Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Trauma Systems Development: An ACS Perspective Robert C. Mackersie, M.D., FACS Professor of Surgery, UCSF Director, Trauma Services, SFGH Past Chair, ACS-COT.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Trauma Systems Development: An ACS Perspective Robert C. Mackersie, M.D., FACS Professor of Surgery, UCSF Director, Trauma Services, SFGH Past Chair, ACS-COT."— Presentation transcript:

1 Trauma Systems Development: An ACS Perspective Robert C. Mackersie, M.D., FACS Professor of Surgery, UCSF Director, Trauma Services, SFGH Past Chair, ACS-COT Trauma Systems Planning & Evaluation Robert C. Mackersie, M.D., FACS Professor of Surgery, UCSF Director, Trauma Services, SFGH Past Chair, ACS-COT Trauma Systems Planning & Evaluation California Trauma System Summit - 2008

2

3 523,780 patients 18 states J.Trauma 2004 523,780 patients 18 states J.Trauma 2004

4 360,743 patients - California JACS 2003 360,743 patients - California JACS 2003

5 American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems facs.orgfacs.org

6 American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems

7  Leadership  System Development  Legislation  Finances  Injury Prevention & Control  Human Resources  workforce / education  Leadership  System Development  Legislation  Finances  Injury Prevention & Control  Human Resources  workforce / education  Prehospital  EMS, transport, communication, disaster  Definitive Care  TCs, transfers, rehab  Information systems  Evaluation  Research  Prehospital  EMS, transport, communication, disaster  Definitive Care  TCs, transfers, rehab  Information systems  Evaluation  Research 1992 MTCSP: What a system IS.

8 2006 Model Trauma System Planning and Evaluation: What a system DOES.  Assessment  systems needs vrs. resources  injury epidemiology  ‘burden of injury’ & system performance  cost effectiveness  Policy Development  Comprehensive authority  Trauma Plan & modifications  Prevention public policy  Establishes evidence-based system guidelines  Is driven by assessment  Assurance  Use of laws, regulations, standards  System PI & oversight body  Integration of primary, secondary, tertiary prevention  Strategic planning (workforce, all-hazards preparedness, etc)  Assessment  systems needs vrs. resources  injury epidemiology  ‘burden of injury’ & system performance  cost effectiveness  Policy Development  Comprehensive authority  Trauma Plan & modifications  Prevention public policy  Establishes evidence-based system guidelines  Is driven by assessment  Assurance  Use of laws, regulations, standards  System PI & oversight body  Integration of primary, secondary, tertiary prevention  Strategic planning (workforce, all-hazards preparedness, etc)

9 American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems American College of Surgeons COMMITTEE ON TRAUMA Consultation Program for Trauma Systems

10 ACS-COT Trauma Systems Evaluation  Consultative, not verification (no one fails!)  Multi-disciplinary structure  Independently derived recommendations (ACS integrity)  Politically ‘inert’  Consensus-based process  Basis = Inclusive trauma system (MTCSP)  Basis = best interests of the patient  Collaborative development:  (HRSA, NHTSA, CDC, NASEMSD, ACEP)  based on national objectives (HRSA, NHTSA)  Consultative, not verification (no one fails!)  Multi-disciplinary structure  Independently derived recommendations (ACS integrity)  Politically ‘inert’  Consensus-based process  Basis = Inclusive trauma system (MTCSP)  Basis = best interests of the patient  Collaborative development:  (HRSA, NHTSA, CDC, NASEMSD, ACEP)  based on national objectives (HRSA, NHTSA)

11

12 Trauma Systems: Common Problems  Reluctance to use enabling legislation  Inconsistent or non-integrated leadership  Unauthorized leadership  Absent or ineffective state (STACs) or regional advisory committees (RTCC)  Trends towards exclusive systems  no resources, commitment, interest  lack of consistent specialty availability  over-triage, over-transfer to designated centers  Reluctance to use enabling legislation  Inconsistent or non-integrated leadership  Unauthorized leadership  Absent or ineffective state (STACs) or regional advisory committees (RTCC)  Trends towards exclusive systems  no resources, commitment, interest  lack of consistent specialty availability  over-triage, over-transfer to designated centers

