Resources for Improving Pediatric Readiness and Quality of Care in Rural Communities and Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: To share the process and products of an 8-year, federally funded grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration Emergency Medical Services for Children program to increase pediatric emergency readiness and quality of care provided in rural communities located within 2 underserved local emergency medical services agencies (LEMSAs) in Northern California. METHODS: In 2 multicounty LEMSAs with 24 receiving hospital emergency departments, we conducted focus groups and interviews with patients and parents, first responders, receiving hospital personnel, and other community stakeholders. From this, we (a regional, urban children's hospital) provided a variety of resources for improving the regionalization and quality of pediatric emergency care provided by prehospital providers and healthcare staff at receiving hospitals in these rural LEMSAs. RESULTS: From this project, we provided resources that included regularly scheduled pediatric-specific training and education programs, pediatric-specific quality improvement initiatives, expansion of telemedicine services, and cultural competency training. We also enhanced community engagement and investment in pediatric readiness. CONCLUSIONS: The resources we provided from our regional, urban children's hospital to 2 rural LEMSAs facilitated improvements in a regionalized system of care for critically ill and injured children. Our shared resources framework can be adapted by other regional children's hospitals to increase readiness and quality of pediatric emergency care in rural and underserved communities and LEMSAs.

Emergency Medical Services Utilization by Children.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare demographic and clinical features of children (0-14 years old) who arrived at general emergency departments (EDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) to those who arrived by private vehicles and other means in a rural, 3-county region of northern California. METHODS: We reviewed 507 ED records of children who arrived at EDs by EMS and those who arrived by other means in 2013. We also analyzed prehospital procedures performed on all children transported to an area hospital by EMS. RESULTS: Children arriving by EMS were older (9.0 vs 6.0 years; P < 0.001), more ill (mean Severity Classification Score, 2.9 vs 2.4; P < 0.001), and had longer lengths of stay (3.6 vs 2.1 hours; P < 0.001) compared with children who were transported to the EDs by other means. Children transported by EMS received more subspecialty consultations (18.7% vs 6.9%; P < 0.05) and had more diagnostic testing, including laboratory testing (22.9% vs 10.6%; P < 0.001), radiography (39.7% vs 20.8%; P < 0.001), and computed tomography scans (16.8% vs 2.9%; P < 0.001). Children arriving by EMS were transferred more frequently (8.8% vs 1.6%; P < 0.001) and had higher mean Severity Classification Scores compared with children arriving by other transportation even after adjusting for age and sex (ß = 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.61; P < 0.001). Older children received more prehospital procedures compared with younger children, and these were of greater complexity and a wider spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: Children transported to rural EDs via EMS are more ill and use more medical resources compared with those who arrive to the ED by other means of transportation.

A comparison of rural versus urban trauma care.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the survival of trauma patients in urban versus rural settings after the implementation of a novel rural non-trauma center alternative care model called the Model Rural Trauma Project (MRTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of all trauma patients brought to eight rural northern California hospitals and two southern California urban trauma centers over a one-year period (1995-1996). Trauma patients with an injury severity score (ISS) of >10 were included in the study. We used logistic regression to assess disparities in odds of survival while controlling for Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) parameters. RESULTS: A total of 1,122 trauma patients met criteria for this study, with 336 (30%) from the rural setting. The urban population was more seriously injured with a higher median ISS (17 urban and 14 rural) and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (GCS 14 urban and 15 rural). Patients in urban trauma centers were more likely to suffer penetrating trauma (25% urban versus 9% rural). After correcting for differences in patient population, the mortality associated with being treated in a rural hospital (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.39) was not significantly different than an urban trauma center. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that rural and urban trauma patients are inherently different. The rural system utilized in this study, with low volume and high blunt trauma rates, can effectively care for its population of trauma patients with an enhanced, committed trauma system, which allows for expeditious movement of patients toward definitive care.