Search

Introduction: Childhood obesity is a serious concern in the United States, with over one third of the pediatric population classified as obese. Abdominal pain is one of the most common chief complaints among pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. We hypothesized that overweight and obese children being evaluated in the ED for abdominal pain would have higher resource utilization than their normal and underweight peers.Methods: This was a retrospective review of pediatric patients <18 years who presented with abdominal pain to the ED of a tertiary care center from January 1, 2014–September 3, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not have both a height and weight recorded. We categorized patients as underweight (body mass index [BMI] <5th percentile); normal weight (BMI 5th to <85th percentile), overweight (BMI 85th to<95th percentile); or obese (BMI ≥95th percentile). Descriptive statistics were used to examine the study population. We used chi-square tests to examine the differences in patient characteristics between normal/underweight patients and overweight/obese patients. The Kruskal-Wallis test was completed for examining differences in the medians. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine visit characteristics associated with overweight/obese patients, including ED interventions, testing, and length of stay (LOS).Results: Of the 184 subjects included in the analysis, nine (4.9%) were underweight, 108 (58.7%) werenormal weight, 21 (11.4%) were overweight, and 46 (25.0%) were obese. Patients with a BMI of ≥85th percentile were older (median 15 vs 13 years, P = 0.01). They were otherwise similar in demographics. There was no significant difference between normal/underweight and overweight/obese subjects in disposition (37% vs 43% discharge, P = 0.38), 72-hour return (7% vs 6%, P = 0.82), ED LOS (median 4.42 vs 3.95 hours, P = 0.195), or inpatient LOS (median 42.0 vs 34.2 hours, P = 0.06). There were no statistically significant differ

BACKGROUND: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. METHODS: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSIONS: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Study objectiveWe determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis.ResultsDiagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed.ConclusionIn late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infecti

Introduction: Ketamine is commonly used to treat profound agitation in the prehospital setting. Early in ketamine’s prehospital use, intubation after arrival in the emergency department (ED) was frequent. We sought to measure the frequency of ED intubation at a Midwest academic medical center after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation, hypothesizing that intubation has become less frequent as prehospital ketamine has become more common and prehospital dosing has improved. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving ketamine in the prehospital setting for profound agitation and transported to a midwestern, 60,000-visit, Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2017–- March 1, 2021. We report descriptive analyses of patient-level prehospital clinical data and ED outcomes. The primary outcome was proportion of patients intubated in the ED.  Results: A total of 78 patients received ketamine in the prehospital setting (69% male, mean age 36 years). Of the 42 (54%) admitted patients, 15 (36% of admissions) were admissions to the intensive care unit. Overall, 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]), 4.5-18.6%)] of patients were intubated, and indications included agitation (n = 4), airway protection not otherwise specified (n = 4), and respiratory failure (n = 1).  Conclusion: Endotracheal intubation in the ED after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation in our study sample was found to be less than previously reported.

Introduction: Mental health and substance use disorder (MHSUD) patients in the emergency department (ED) have been facing increasing lengths of stay due to a shortage of inpatient beds. Previous research indicates mobile crisis outreach (MCO) reduces long ED stays for MHSUD patients. Our objective was to assess the impact of MCO contact on future ED utilization. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a large Midwest university ED with an MHSUD chief complaint from 2015–2018. We defined the exposure as those who had MCO contact and any MHSUD-related ED visit within 30 days of MCO contact. The MCO patients were 2:1 propensity score–matched by demographic data and comorbidities matched to patients with no MCO contact. Outcomes were all-cause and psychiatric-specific reasons for return to the ED within one year of the index ED visit. We report descriptive statistics and odds ratios (OR) to describe the difference between the two groups, and hazard ratios (HR) to estimate the risk of return ED visit.  Results: The final sample included 106 MCO and 196 non-MCO patients. The MCO patients were more likely to be homeless (OR 14.8; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.87, 117), less likely to have adequate family or social support (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.84), and less likely to have a hospital bed requested for them in the index visit by ED providers (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.88). For those who returned to the ED, the median time for all-cause return to the ED was 28 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 6–93 days) for the MCO patients and 88 days (IQR: 20–164 days) for non-MCO patients. The risk of all-cause return to the ED was greater among MCO patients (67%) compared to non-MCO patients (49%) (adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.22, 2.27).  Conclusion: The MCO patients had less family and social support; however, they were less likely to require hospitalization for each visit, likely due to MCO involvement. Patients with MCO contact present