13 Trauma Systems: Common Problems  Lack of funding: system & under- compensated care  No comprehensive trauma plan  Limited (or non-existent) system-based PI  Limited regional organization & participation by NTC facilities  Ends of the spectrum poorly integrated (silo’ing) : prevention & rehabilitation in particular  Lack of funding: system & under- compensated care  No comprehensive trauma plan  Limited (or non-existent) system-based PI  Limited regional organization & participation by NTC facilities  Ends of the spectrum poorly integrated (silo’ing) : prevention & rehabilitation in particular

14 Trauma Systems: Common Problems  Structure does not allow strong medical direction for state/regional trauma sys  Incomplete, inadequate MOU between sending & receiving hospitals  Limited, often inadequate public and legislative education RE trauma system importance & needs  various others…  Structure does not allow strong medical direction for state/regional trauma sys  Incomplete, inadequate MOU between sending & receiving hospitals  Limited, often inadequate public and legislative education RE trauma system importance & needs  various others…

15 Access: Obstacles in trauma system participation  Physician staff commitment  Lifestyle: long, irregular hours, sleep deprivation  Practice: opportunity costs, restriction, reimbursement, malpractice  Intimidating, verification / designation requirements  Lack of knowledge / experience  Financial risk:  Under-funded care, contractual agreements  Limited transfer $$: DSH, local tax subsidies  On-call fees for physicians  Lack of specific state/regional funding  Physician staff commitment  Lifestyle: long, irregular hours, sleep deprivation  Practice: opportunity costs, restriction, reimbursement, malpractice  Intimidating, verification / designation requirements  Lack of knowledge / experience  Financial risk:  Under-funded care, contractual agreements  Limited transfer $$: DSH, local tax subsidies  On-call fees for physicians  Lack of specific state/regional funding

16 California trauma “system”  Serving disaster-prone, dispersed population  Provides coverage for very urban & very rural regions  County –based & de-centralized  Optional – but embraced by most counties  Relies on local versus regional/State-wide oversight  State & many local systems under-funded  State/regional structures insufficiently authorized  Comprehensive, state-wide plan pending  Wide variations in county trauma system configurations & practices (“inconsistencies”  State-wide trauma registry pending  Serving disaster-prone, dispersed population  Provides coverage for very urban & very rural regions  County –based & de-centralized  Optional – but embraced by most counties  Relies on local versus regional/State-wide oversight  State & many local systems under-funded  State/regional structures insufficiently authorized  Comprehensive, state-wide plan pending  Wide variations in county trauma system configurations & practices (“inconsistencies”  State-wide trauma registry pending

17 System development  Educate & build legislative & public support  Establish enabling legislation  Fund the system exclusive from TCs  Needs assessment (link to prevention)  Write comprehensive trauma plan  Adopt operational standards & verification  Develop oversight structures  Initiate system PI plan & oversight  System development driven by PI / CQI  Perform external consultative review  Educate & build legislative & public support  Establish enabling legislation  Fund the system exclusive from TCs  Needs assessment (link to prevention)  Write comprehensive trauma plan  Adopt operational standards & verification  Develop oversight structures  Initiate system PI plan & oversight  System development driven by PI / CQI  Perform external consultative review

18

19 “Get a plan” (G. Cooper, ~2004)  System structure:  lead agency, STAC, RTCCs, role of TCs & community  System leadership positions within structure (TMD, TPM)  Regional structure: ‘X’ regions? (not 32 or 58)  System-wide needs assessment  Injury epidemiology in the State  Type, number, location of TCs & flow patterns  Human resource pipeline  System oversight responsibilities & PI plan  Disaster preparedness (current surge cap=~14%)\  Establish process/program for injury surveillance  System structure:  lead agency, STAC, RTCCs, role of TCs & community  System leadership positions within structure (TMD, TPM)  Regional structure: ‘X’ regions? (not 32 or 58)  System-wide needs assessment  Injury epidemiology in the State  Type, number, location of TCs & flow patterns  Human resource pipeline  System oversight responsibilities & PI plan  Disaster preparedness (current surge cap=~14%)\  Establish process/program for injury surveillance

