Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan;7(1):41-6.
doi: 10.4103/0974-2700.125639.

A comparison of rural versus urban trauma care

Ari M Lipsky  1 , Larry L Karsteadt  2 , Marianne Gausche-Hill  3 , Sharon Hartmans  4 , Frederick S Bongard  5 , Henry Gill Cryer  6 , Patricia B Ekhardt  7 , Anthony J Loffredo  8 , Patricia D Farmer  2 , Susan C Whitney  2 , Roger J Lewis  3
Affiliations

A comparison of rural versus urban trauma care

Ari M Lipsky et al. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2014 Jan.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Major trauma outcome study; rural trauma; urban trauma center.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Hoyt DB, Camp L, Osler TM, Mackersie RC, et al. Trauma deaths in a mature urban vs rural trauma system. A comparison. Arch Surg. 1997;132:376–82. - PubMed
    1. Peitzman A, Sarani B. Phase 0: Damage control resuscitation in the prehospital and emergency department settings. In: Pape HC, Peitzman A, Schwab CW, Giannoudis PV, editors. Damage Control Management in the Polytrauma Patient. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 103.
    1. Coben JH. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).Contrasting rural and urban fatal crashes 1994-2003. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47:574–5. - PubMed
    1. Hedges JR, Adams AL, Gunnels MD. ATLS practices and survival at rural level III trauma hospitals, 1995-1999. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2002;6:299–305. - PubMed
    1. Karsteadt LL, Larsen CL, Farmer PD. Analysis of a rural trauma program using the TRISS methodology: A three-year retrospective study. J Trauma. 1994;36:395–400. - PubMed