Evaluating potential disparities in geospatial access to American College of Surgeons/American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-verified emergency general surgery centers.

Background: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the American College of Surgeons have recently introduced emergency general surgery (EGS) center verification, which could enhance patient outcomes. Distance and resource availability may affect access to these centers, which has been linked to higher mortality. Although many patients can receive adequate care at community centers, those with critical conditions may require specialized treatment at EGS-verified centers. We aimed to evaluate geospatial access to potential EGS-verified centers and identify disparities across different scenarios of EGS verification program uptake in the United States.

Methods: We used hospital capabilities and verified pilot centers to estimate potential patterns of which centers would become EGS verified under four scenarios (EGS centers, high-volume EGS centers, high-volume EGS plus level 1 trauma centers, and quaternary referral centers). We calculated the spatial accessibility index using an enhanced two-step floating catchment technique to determine geospatial access for each scenario. We also evaluated social determinants of health across geospatial access using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI).

Results: A total of 1,932 hospitals were categorized as EGS centers, 307 as high-volume EGS centers, 401 as high-volume EGS plus level 1trauma centers, and 146 as quaternary centers. Spatial accessibility index decreased as the stringency of EGS verification increased in each scenario (226.6 [111.7-330.7], 51.8 [0-126.1], 71.52 [3.34-164.56], 6.2 [0-62.2]; p < 0.001). Within each scenario, spatial accessibility index also declined as the ADI quartile increased ( p < 0.001). The high-volume EGS plus level 1trauma center scenario had the most significant disparity in access between the first and fourth ADI quartiles (-54.68).

Conclusion: Access to EGS-verified centers may vary considerably based on the program's implementation. Disadvantaged communities may be disproportionately affected by limited access. Further work to study regional needs can allow a strategic implementation of the EGS verification program to optimize outcomes while minimizing disparities.

Level Of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.