RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends house-to-house case searches as an option to evidence whether the elimination of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) has been reached. We sought to determine the number of trachoma-endemic countries and districts that will require either documented full geographic coverage (DFGC) or TT-only surveys. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Trachoma Atlas to identify evaluation units (EUs) that require house-to-house case searches or TT-only surveys to demonstrate achievement of the elimination of TT. RESULTS: There were 1710 EUs with TT above the elimination prevalence target in all trachoma-endemic countries. Of those EUs, 852 (49.8%) do not have a future survey planned and will therefore potentially have to evidence through DFGC or TT-only surveys whether the elimination prevalence target for TT has been reached. CONCLUSION: Of the large number of EUs that require TT-related activities, nearly half of them will need to evidence that every household in the EU has been visited by a case finder and all confirmed cases managed. Given that this is a relatively new way to evidence elimination, and countries face different sociopolitical challenges, cross-country learning and improved guidance is key to support global elimination.
Asunto(s)
Tracoma , Triquiasis , Humanos , Lactante , Triquiasis/epidemiología , Tracoma/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Composición Familiar , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
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: This was 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 and Washington. A population-based, consecutive sample of 67â¯047 injured children and adults served by EMS (1971 rural and 65â¯076 urban) was enrolled. Among the 53â¯487 patients transported by EMS, a stratified probability sample of 17â¯633 patients (1438 rural and 16â¯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 53â¯487 injured patients transported by EMS (17â¯633 patients in the probability sample), 27â¯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.
Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Población Rural/estadística & datos numéricos , Centros Traumatológicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Población Urbana/estadística & datos numéricos , Heridas y Lesiones/mortalidad , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oregon , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Transferencia de Pacientes/estadística & datos numéricos , Transporte de Pacientes/estadística & datos numéricos , Triaje , Washingtón , Heridas y Lesiones/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The national field trauma triage guidelines have been widely implemented in US trauma systems, but never prospectively validated. We sought to prospectively validate the guidelines, as applied by out-of-hospital providers, for identifying high-risk trauma patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was an out-of-hospital prospective cohort study from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 with 44 Emergency Medical Services agencies in 7 counties in 2 states. We enrolled injured patients transported to 28 acute care hospitals, including 7 major trauma centers (Level I and II trauma hospitals) and 21 nontrauma hospitals. The primary exposure term was Emergency Medical Services' use of one or more field triage criteria in the national field triage guidelines. Outcomes included Injured Severity Score ≥16 (primary) and critical resource use within 24 hours of emergency department arrival (secondary). RESULTS: We enrolled 53,487 injured children and adults transported by Emergency Medical Services to an acute care hospital, 17,633 of which were sampled for the primary analysis; 13.9% met field triage guidelines, 3.1% had Injury Severity Score ≥16, and 1.7% required early critical resources. The sensitivity and specificity of the field triage guidelines were 66.2% (95% CI, 60.2-71.7%) and 87.8% (95% CI, 87.7-88.0%) for Injury Severity Score ≥16 and 80.1% (95% CI, 65.8-89.4%) and 87.3% (95% CI 87.1-87.4%) for early critical resource use. Triage guideline sensitivity decreased with age, from 87.4% in children to 51.8% in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: The national field triage guidelines are relatively insensitive for identifying seriously injured patients and patients requiring early critical interventions, particularly among older adults.