Skip to main content

Table 3 RTC patient factors associated with inter-facility referral communication, AaBET Hospital, Addis Ababa

From: Ambulance use is not associated with patient acuity after road traffic collisions: a cross-sectional study from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Characteristic

Referral communication

Adjusted odds of communication

Yes (n = 224)

No

(n = 164)

N (%) a

N (%) a

aOR (95%CI)

Patient sex

 Female

82 (36.6)

50 (30.5)

1.0 (ref)

 Male

142 (63.4)

114 (69.5)

0.69 (0.43, 1.12)

Patient age

 < 13

11 (5.0)

12 (7.3)

0.73 (0.27, 1.97)

 13–24

66 (30.0)

50 (30.5)

0.98 (0.54, 1.79)

 25–40

93 (42.3)

61 (37.2)

1.38 (0.78, 2.45)

 > 40

50 (22.7)

41 (25.0)

1.0 (ref)

Patient origin

 Addis Ababa

64 (29.1)

40 (24.5)

1.32 (0.79, 2.20)

 Outside Addis

156 (70.9)

123 (75.5)

1.0 (ref)

Date of Arrival

 Weekday

171 (77.7)

104 (65.4)

1.74 (1.06, 2.85)

 Weekend

49 (22.3)

55 (34.6)

1.0 (ref)

Triage Acuityb,c

 Low Acuity

85 (38.8)

61 (38.9)

1.0 (ref)

 Moderate Acuity

102 (46.6)

69 (43.9)

1.11 (0.68, 1.79)

 High Acuity

32 (14.6)

27 (17.2)

0.98 (0.49, 1.94)

Referral source

 Referred from government hospital

130 (58.0)

121 (73.8)

0.55 (0.18, 1.68)

 Referred from health center

80 (35.7)

38 (23.2)

1.15 (0.36, 3.72)

 Referred from private institution

14 (6.2)

5 (3.0)

0 (ref)

Mode of arrival (transport)

 Ambulance

136 (66.0)

121 (77.6)

0 (ref)

 No ambulance

70 (34.0)

35 (22.4)

1.46 (0.88, 2.43)

  1. aPercent of non-missing data reported
  2. bSouth Africa Triage Scale acuity designations
  3. cHigh acuity includes very urgent, emergent, and dead on arrival. Dead on arrival grouped within very urgent or emergent due to presumed scene/pre-hospital acuity