ABSTRACT
Objective@#Previous studies focused primarily on drivers or front-seat passengers in motor vehicle accidents. Recent research has shown improvements in front-seat occupant protection. This study examined the risk factors contributing to severe injury in rear-seat occupants. @*Methods@#This study was conducted retrospectively. The variables related to the crash data were acquired from the Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance registry and electronic medical record of the authors’hospital between 2019 and 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors contributing to severe injury in rear-seat occupant. @*Results@#One hundred and forty rear-seat occupants were analyzed. The occupants were categorized by the abbreviated injury scale into severe (n=39; 27.9%) and non-severe injury (n=101; 72.1%). The collision with a large-size vehicle (odds ratio [OR], 4.278; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.617-18.000; P=0.015) and fixed objects (OR, 3.459; 95% CI, 1.347-8.883; P=0.049) was independently associated severe injury. Seatbelt use was also an independent risk factor of severe injury (OR, 2.649; 95% CI, 1.178-5.940; P=0.018). Common severe injuries encountered in rear seats were chest (12.1%), spine (9.3%), and abdomen (5.7%). @*Conclusion@#In contrast to the fact that seat belt use reduces the severity of injuries, seatbelt use was associated with severe injury in this study. Further research will be needed to assess the effects of seatbelt use. In addition, awareness should be raised about the relationship between the accident mechanism, seatbelt use, and the commonly injured body region.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#Since the characteristics of frequent emergency department (ED) users are heterogeneous, it is impossible to mitigate overcrowding of the ED without basic data of diagnoses and risk factors of frequent ED users. Instead of selecting for a limited disease group, our study included all ED patients, thereby providing invaluable information to help predict patient demand for medical resources. @*Methods@#Frequent ED users are defined as patients who visit an ED between 7-17 times per calendar year, and highly frequent ED users are patients who visit an ED 18 times or more during the same period. Our study developed two logistic regression models comparing frequent users with less frequent users, and highly frequent users with frequent users. @*Results@#Although 98.98% of all patients were determined as less frequent ED users, they encompassed only 92.27% of all ED visits. Frequent ED users were most strongly identified as wound dressing follow-up visits and liver diseases (standardized βvalue of 3.29 and 2.31, respectively). However, considering the different disease categories, no differences were obtained between highly frequent ED and frequent ED users. @*Conclusion@#The diagnoses and risk factors related to frequent ED visits in Korea identified in this study, will provide important reference for future research aimed at reducing ED overcrowding. By further analyzing the risk factors associated with frequent ED use, non-emergency administrative systems or medical facilities can be utilized to reduce the ED overload.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#Since the characteristics of frequent emergency department (ED) users are heterogeneous, it is impossible to mitigate overcrowding of the ED without basic data of diagnoses and risk factors of frequent ED users. Instead of selecting for a limited disease group, our study included all ED patients, thereby providing invaluable information to help predict patient demand for medical resources. @*Methods@#Frequent ED users are defined as patients who visit an ED between 7-17 times per calendar year, and highly frequent ED users are patients who visit an ED 18 times or more during the same period. Our study developed two logistic regression models comparing frequent users with less frequent users, and highly frequent users with frequent users. @*Results@#Although 98.98% of all patients were determined as less frequent ED users, they encompassed only 92.27% of all ED visits. Frequent ED users were most strongly identified as wound dressing follow-up visits and liver diseases (standardized βvalue of 3.29 and 2.31, respectively). However, considering the different disease categories, no differences were obtained between highly frequent ED and frequent ED users. @*Conclusion@#The diagnoses and risk factors related to frequent ED visits in Korea identified in this study, will provide important reference for future research aimed at reducing ED overcrowding. By further analyzing the risk factors associated with frequent ED use, non-emergency administrative systems or medical facilities can be utilized to reduce the ED overload.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The Ministry of Health and Welfare recently designated 35 major trauma-specified centers (MTSC). The purpose of this study is to determine changes in patient flow and designated hospitals, and to describe the role of the emergency medical information center (EMIC) in a regional trauma care system. METHODS: Data of trauma patient inter-facility transfer arrangement by one EMIC were reviewed for 2 months before and after the designation of MTSC. The data included success or failure rates of the arrangement, time used for arrangement, and inquiring and accepting facility. RESULTS: At pre- and post-designation study period, there were 540 and 433 trauma patient inter-facility transfers arranged by EMIC, respectively. The median time used for arrangement decreased from 9.3 to 7.7 minutes (P = 0.007). Arrangement failure rate was 3.5% and 2.5%, respectively, with no significant interval change (P = 0.377). The percentage of inquiring MTSC decreased from 49.1 to 36.9% (P < 0.001). The percentage of accepting MTSC increased from 20.2 to 37.4% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: With the designation of MTSC, EMIC could arrange inter-facility transfers more quickly. The hospitals wanted more trauma patients after the designation. There would be a concentration of trauma patients to MTSCs in our region. Further studies are needed for scientific evidence on patient outcome.
