The television programmes ER (American) and Casualty (British) have proved so successful that there is now a technical subspecialty devoted to the simulation of the more gruesome side of injury, on which producers tend to dwell. Issues such as accident prevention, the basic science of trauma, and how injury services should be delivered, understandably, get neglected by television. Nor can a five-part Lancet series on trauma be comprehensive-eg, the role of imaging, the surgical management of fractures, and the special features of head injury are underplayed. However, the journal has been very fortunate to have as its series adviser Ronald V Maier, from Seattle, Washington, a state that takes service provision for trauma very seriously indeed. 1 Washington State's Office of Emergency Medical Services and Trauma Prevention. http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/emtp/oemsts.htm Google Scholar Maier wonders if the way trauma is handled could be a model for all medical services. 2 Maier RV Trauma: the paradigm for medical care in the 21st century. J Trauma. 2003; 54: 803-813 Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar The series' focus on injury prevention, the organisation of trauma teams and centres, and on the basic sciences accords with that view. Maier sees problems ahead, notably on funding and recruitment, but is proud of what has been achieved in the USA: “Trauma is not only the first specialty to self-assess how care can best be delivered, but importantly, also self-imposed a tiered triage system and regionalized care.” 2 Maier RV Trauma: the paradigm for medical care in the 21st century. J Trauma. 2003; 54: 803-813 Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar Starting this week and for the next four issues, The Lancet's trauma series will review recent progress and current controversy in: Development of trauma systems and effect on outcomes after injuryThe ideal system for management of trauma remains controversial, especially in respect of prehospital care and regionalisation of trauma-care delivery. To explore these issues, we compare two differing trauma systems—in the USA the focus is on the trauma centre, with a lesser emphasis on prehospital care, whereas in France there is more emphasis on prehospital care coordinated by the Service d'Aide Médicale Urgente. We describe the historical developments, current structure, and major controversies with regard to trauma-care delivery in the two countries. Full-Text PDF
Read full abstract