Study objectiveAmong a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety.MethodsIn a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants' self-reported anxiety.ResultsOf 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reportin

Introduction: Mental health and substance use disorder (MHSUD) patients in the emergency department (ED) have been facing increasing lengths of stay due to a shortage of inpatient beds. Previous research indicates mobile crisis outreach (MCO) reduces long ED stays for MHSUD patients. Our objective was to assess the impact of MCO contact on future ED utilization. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a large Midwest university ED with an MHSUD chief complaint from 2015–2018. We defined the exposure as those who had MCO contact and any MHSUD-related ED visit within 30 days of MCO contact. The MCO patients were 2:1 propensity score–matched by demographic data and comorbidities matched to patients with no MCO contact. Outcomes were all-cause and psychiatric-specific reasons for return to the ED within one year of the index ED visit. We report descriptive statistics and odds ratios (OR) to describe the difference between the two groups, and hazard ratios (HR) to estimate the risk of return ED visit.  Results: The final sample included 106 MCO and 196 non-MCO patients. The MCO patients were more likely to be homeless (OR 14.8; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.87, 117), less likely to have adequate family or social support (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.84), and less likely to have a hospital bed requested for them in the index visit by ED providers (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.88). For those who returned to the ED, the median time for all-cause return to the ED was 28 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 6–93 days) for the MCO patients and 88 days (IQR: 20–164 days) for non-MCO patients. The risk of all-cause return to the ED was greater among MCO patients (67%) compared to non-MCO patients (49%) (adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.22, 2.27).  Conclusion: The MCO patients had less family and social support; however, they were less likely to require hospitalization for each visit, likely due to MCO involvement. Patients with MCO contact present

Introduction: Ketamine is commonly used to treat profound agitation in the prehospital setting. Early in ketamine’s prehospital use, intubation after arrival in the emergency department (ED) was frequent. We sought to measure the frequency of ED intubation at a Midwest academic medical center after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation, hypothesizing that intubation has become less frequent as prehospital ketamine has become more common and prehospital dosing has improved. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving ketamine in the prehospital setting for profound agitation and transported to a midwestern, 60,000-visit, Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2017–- March 1, 2021. We report descriptive analyses of patient-level prehospital clinical data and ED outcomes. The primary outcome was proportion of patients intubated in the ED.  Results: A total of 78 patients received ketamine in the prehospital setting (69% male, mean age 36 years). Of the 42 (54%) admitted patients, 15 (36% of admissions) were admissions to the intensive care unit. Overall, 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]), 4.5-18.6%)] of patients were intubated, and indications included agitation (n = 4), airway protection not otherwise specified (n = 4), and respiratory failure (n = 1).  Conclusion: Endotracheal intubation in the ED after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation in our study sample was found to be less than previously reported.

Study objectiveAmong a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety.MethodsIn a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants' self-reported anxiety.ResultsOf 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reportin

Study objectiveWe determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis.ResultsDiagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed.ConclusionIn late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infecti

Introduction: Distal forearm fractures (DFF) account for 1.5% of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Clinicians frequently obtain imaging above/below the location of injury to rule out additional injuries. We sought to determine the incidence of associated proximal fractures (APF) in the setting of DFF and to evaluate the imaging practices in a nationally representative sample of EDs.Methods: We queried the 2013 National Emergency Department Sample using International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnostic codes for DFF and APF. Current Procedural Technology codes identified associated imaging studies. We calculated national estimates using a weighted analysis of patient and hospital-level characteristics associated with APF and imaging practices. An analysis of costs estimated the financial impact of additional imaging in patients with DFF using Medicare reimbursement to approximate costs according to the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.Results: In 2013, an estimated 297,755 ED visits (weighted) were associated with a DFF, of which 1.6% (4836 cases) had an APF. The incidence of APF was lower among females (odds ratio [OR] (0.76); 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.91) but higher in metropolitan teaching hospitals compared to metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (OR [2.39]; 95% CI, 1.43-3.99) and Level 1 trauma centers (OR [3.9]; 95%, 1.91-7.96) compared to non-trauma centers. Approximately 40% (n = 117,948) of those with only DFF received non-wrist radiographs and 19% (n = 55,236) underwent non-wrist/non-forearm imaging. Factors independently associated with additional imaging included gender, payer, patient and hospital rurality, hospital region, teaching status, ownership, and trauma center level. Nearly $3.6 million (2018 U.S. dollars) was spent on the aforementioned additional imaging.Conclusion: Despite the frequency of proximal imaging in patients with DFF, the incidence of APF was low. Further study to identify risk fac

