Geographic distribution of trauma centers and injury-related mortality in the United States

Joshua B. Brown*, Matthew R. Rosengart, Timothy R. Billiar, Andrew B. Peitzman, Jason L. Sperry

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Scopus citations


BACKGROUND: Regionalized trauma care improves outcomes; however, access to care is not uniform across the United States. The objectivewas to evaluate whether geographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality across state trauma systems. METHODS: Level I or II trauma centers in the contiguous United States were mapped. State-level age-adjusted injury fatality rates per 100,000 people were obtained and evaluated for spatial autocorrelation. Nearest neighbor ratios (NNRs) were generated for each state. A NNR less than 1 indicates clustering, while a NNR greater than 1 indicates dispersion. NNRs were tested for difference from random geographic distribution. Fatality rates and NNRs were examined for correlation. Fatality rates were compared between states with trauma center clustering versus dispersion. Trauma center distribution and population density were evaluated. Spatial-lag regression determined the association between fatality rate and NNR, controlling for state-level demographics, population density, injury severity, trauma system resources, and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Fatality rates were spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.35, p < 0.01). Nine states had a clustered pattern (median NNR, 0.55; interquartile range [IQR], 0.48-0.60), 22 had a dispersed pattern (median NNR, 2.00; IQR, 1.68-3.99), and 10 had a random pattern (medianNNR, 0.90; IQR, 0.85-1.00) of trauma center distribution. Fatality rate and NNR were correlated (p = 0.34, p = 0.03). Clustered states had a lower median injury fatality rate compared with dispersed states (56.9 [IQR, 46.5-58.9] vs. 64.9 [IQR, 52.5-77.1]; p = 0.04). Dispersed compared with clustered states had more counties without a trauma center that had higher population density than counties with a trauma center (5.7%vs. 1.2%, p < 0.01). Spatial-lag regression demonstrated that fatality rates increased by 0.02 per 100,000 persons for each unit increase in NNR (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Geographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality, with more clustered state trauma centers associated with lower fatality rates. This may be a result of access relative to population density. These results may have implications for trauma system planning and require further study to investigate underlying mechanisms. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80: 42-50.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)42-50
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2016
Externally publishedYes


  • Fatality rate
  • Geospatial
  • Nearest neighbor
  • Spatial
  • Trauma systems


Dive into the research topics of 'Geographic distribution of trauma centers and injury-related mortality in the United States'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this