Evaluation of Rural vs Urban trauma patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services

Craig D. Newgard, Rongwei Fu, Eileen Bulger, Jerris R. Hedges, N. Clay Mann, Dagan A. Wright, David P. Lehrfeld, Carol Shields, Gregory Hoskins, Craig Warden, Lynn Wittwer, Jennifer N B Cook, Michael Verkest, William Conway, Stephanie Somerville, Matthew Hansen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

72 Scopus citations


IMPORTANCE Despite a large rural US population, there are potential differences between rural and urban regions in the processes and outcomes following trauma. OBJECTIVES To describe and evaluate rural vs urban processes of care, injury severity, and mortality among injured patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services (EMS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Thiswas a preplanned secondary analysis of a prospective cohort enrolled from January 1 through December 31, 2011, and followed up through hospitalization. The study included 44 EMS agencies transporting to 28 hospitals in 2 rural and 5 urban counties in Oregon andWashington. A population-based, consecutive sample of 67 047 injured children and adults served by EMS (1971 rural and 65 076 urban) was enrolled. Among the 53 487 patients transported by EMS, a stratified probability sample of 17 633 patients (1438 rural and 16 195 urban) was created to track hospital outcomes (78.9% with in-hospital follow-up). Data analysis was performed from June 12, 2015, to May 20, 2016. EXPOSURES Rural was defined at the county level by 60 minutes or more driving proximity to the nearest level I or II trauma center and/or rural designation in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ambulance fee schedule by zip code. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mortality (out-of-hospital and in-hospital), need for early critical resources, and transfer rates. RESULTS Of the 53 487 injured patients transported by EMS (17 633 patients in the probability sample), 27 535 were women (51.5%); mean (SD) age was 51.6 (26.1) years. Rural vs urban sensitivity of field triage for identifying patients requiring early critical resources was 65.2%vs 80.5%, and only 29.4%of rural patients needing critical resources were initially transported to major trauma centers vs 88.7%of urban patients. After accounting for transfers, 39.8%of rural patients requiring critical resources were cared for in major trauma centers vs 88.7%of urban patients. Overall mortality did not differ between rural and urban regions (1.44%vs 0.89%; P = .09); however, 89.6%of rural deaths occurred within 24 hours compared with 64%of urban deaths. Rural regions had higher transfer rates (3.2%vs 2.7%) and longer transfer distances (median, 97.4 km; interquartile range [IQR], 51.7-394.5 km; range, 47.8-398.6 km vs 22.5 km; IQR, 11.6-24.6 km; range, 3.5-97.4 km). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Most high-risk trauma patients injured in rural areas were cared for outside of major trauma centers and most rural trauma deaths occurred early, although overall mortality did not differ between regions. There are opportunities for improved timeliness and access to major trauma care among patients injured in rural regions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-18
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Surgery
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of Rural vs Urban trauma patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this