Introduction: Distal forearm fractures (DFF) account for 1.5% of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Clinicians frequently obtain imaging above/below the location of injury to rule out additional injuries. We sought to determine the incidence of associated proximal fractures (APF) in the setting of DFF and to evaluate the imaging practices in a nationally representative sample of EDs.Methods: We queried the 2013 National Emergency Department Sample using International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnostic codes for DFF and APF. Current Procedural Technology codes identified associated imaging studies. We calculated national estimates using a weighted analysis of patient and hospital-level characteristics associated with APF and imaging practices. An analysis of costs estimated the financial impact of additional imaging in patients with DFF using Medicare reimbursement to approximate costs according to the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.Results: In 2013, an estimated 297,755 ED visits (weighted) were associated with a DFF, of which 1.6% (4836 cases) had an APF. The incidence of APF was lower among females (odds ratio [OR] (0.76); 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.91) but higher in metropolitan teaching hospitals compared to metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (OR [2.39]; 95% CI, 1.43-3.99) and Level 1 trauma centers (OR [3.9]; 95%, 1.91-7.96) compared to non-trauma centers. Approximately 40% (n = 117,948) of those with only DFF received non-wrist radiographs and 19% (n = 55,236) underwent non-wrist/non-forearm imaging. Factors independently associated with additional imaging included gender, payer, patient and hospital rurality, hospital region, teaching status, ownership, and trauma center level. Nearly $3.6 million (2018 U.S. dollars) was spent on the aforementioned additional imaging.Conclusion: Despite the frequency of proximal imaging in patients with DFF, the incidence of APF was low. Further study to identify risk fac

Introduction: National studies of largely urban populations showed increased risk of traumatic death among uninsured patients, as compared to those insured. No similar studies have been done for major trauma centers serving rural states. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses using trauma registry records from adult, non-burn patients admitted to a single American College of Surgeons-certified Level 1 trauma center in a rural state (2003-2010, n=13,680) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) registry records (2002-2008, n=380,182). Risk of traumatic death was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We found that 9% of trauma center patients and 27% of NTDB patients were uninsured. Overall mortality was similar for both (~4.5%). After controlling for covariates, uninsured trauma center patients were almost five times more likely to die and uninsured NTDB patients were 75% more likely to die than commercially insured patients. The risk of death among Medicaid patients was not significantly different from the commercially insured for either dataset. Conclusion: Our results suggest that even with an inclusive statewide trauma system and an emergency department that does not triage by payer status, uninsured patients presenting to the trauma center were at increased risk of traumatic death relative to patients with commercial insurance.

Introduction: National studies of largely urban populations showed increased risk of traumatic death among uninsured patients, as compared to those insured. No similar studies have been done for major trauma centers serving rural states. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses using trauma registry records from adult, non-burn patients admitted to a single American College of Surgeons-certified Level 1 trauma center in a rural state (2003-2010, n=13,680) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) registry records (2002-2008, n=380,182). Risk of traumatic death was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We found that 9% of trauma center patients and 27% of NTDB patients were uninsured. Overall mortality was similar for both (~4.5%). After controlling for covariates, uninsured trauma center patients were almost five times more likely to die and uninsured NTDB patients were 75% more likely to die than commercially insured patients. The risk of death among Medicaid patients was not significantly different from the commercially insured for either dataset. Conclusion: Our results suggest that even with an inclusive statewide trauma system and an emergency department that does not triage by payer status, uninsured patients presenting to the trauma center were at increased risk of traumatic death relative to patients with commercial insurance.