A survey of the implementation status of environmental management systems in U.S. colleges and universities, and, An environmental management system implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities

A census of 925 U.S. colleges and universities offering masters and doctorate degrees was conducted in order to study the number of elements of an environmental management system as defined by ISO 14001 possessed by small, medium and large institutions. A 30% response rate was received with 273 responses included in the final data analysis. Overall, the number of ISO 14001 elements implemented among the 273 institutions ranged from 0 to 16, with a median of 12. There was no significant association between the number of elements implemented among institutions and the size of the institution (p = 0.18; Kruskal-Wallis test) or among USEPA regions (p = 0.12; Kruskal-Wallis test). The proportion of U.S. colleges and universities that reported having implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, defined by answering yes to all 16 elements, was 10% (95% C.I. 6.6%–14.1%); however 38% (95% C.I. 32.0%–43.8%) reported that they had implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, while 30.0% (95% C.I. 24.7%–35.9%) are planning to implement a comprehensive environmental management system within the next five years. Stratified analyses were performed by institution size, Carnegie Classification and job title. ^ The Osnabruck model, and another under development by the South Carolina Sustainable Universities Initiative, are the only two environmental management system models that have been proposed specifically for colleges and universities, although several guides are now available. The Environmental Management System Implementation Model for U.S. Colleges and Universities developed is an adaptation of the ISO 14001 standard and USEPA recommendations and has been tailored to U.S. colleges and universities for use in streamlining the implementation process. In using this implementation model created for the U.S. research and academic setting, it is hoped that these highly specialized institutions will be provided with a clearer and more cost-effective path towards the implementation of an EMS and greater compliance with local, state and federal environmental legislation. ^

Penetrating injuries of the thorax and abdomen: Type of medical-care institution and case fatality

The purpose of this study was to determine, for penetrating injuries (gunshot, stab) of the chest/abdomen, the impact on fatality of treatment in trauma centers and shock trauma units compared with general hospitals. Medical records of all cases of penetrating injury limited to chest/abdomen and admitted to and discharged from 7 study facilities in Baltimore city 1979-1980 (n = 581) were studied: 4 general hospitals (n = 241), 2 area-wide trauma centers (n = 298), and a shock trauma unit (n = 42). Emergency center and transferred cases were not studied. Anatomical injury severity, measured by modified Injury Severity Score (mISS), was a significant prognostic factor for death, as were cardiovascular shock (SBP $\le$ 70), injury type (gunshot vs stab), and ambulance/helicopter (vs other) transport. All deaths occurred in cases with two or more prognostic factors. Unadjusted relative risks of death compared with general hospitals were 4.3 (95% confidence interval = 2.2, 8.4) for shock trauma and 0.8 (0.4, 1.7) for trauma centers. Controlling for prognostic factors by logistic regression resulted in these relative risks: shock trauma 4.0 (0.7, 22.2), and trauma centers 0.8 (0.2, 3.2). Factors significantly associated with increased risk had the following relative risks by multiple logistic regression: SBP $\le$ 70 (RR = 40.7 (11.0, 148.7)), highest mISS (42 (7.7, 227)), gunshot (8.4 (2.1, 32.6)), and ambulance/helicopter transport (17.2 (1.3, 228.1)). Controlling for age, race, and gender did not alter results significantly. Actual deaths compared with deaths predicted from a multivariable model of general-hospital cases showed 3.7 more than predicted deaths in shock trauma (SMR = 1.6 (0.8, 2.9)) and 0.7 more than predicted deaths in area-wide trauma centers (SMR = 1.05 (0.6, 1.7)). Selection bias due to exclusion of transfers and emergency center cases, and residual confounding due to insufficient injury information, may account for persistence of adjusted high case fatality in shock trauma. Studying all cases prospectively, including emergency center and transferred cases, is needed. ^