1 / 42

Texas Trauma System Overview Tuesday, May 18 th , 2010

Texas Trauma System Overview Tuesday, May 18 th , 2010. Jane Guerrero, RN, Director Office of EMS/Trauma Systems Coordination Texas Department of State Health Services. PURPOSE.

rufus
Download Presentation

Texas Trauma System Overview Tuesday, May 18 th , 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Texas Trauma SystemOverviewTuesday, May 18th, 2010 Jane Guerrero, RN, DirectorOffice of EMS/Trauma Systems CoordinationTexas Department of State Health Services

  2. PURPOSE Senate Bill 1, Rider 90 required the department to conduct a study of the state’s trauma facilities and assess the need for additional Level I and Level II trauma facilities. Governor’s EMS and Trauma Advisory Council (GETAC) recommended an assessment of the need for additional Level I and Level II trauma facilities, as well as a review of the trauma system as a whole.

  3. The Challenge Geographic size and population Total square miles: 268,581 Total population: 24,782,302 (2009 est.) Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau

  4. Geographic Size and Population Total Square Miles: 268,581 Population: 25,000,000

  5. Texas EMS/Trauma System Trauma Service Areas (TSA): geography Regional Advisory Councils (RAC): people Terms are used interchangeably: RACs = TSAs

  6. Map 1: RAC E and RAC P The population of RAC E (5,487,477) is equivalent to the population of Wisconsin. RAC P (1,980,877) is equivalent to the population of New Mexico. Wisconsin New Mexico

  7. Map 2: RAC A and RAC B The population of RAC A and RAC B combined (848,044) is equivalent to that of Delaware (873,092). Wisconsin Delaware New Mexico

  8. Map 3: RACs C, D, and E The population of RAC C, RAC D, and RAC E combined (6,006,125) is equivalent to that of Tennessee (6,214,888). Tennessee Delaware New Mexico

  9. Map 4: RACs L, M, N, and O The population of RAC L, RAC M, RAC N, and RAC O combined (2,292,105) is equivalent to that of Nevada (2,600,167). Tennessee Delaware Nevada New Mexico

  10. Map 5: RACs T, U, and V The population of RAC T, RAC U, and RAC V combined (1,737,961) is equivalent to that of Nebraska (1,783,432).

  11. Map 6: RACs F, G, and H The population of RAC F, RAC G, and RAC H combined (1,338,701) is equivalent to that of Maine (1,316,456).

  12. Map 7: RACs I, J, and K The population of RAC I, RAC J, and RAC K combined (1,210,516) is equivalent to that of Hawaii (1,288,198). The square mileage (59,286) is equivalent to that of Georgia.

  13. Map 8: RACs Q, R, and S The population of RAC Q, RAC R, and RAC S combined (5,455,497) is equivalent to that of Minnesota (5,220,393).

  14. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • In 1970 a registry for EMS personnel was established under the name Division of Emergency Medical Services.

  15. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • The 1973 EMS Act, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, provided for: • the development of a state plan, • the establishment of EMS delivery areas with at least one hospital designated as a trauma center, • the identification of all public and private agency EMS stakeholders, • plan for an interagency communication system.

  16. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • In 1983 the EMS Act of 1973 was amended requiring: • two certified EMS personnel aboard an ambulance, • personnel certification and vehicle permits, and • the establishment of the Bureau of Emergency Management.

  17. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • In 1989 legislation directed the department to establish a statewide trauma system and create the Trauma Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC). However, no resources were allotted.

  18. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • On January 11, 1990, TTAC met for the first time and was charged with: • the development of a trauma registry, • the development of the medical and technical aspects of a trauma system, and • recommending rules and regulations for a trauma system.

  19. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • 1993 marked the first trauma facility designation, and ongoing development of trauma regional advisory councils (RACs). • North Texas RAC C was recognized first. • University Medical Center in Lubbock was the first designated trauma facility. • Eleven (11) RACs were recognized by the department.

  20. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • By 1995 RACs had been established in all 22 trauma service areas. All participation was voluntary; no funding was allotted. • 1997 legislation created the first funding: an EMS/Trauma System Fund of $4 million for the 1998/1999 biennium.

  21. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • In 2000 funding available for trauma system grants increased to approximately $9.5 million. • In 2003 the 78th Legislative Session increased funding to approximately $20 million.

  22. Texas EMS/Trauma System History • Appropriations continued to increase in 2007. Funding rose to approximately $55 million.

  23. Texas EMS/Trauma System Today • Eighty four million dollars ($84,000,000) is appropriated for Fiscal Year 2010. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the funds are disbursed to eligible entities (hospitals, EMS providers, and RACs) that participate in the trauma system.

  24. Texas EMS/Trauma System Today

  25. Designated Trauma Facilities • Level I 16 • Level II 8 • Level III 45 • Level IV 185 • “In active pursuit” 18

  26. RAC Assessment of EMS Coverage, 2009

  27. Trauma Death Rates • Data Source: http://soupfin.tdh.state.tx.us/death10.htm Data Source: http://soupfin.tdh.state.tx.us/death10.htm

  28. Texas Relative to USA1979-2006 35% reduction 6,720 lives United States Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Office of Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health Promotion (OAEHP), Compressed Mortality File (CMF) compiled from CMF 1968-1988, Series 20, No. 2A 2000, CMF 1989-1998, Series 20, No. 2E 2003 and CMF 1999-2001, Series 20, No. 2G 2004 on CDC WONDER On-line Database.

  29. Focus Question 1 • Given the size of Texas, what is the recommended number and distribution of Level I and Level II trauma centers in the state? Particular consideration should be given to the Houston-Galveston area and to the role that Level III trauma facilities play in Texas.

  30. Focus Question 2 • Given the view of our system, the size of the state and the heterogeneous nature of the state’s RACs, what strategy could the trauma system use to: • strengthen the system in relation to trauma care for special populations (i.e., children and geriatric)?

  31. Focus Question 2 • Given the high level view of our system, the size of the State and the heterogeneous nature of the state’s RACs, what strategy could the trauma system use to: • strengthen incorporation of rehabilitation entities/principles into the system?

  32. Focus Question 2 • Given the high level view of our system, the size of the State and the heterogeneous nature of the state’s RACs, what strategy could the trauma system use to: • assure that appropriate, data-driven injury prevention activities are integrated into the system?

  33. Focus Question 2 • Given the high level view of our system, the size of the State and the heterogeneous nature of the state’s RACs, what strategy could the trauma system use to: • further evaluate ourselves, including recommendations on how to best proceed (i.e., individual RAC evaluations or groups of RAC evaluations) in the future?

  34. Focus Question 3 • How can we strengthen our regional and statewide performance improvement activities?

  35. Focus Question 4 • Our state trauma registry has been problematic, and we are currently working to replace it. Given the diversity and size of the state, we are interested in your assessment of how we could: • rebuild a registry that the stakeholders can support?

  36. Focus Question 4 • Our state trauma registry has been problematic, and we are currently working to replace it. Given the diversity and size of the state, we are interested in your assessment of how we could: • utilize our trauma registry and other databases more effectively, with an emphasis on obtaining outcome data?

More Related