20 Funding the system  SYSTEM = STATE, REGIONAL, COUNTY  Motor vehicle fees, fines, penalties (non-MV also)  911 system surcharges  Intoxication / DUI offense fees  Controlled substance act or weapons violation fees  “Play or pay” fees for non-participating hospitals  Tobacco & ETOH taxes  Property tax supplements  Tribal gaming  Hospital licensure linked to participation in TS  Use of destination / activation fees  SYSTEM = STATE, REGIONAL, COUNTY  Motor vehicle fees, fines, penalties (non-MV also)  911 system surcharges  Intoxication / DUI offense fees  Controlled substance act or weapons violation fees  “Play or pay” fees for non-participating hospitals  Tobacco & ETOH taxes  Property tax supplements  Tribal gaming  Hospital licensure linked to participation in TS  Use of destination / activation fees

21 Oversight committees  Use experience of States with well established state- wide trauma systems & organizations  Expand the STAC  Develop & fund positions for system oversight / admin.  State Trauma Medical Director + State Program staff (SB261)  Regional program staff + admin staff (Romero SB261)  Recruit system leadership (medicine, government, business, law)  Using the TP, establish & authorize advisory cmtes  Define role of RTCC relative to LEMSAs (“integrated”)  Develop system PI program tailored to regions  Use experience of States with well established state- wide trauma systems & organizations  Expand the STAC  Develop & fund positions for system oversight / admin.  State Trauma Medical Director + State Program staff (SB261)  Regional program staff + admin staff (Romero SB261)  Recruit system leadership (medicine, government, business, law)  Using the TP, establish & authorize advisory cmtes  Define role of RTCC relative to LEMSAs (“integrated”)  Develop system PI program tailored to regions

22 Other key elements  Acute care access: assess adequacy of existing TCs – level & location  Assess adequacy of existing resources, county-by-county  Cultivate participation in state/regional trauma system  institutional & provider incentives  Accessible, state-wide registry  Acute care access: assess adequacy of existing TCs – level & location  Assess adequacy of existing resources, county-by-county  Cultivate participation in state/regional trauma system  institutional & provider incentives  Accessible, state-wide registry

23 Getting started - System-wide PI will drive development

24 System-based (versus center-based) PI  Old model designed for developing systems  Relies more on shared center-derived PI issues (MAC model)  Focus on provider vrs. system errors  Limited use of system indicators  Limited focus on PI process effectiveness  Old model designed for developing systems  Relies more on shared center-derived PI issues (MAC model)  Focus on provider vrs. system errors  Limited use of system indicators  Limited focus on PI process effectiveness

25 System-wide PI will drive development  system preventable deaths  access to trauma system  time to definitive care  triage errors  failed / delayed transfers  provider errors (TAC/MAC)  access to rehab  prevention deficiencies  benchmarking for TCs  system preventable deaths  access to trauma system  time to definitive care  triage errors  failed / delayed transfers  provider errors (TAC/MAC)  access to rehab  prevention deficiencies  benchmarking for TCs

26  Adopt standards, analyze performance  Develop P&Ps  transfers, re-triage,  Create ‘operational’ MOUs between centers  Educational ‘give-backs’  PI driven outreach  Link to state registry & prevention activities  ID & monitor outcome measures & benchmarks  Adopt standards, analyze performance  Develop P&Ps  transfers, re-triage,  Create ‘operational’ MOUs between centers  Educational ‘give-backs’  PI driven outreach  Link to state registry & prevention activities  ID & monitor outcome measures & benchmarks RTCC tasks

27 World’s seventh largest economy: we can do this.


Download ppt "Trauma Systems Development: An ACS Perspective Robert C. Mackersie, M.D., FACS Professor of Surgery, UCSF Director, Trauma Services, SFGH Past Chair, ACS-COT."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google