Abstract: An initial profile of the demographics and current practice of Australian trauma nurse coordinators (TNCs) was conducted in 2003. The study identified common and differing role components, provided information to assist with establishing national parameters for the role, and identified the resources perceived necessary to enable the role to be performed effectively. This article compares the findings of the 2003 study with a 2007 survey, expanded to include New Zealand trauma coordinators. Forty-nine people, identified as working in a TNC capacity in Australia and New Zealand, were invited to participate in February 2007. Participation in the research enabled an update of the previously compiled Australia/New Zealand trauma network list. Thirty-six surveys (71.5% response rate) were returned. Descriptive statistics were undertaken for each item, and comparisons were made among states, territories, and countries. Participants reported that most of their time was spent fulfilling the trauma registry component of the role (27% of total hours), followed by quality and clinical activities (19% of total hours), education, and administration. The component associated with the least amount of time was outreach (3% of total hours). Although the proportion of time has almost halved since 2003, TNCs still spend the most time maintaining trauma registries. Compared to the 2003 survey, Australian and New Zealand TNCs are working more unpaid overtime, spending more time performing quality and clinical activities and less time doing data entry. Despite where one works, the role components identified are fulfilled to a certain extent. However, the authors conclude that trauma centres need to provide the TNC with adequate resources if trauma care systems are to be optimally effective

Abstract: With the intention of decreasing emergency department demand, there has been a focus on determining those patients who do not require the services of the emergency department so they can be redirected away to an alternative health care provider or facility. Co-locating an after-hours primary health care facility near to the emergency department is a model under consideration in some district health boards. This model suggests that a substantial proportion of the patients currently managed in the emergency department can be assessed and managed in a general practice setting. It is envisaged that by redirecting the lower acuity patients away from the emergency department, overcrowding will be relieved. This is despite evidence demonstrating that low acuity patients are not the cause of emergency department overcrowding. Moreover, being treated at the emergency department is the only safety net for many people in the community who cannot afford alternative care. This research report discusses the literature regarding the practice of referring or redirecting patients away from the emergency department and the issues associated with this model. In doing this, it looks at the Australasian Triage Scale, the system used to ensure patients are seen in order of clinical urgency, because it has been suggested that this system could be used as a tool to refer patients away from the emergency department. The author concludes that even though some people could be seen by another health care provider, the triage system is not an appropriate tool for achieving this. While it is tempting to believe that patients in the lower triage categories are prime candidates for being referred away, there is evidence from hospital statistics that patients in these categories have a high number of hospital admissions and in-hospital death rates. Additionally, to complicate matters, there is no universal definition of what constitutes an 'appropriate' emergemcy department presentation and no consensus of opinion amongst health professionals in deciding patients' 'appropriateness'. For these reasons it is unethical to expect nurses who administer the triage system to use it for the purpose of referring people away from the emergency department.