Current Trauma Status Report - Southern Nevada Health District

Dominican-Siena could effectively manage the associated increased demands. There were also
concerns raised by many of the hospital staff interviewed that both Sunrise and St. Rose had current
capacity problems with ED diversion and ambulance offload times and that the addition of a trauma
center would increase this problem at their hospitals.
Additional recommendations generally included adding a trauma center in the east side of town in the
Desert Springs/Sunrise area; in the north and southern parts of town; in the south; in the northeast
and in the south; and in North Las Vegas. A minority did not think there should be any additional
trauma centers.
A prevalent comment was the feeling of risk that by having only one trauma center the community
would be vulnerable. The history of UMC closing for 10 days during July of 2002 due to malpractice
issues significantly increased the concern that the hospitals have as to the lack of back up and the risk
that their ED might need to act as the backup trauma center again.
Some respondents felt governance should be at the state level, while others felt it should be at the
local level. Among those who favored local governance, Clark County Health District was the most
preferred agency, although there was some concern about Clark County Health District perceived as
being “political” or “tied” to UMC. Another suggestion was that the State govern in conjunction with
the Medical Advisory Board. Some respondents suggested that the governance design should be
based on what works best elsewhere.
Regarding a special trauma committee, a common recommendation was that the a multidisciplinary
committee be created with trauma center representatives, Medical Advisory Board (MAB), Facility
Advisory Board (FAB) representatives, fire representative, ambulance representatives, and possibly a
community representative. There was much concern that the leadership entity not be politically based,
and it was suggested that it not include elected officials and that it be independent from the MAB. It
was also suggested that Clark County Health District participate. Expertise was mentioned as a desired
trait, and it was suggested that the membership include trauma surgeons. Another suggestion was
that the trauma committee be independent of the stakeholders in Las Vegas, for example ACS or
retired trauma surgeons.
Concern about the trauma registry was expressed by some respondents. Data collection was reported
to be time consuming given a lack of electronic data, the data were reported to be understated, and
the registry reports were reported to not be timely.
UMC Trauma Center
UMC reported that strengths of the trauma system include broad support of administrative and
medical staff, physical plant, and demonstrated high quality care due to solely dedicated resources.
Reported weaknesses of the trauma system include the statewide medical liability climate,
uncompensated care, concerns about the potential for exacerbation of over-triage with
implementation of new triage criteria (April 1, 2004), and longer transport times from the growing
southern regions and northwest.
Regarding additional trauma centers, UMC reported that they view growth as an important and
needed consideration, because the current catchment area is stretched, especially in the south. It is
believed that a new trauma center is needed and but must be strategically placed. They reported that
the mountains act as a natural barrier so that there will be limited east/west growth, and the growth is
mostly in the south. UMC recommended a Level III facility in the southeast within the next two to
Page 25