Staff perceptions of the implementation of a trauma video review program at a level I trauma center

Enhancing patient safety in trauma: Understanding adverse events, assessment tools, and the role of trauma video review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate adverse events (AEs) in trauma resuscitation, evaluate contributing factors, and assess methods, such as trauma video review (TVR), to mitigate AEs.

BACKGROUND

Trauma remains a leading cause of global mortality and morbidity, necessitating effective trauma care. Despite progress, AEs during trauma resuscitation persist, impacting patient outcomes and the healthcare system. Identifying and analyzing AEs and their determinants are crucial for improving trauma care.

METHODS

This narrative review explored the definition, identification, and assessment of AEs associated with trauma resuscitation within the trauma system. It includes various studies and assessment tools such as STAT Taxonomy and T-NOTECHs. Additionally, it assessed the role of TVR in detecting AEs and strategies to enhance patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Integrated with standardized tools, TVR shows promise for identifying AEs. Challenges include ensuring reporting consistency and integrating approaches into existing protocols. Future research should prioritize linking trauma team performance to patient outcomes, and develop sustainable TVR programs to enhance patient safety.

Under the Lens: Team Perception of Trauma Video Review

BACKGROUND

Video-based assessment and review are becoming increasingly common, and trauma video review (TVR) has been shown to be an effective educational, quality improvement, and research tool. Yet, trauma team perception of TVR remains incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated positive and negative perceptions of TVR across multiple team member groups. We hypothesized that members of the trauma team would find TVR educational and that anxiety would be low across all groups.

METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was provided to nurses, trainees, and faculty during weekly multidisciplinary trauma performance improvement conference following each TVR activity. Surveys assessed perception of performance improvement and anxiety or apprehension (Likert scale: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"). We report individual and normalized cumulative scores (average of responses for each positive [n = 6] and negative [n = 4] question stem).

RESULTS

We analyzed 146 surveys over 8 months, with 100% completion rate. Respondents were trainees (58%), faculty (29%), and nurses (13%). Of the trainees, 73% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3 and 27% were PGY 4-9. Of all respondents, 84% had participated previously in a TVR conference. Respondents reported an improved perception of resuscitation education quality and personal leadership skills development. Participants found TVR to be more educational than punitive overall. Analysis of team member types showed lower scores for faculty for all positive stemmed questions. Trainees were more likely to agree with negative stemmed questions if they were a lower PGY, and nurses were least likely to agree with negative stemmed questions.

CONCLUSIONS

TVR improves trauma resuscitation education in a conference setting, with trainees and nurses reporting the greatest benefit. Nurses were noted to be the least apprehensive about TVR.