You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 142 No. 1, January 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Public Health
 •Injury Prevention & Control
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Surgical Interventions, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Rural Trauma Recidivism

A Different Disease

Eric A. Toschlog, MD; Scott G. Sagraves, MD; Michael R. Bard, MD; Paul J. Schenarts, MD; Claudia C. Goettler, MD; Mark A. Newell, MD; Michael F. Rotondo, MD

Arch Surg. 2007;142(1):77-81.

Hypothesis  Unlike the well-characterized urban trauma recidivist (RC), factors associated with the rural RC remain undefined. In an attempt to devise preventative strategies, we theorized that the rural RC profile would be similar to that of urban counterparts.

Design  Retrospective review.

Setting  Rural, university-affiliated, level I trauma center.

Patients  All trauma patients admitted between January 1, 1994, and December 30, 2002.

Interventions  Identification and characterization of rural trauma RCs.

Main Outcome Measures  Trauma recidivism incidence, risk factors, and cost.

Results  Of 15 370 consecutive admissions, 528 (3.4%) were RCs. Demographic comparisons to a non-RC cohort demonstrated rural RCs to be significantly older (mean ± SD age, 55.9 ± 24.8 vs 39.7 ± 24.1 years), disproportionately white (65.2% [344/528] vs 56.5% [8386/14 842]), and more likely female (49.1% [259/528] vs 37.3% [5537/14 842]) (P<.001 for all). Clinical comparisons revealed significant associations between recidivism and substance abuse. The percentage of positive blood ethanol screen results (58.7% [310/528] vs 39.9% [5923/14 842]) and the mean ± SD blood ethanol content (132.1 ± 139.9 mg/dL [28.7 ± 30.4 mmol/L] vs 69.5 ± 114.4 mg/dL [15.1 ± 24.8 mmol/L]) were higher for RCs (P<.001 for both). In addition, cocaine use was significantly higher in the RC cohort (6.4% [34/528] vs 4.1% [607/14 842]; P=.02). The total cost for all RC admissions exceeded $7 million.

Conclusions  The rural RC profile is strikingly different from urban counterparts. The common feature seems to be substance abuse. Correspondingly, prevention strategies for recidivism must be considerably different among rural and urban populations.


Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, and Center of Excellence for Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, University Health Systems of Eastern North Carolina, Greenville.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.