SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA, EMERGENCY TRANSPORT, AND PATIENT OUTCOME

Trauma and severe head injuries are important issues because they are prevalent, because they occur predominantly in the young, and because variations in clinical management may matter. Trauma is the leading cause of death for those under age 40. The focus of this head injury study is to determine if variations in time from the scene of accident to a trauma center hospital makes a difference in patient outcomes.^ A trauma registry is maintained in the Houston-Galveston area and includes all patients admitted to any one of three trauma center hospitals with mild or severe head injuries. A study cohort, derived from the Registry, includes 254 severe head injury cases, for 1980, with a Glasgow Coma Score of 8 or less.^ Multiple influences relate to patient outcomes from severe head injury. Two primary variables and four confounding variables are identified, including time to emergency room, time to intubation, patient age, severity of injury, type of injury and mode of transport to the emergency room. Regression analysis, analysis of variance, and chi-square analysis were the principal statistical methods utilized.^ Analysis indicates that within an urban setting, with a four-hour time span, variations in time to emergency room do not provide any strong influence or predictive value to patient outcome. However, data are suggestive that at longer time periods there is a negative influence on outcomes. Age is influential only when the older group (55-64) is included. Mode of transport (helicopter or ambulance) did not indicate any significant difference in outcome.^ In a multivariate regression model, outcomes are influenced primarily by severity of injury and age which explain 36% (R('2)) of variance. Inclusion of time to emergency room, time to intubation, transport mode and type injury add only 4% (R('2)) additional contribution to explaining variation in patient outcome.^ The research concludes that since the group most at risk to head trauma is the young adult male involved in automobile/motorcycle accidents, more may be gained by modifying driving habits and other preventive measures. Continuous clinical and evaluative research are required to provide updated clinical wisdom in patient management and trauma treatment protocols. A National Institute of Trauma may be required to develop a national public policy and evaluate the many medical, behavioral and social changes required to cope with the country's number 3 killer and the primary killer of young adults.^

'Reform' of the British national health service after the election of a labour government: Understanding the policy development process

The policy development process leading to the Labour government's white paper of December 1997—The new NHS: Modern, Dependable—is the focus of this project and the public policy development literature is used to aid in the understanding of this process. Policy makers who had been involved in the development of the white paper were interviewed in order to acquire a thorough understanding of who was involved in this process and how they produced the white paper. A theoretical framework is used that sorts policy development models into those that focus on knowledge and experience, and those which focus on politics and influence. This framework is central to understanding the evidence gathered from the individuals and associations that participated in this policy development process. The main research question to be asked in this project is to what extent do either of these sets of policy development models aid in understanding and explicating the process by which the Labour government's policies were developed. The interview evidence, along with published evidence, show that a clear pattern of policy change emerged from this policy development process, and the Knowledge-Experience and Politics-Influence policy making models both assist in understanding this process. The early stages of the policy development process were characterized as hierarchical and iterative, yet also very collaborative among those participating, with knowledge and experience being quite prevalent. At every point in the process, however, informal networks of political influence were used and noted to be quite prevalent by all of the individuals interviewed. The later stages of the process then became increasingly noninclusive, with decisions made by a select group of internal and external policy makers. These policy making models became an important tool with which to understand the policy development process. This Knowledge-Experience and Politics-Influence dichotomy of policy development models could therefore be useful in analyzing other types of policy development. ^

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The integration of science and policy

Under the Clean Air Act, Congress granted discretionary decision making authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This discretionary authority involves setting standards to protect the public's health with an "adequate margin of safety" based on current scientific knowledge. The Administrator of the EPA is usually not a scientist, and for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the Administrator faced the task of revising a standard when several scientific factors were ambiguous. These factors included: (1) no identifiable threshold below which health effects are not manifested, (2) no biological basis to explain the reported associations between particulate matter and adverse health effects, and (3) no consensus among the members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) as to what an appropriate PM indicator, averaging period, or value would be for the revised standard. ^ This project recommends and demonstrates a tool, integrated assessment (IA), to aid the Administrator in making a public health policy decision in the face of ambiguous scientific factors. IA is an interdisciplinary approach to decision making that has been used to deal with complex issues involving many uncertainties, particularly climate change analyses. Two IA approaches are presented; a rough set analysis by which the expertise of CASAC members can be better utilized, and a flag model for incorporating the views of stakeholders into the standard setting process. ^ The rough set analysis can describe minimal and maximal conditions about the current science pertaining to PM and health effects. Similarly, a flag model can evaluate agreement or lack of agreement by various stakeholder groups to the proposed standard in the PM review process. ^ The use of these IA tools will enable the Administrator to (1) complete the NAAQS review in a manner that is in closer compliance with the Clean Air Act, (2) expand the input from CASAC, (3) take into consideration the views of the stakeholders, and (4) retain discretionary decision making authority. ^