauma centers
Trauma Centers - statistics & numerical data
Wounds and Injuries - diagnostic imaging
Wounds and Injuries - therapy
title Repeat Computed Tomography for Trauma Patients Undergoing Transfer to a Level I Trauma Center
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T05%3A09%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Repeat%20Computed%20Tomography%20for%20Trauma%20Patients%20Undergoing%20Transfer%20to%20a%20Level%20I%20Trauma%20Center&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20surgeon&rft.au=YOUNG,%20Andrew%20Joseph&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=675&rft.epage=678&rft.pages=675-678&rft.issn=0003-1348&rft.eissn=1555-9823&rft.coden=AMSUAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000313481207800621&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2724008641%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1030136141&rft_id=info:pmid/22643263&rfr_iscdi=true