<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>More childhood deaths are attributed to trauma than all other causes combined. Our objectives were to provide the first national description of the proportion of injured children treated at pediatric trauma centers (TCs), and to provide clarity to the presumed benefit of pediatric TC verification by comparing injury mortality across hospital types.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We performed a population-based cohort study using the 2006 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Kids Inpatient Database combined with national TC inventories. We included pediatric discharges (≤16 y) with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code(s) for injury. Descriptive analyses were performed evaluating proportions of injured children cared for by TC level. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in in-hospital mortality by TC type (among level-1 TCs only). Analyses were survey-weighted using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project sampling weights.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of 153,380 injured children, 22.3% were admitted to pediatric TCs, 45.2% to general TCs, and 32.6% to non-TCs. Overall mortality was 0.9%. Among level-1 TCs, raw mortality was 1.0% pediatric TC, 1.4% dual TC, and 2.1% general TC. In adjusted analyses, treatment at level-1 pediatric TCs was associated with a significant mortality decrease compared to level-1 general TCs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence intervals, 0.4-0.9).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Our results provide the first national evidence that treatment at verified pediatric TCs may improve outcomes, supporting a survival benefit with pediatric trauma verification. Given lack of similar survival advantage found for level-1 dual TCs (both general/pediatric verified), we highlight the need for further investigation to understand factors responsible for the survival advantage at pediatric-only TCs, refine pediatric accreditation guidelines, and disseminate best practices.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Unintentional injuries are one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Many of these injuries are preventable, and unintentional firearm injuries, in particular, may be responsive to prevention efforts. We investigated the relationship between unintentional firearm death and urbanicity among adults.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>This study was a retrospective analysis of national death certificate data. Unintentional adult firearm deaths in the United States from 1999 to 2006 were identified using the Multiple Cause of Death Data files from the National Center for Health Statistics. Decedents were assigned to a county of death and classified along an urban-rural continuum defined by population density and proximity to metropolitan areas. Total unintentional firearm death rates by county were analyzed in adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>A total of 4,595 unintentional firearm injury deaths of adults occurred in the United States during the study period (a mean of 574.4 per year). Adjusted rates of unintentional firearm death showed increases from urban to rural counties. Americans in the most rural counties were significantly more likely to die of unintentional firearm deaths than those in the most urban counties (relative rate, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-3.21, p = 0.002).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Rates of unintentional firearm death are significantly higher in rural counties than in urban counties. Prevention strategies should be tailored to account for both geographic location and manner of firearm injury.</p>

<p><strong>LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: </strong>Epidemiologic study, level III.</p>

<p><strong>STUDY OBJECTIVES: </strong>Many US cities have experienced population reductions, often blamed on crime and interpersonal injury. Yet the overall injury risk in urban areas compared with suburban and rural areas has not been fully described. We begin to investigate this evidence gap by looking specifically at injury-related mortality risk, determining the risk of all injury death across the rural-urban continuum.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A cross-sectional time-series analysis of US injury deaths from 1999 to 2006 in counties classified according to the rural-urban continuum was conducted. Negative binomial generalized estimating equations and tests for trend were completed. Total injury deaths were the primary comparator, whereas differences by mechanism and age were also explored.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>A total of 1,295,919 injury deaths in 3,141 US counties were analyzed. Injury mortality increased with increasing rurality. Urban counties demonstrated the lowest death rates, significantly less than rural counties (mean difference=24.0 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval 16.4 to 31.6 per 100,000). After adjustment, the risk of injury death was 1.22 times higher in the most rural counties compared with the most urban (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.39).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Using total injury death rate as an overall safety metric, US urban counties were safer than their rural counterparts, and injury death risk increased steadily as counties became more rural. Greater emphasis on elevated injury-related mortality risk outside of large cities, attention to locality-specific injury prevention priorities, and an increased focus on matching emergency care needs to emergency care resources are in order.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>The Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s "Future of Emergency Care" report recommended the categorization and regionalization of emergency care, but no uniform system to categorize hospital emergency care capabilities has been developed. The absence of such a system limits the ability to benchmark outcomes, to develop regional systems of care, and of patients to make informed decisions when seeking emergency care. The authors sought to pilot the deployment of an emergency care categorization system in two states.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A five-tiered emergency department (ED) categorization system was designed, and a survey of all Pennsylvania and Wisconsin EDs was conducted. This 46-item survey described hospital staffing, characteristics, resources, and practice patterns. Based on responses, EDs were categorized as limited, basic, advanced, comprehensive, and pediatric critical care capable. Prehospital transport times were then used to determine population access to each level of care.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>A total of 247 surveys were received from the two states (247 of 297, 83%). Of the facilities surveyed, roughly one-quarter of hospitals provided advanced care, 10.5% provided comprehensive care, and 1.6% provided pediatric critical care. Overall, 75.1% of the general population could reach an advanced or comprehensive ED within 60 minutes by ground transportation. Among the pediatric population (age 14 years and younger), 56.2% could reach a pediatric critical care or comprehensive ED, with another 19.5% being able to access an advanced ED within 60 minutes.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Using this categorization system, fewer than half of all EDs provide advanced or comprehensive emergency care. While the majority of the population has access to advanced or comprehensive care within an hour, a significant portion (25%) does not. This article describes how an ED categorization scheme could be developed and deployed across the United States. There are implications for prehospital planning, patient decision-making, outcomes measurement, interfacility transfer coordination, and development of regional emergency care systems.</p>