Potential demands, fatalities, overlaid into the hexagonal tessellations.

Potential demands, fatalities, overlaid into the hexagonal tessellations.</p

Number of trauma centers by different model application.

Number of trauma centers by different model application.</p

Spatial distribution of trauma centers’ 60-minute TDCs of 2019 and fatality of motor vehicle accidents in the Southeastern region.

Spatial distribution of trauma centers’ 60-minute TDCs of 2019 and fatality of motor vehicle accidents in the Southeastern region.</p

Percentage of covered demands by state.

Accessibility to trauma centers is vital for the patients of severe motor vehicle crashes. Many vehicle crash fatalities failed to reach the proper emergency medical services since the accident location was far away from trauma centers. The spatial discordance between the service coverage area of trauma centers and actual locations of motor vehicle accidents delays the definitive medical care and results in death or disability. Many fatalities would have been prevented if the patients had a chance to get proper treatment in time at Southeastern region of the U.S. Also, the accessibility to trauma centers from the actual locations of motor vehicle accidents is different in the Southeastern region. This research aimed to facilitate the accessibility to trauma centers for severe motor vehicle crash patients in the Southeastern region. The analyses are conducted to assess current trauma center accessibility and suggest the optimal locations of future trauma centers using the Anti-covering location model for trauma centers (TraCt model). This study found that existing trauma centers failed to serve many demands, and the actual coverages of the current locations of trauma centers over potential demands are highly different in each Southeastern state. TraCt model is applied to each Southeastern state, and its solutions provide better coverage for demand locations. However, the TraCt model for each state tends to choose too many facilities, with excessively supplied facilities across the Southeastern region. The excessive service supply issue is addressed by applying the TraCt Model to a broader spatial extent. TraCt model applied to the entire Southeastern region and most of the demand, over 98% covered by the service coverage of optimal facility locations with 15 additional facilities. This research proves that the GIS and TraCt model applied to the broader spatial extent works well with increasing trauma medical service beneficiaries while providing a minimum number of additional facilities.</div

Optimal location of trauma centers selected by the <i>TraCt</i> model for each Southeastern state.

Optimal location of trauma centers selected by the TraCt model for each Southeastern state.</p

Potential demands covered by the trauma centers in each state of the Southeastern region, 2019.

Potential demands covered by the trauma centers in each state of the Southeastern region, 2019.</p

<i>Phi</i> correlation coefficient between coverage of trauma centers by current locations and optimal solutions from the <i>TraCt</i> model.

Phi correlation coefficient between coverage of trauma centers by current locations and optimal solutions from the TraCt model.</p

Number of facilities by location, whether within or outside the state borders.

Number of facilities by location, whether within or outside the state borders.</p

Summary for three different model’s number of facilities and demand coverages.

Summary for three different model’s number of facilities and demand coverages.</p

Spatial distribution of trauma centers in 2019 and selected by the <i>TraCt</i> model for the Southeastern region.

Spatial distribution of trauma centers in 2019 and selected by the TraCt model for the Southeastern region.</p