Quality improvement data analysis of a mass casualty event

Current trauma care system in Saudi Arabia: A scoping literature review

BACKGROUND

Trauma is one of the leading causes of death worldwide with millions of people dying each year, particularly in low or middle-income countries. This paper describes and evaluates the current trauma system (TS) in Saudi Arabia (SA).

METHODS

A scoping literature review was performed, incorporating an extensive search of Medline and Embase databases for refereed literature, as well as a search of grey literature to locate unpublished articles or reports in English or Arabic. All publications were assessed against the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma System Maturity Index (TSMI) and American College of Surgeon's (ACS) criteria.

RESULTS

Despite local injury prevention efforts, Motor Vehicle Crashes (MVC) remain the primary cause of injuries in SA. Prehospital trauma care in SA aligns with level III care as described in the WHO TSMI classification system, based on the presence of formal emergency medical services and universal access to care. With respect to the ACS classification, no clear written guidelines, either for field triage or trauma destination protocols such as trauma bypass, were identified in prehospital trauma care. The role of secondary and tertiary facilities in treating trauma patients is unclear, with no clear referral linkages, suggesting a level I to III grading of SA's trauma care facilities. Currently, there is no national or regional electronic trauma registry, no quality assurance program, and active involvement in research projects related to injuries is limited.

CONCLUSION

The current SA TS has strengths but there are key features missing in comparison to other systems globally. As MVCs remain a leading cause of death/ disability, efforts to reduce the prevalence and impact of MVC burden in SA through development of a stronger national TS are warranted.

Evidence for quality indicators to evaluate adult trauma care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Multiple quality indicators are available to evaluate adult trauma care, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been systematically compared. We sought to systematically review the evidence about the reliability, validity, and implementation of quality indicators for evaluating trauma care.

DATA SOURCES

Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 14, 2009; the Gray Literature; select journals by hand; reference lists; and articles recommended by experts in the field.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected that evaluated the reliability, validity, or the impact of one or more quality indicators on the quality of care delivered to patients ≥ 18 yrs of age with a major traumatic injury.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers with methodologic and content expertise conducted data extraction independently.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 40 articles were selected for review. Of these, 20 (50%) articles were cohort studies and 13 (33%) articles were case series. Five articles used control groups, including three before and after case series, a case-control study, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 115 quality indicators in adult trauma care was identified, predominantly measures of hospital processes (62%) and outcomes (17%) of care. We did not identify any posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Reliability was described for two quality indicators, content validity for 22 quality indicators, construct validity for eight quality indicators, and criterion validity for 46 quality indicators. A total of 58 quality indicators was implemented and evaluated in three studies. Eight quality indicators had supporting evidence for more than one measurement domain. A single quality indicator, peer review for preventable death, had both reliability and validity evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many quality indicators are available to measure the quality of trauma care, reliability evidence, validity evidence, and description of outcomes after implementation are limited.

Trauma care systems in Saudi Arabia: an agenda for action

Saudi Arabia is undergoing a rapid population growth that along with improved socioeconomics has led many individuals to own a car or even a number of cars per family, resulting in a greater number of vehicles on the roads. The reduced focus on good public transportation systems and the dependence on cars for transportation have created a diversity of drivers who are unfamiliar with the local driving rules and lack the basic skills for safe driving. This is in addition to some young drivers who frequently violate traffic laws and tend to speed most of the time. This unplanned expansion in road traffic has resulted in more car accidents, injuries, disabilities, and deaths. Accompanying that is an increased socioeconomic burden, depletion of human resources, emotional and psychological stress on families, and a strain on healthcare facilities. If this continues without prompt intervention, it will lead to increased insurance premiums and may become unmanageable. To minimize this impact, a national or regional multidisciplinary trauma system has to be developed and implemented. A trauma system is a preplanned, comprehensive, and coordinated regional injury response network that includes all facilities with the capability to care for the injured. Essential components of the system include trauma prevention, prehospital care, hospital care, rehabilitation, system administration, trauma care education and training, trauma care evaluation and quality improvement, along with the participation of society. Research has documented a significant decrease in morbidity and mortality from trauma after the implementation of such systems, depending on their efficiency. The purpose of this review is to discuss the problem of road traffic accidents in this country and address the trauma care system as an effective solution.

Development of an accelerated MSCT protocol (Triage MSCT) for mass casualty incidents: comparison to MSCT for single-trauma patients

During multiple casualty incidents (MCI) emergency radiology departments have to deal with a large number of patients with suspected severe trauma within a short period of time. The aim of this study was to develop a suitable accelerated multislice computed tomography (MSCT) protocol to increase patient throughput for this kind of emergency situation. We presumed a scenario of 15 patients being admitted to the trauma service with suspicion of severe injuries after a MCI over a period of 2 h. An accelerated Triage MSCT protocol was developed and evaluated for MSCT scanner productivity (patients per hour) and time (minutes) needed for a total MSCT body workup using an anthropomorphic phantom. In addition, time (minutes) for transfer and preparation was measured. These timeframes were compared to a control group consisting of 144 single patients with multiple trauma undergoing standard MSCT according to our trauma room protocol. All MSCT studies were conducted using a 4-detector row scanner. (1) For the study group (Triage MSCT), average time for patient transfer and preparation was 2.9 min (2.5-4.3 min), mean CT examination time was 2.1 min (1.7-2.4 min); image reconstruction took 4.0 min (3.3-4.3 min). Total time in scanner room was 8.9 min (7.7-11.3 min), resulting in a maximal productivity of 6.7 patients per hour. Image transfer to the digital picture archive and communication system archive was completed after an average 9.5 min (8.9-10.8 min). (2) For the control group (single casualty MSCT), the mean time for patient transfer and preparation was 20.4 min (9.0-39.2 min), mean examination time was 6.0 min (3.1-11.3 min). Times for image reconstructions were not recorded in the patient series. Mean total time in scanner room was 25.3 min (11.0-72.4 min), resulting in a patient throughput of 2.4 patients per hour. MSCT has potential to serve as a powerful tool in triage of multiple casualty patients. The introduction of a Triage MSCT scanning protocol resulted in an increase of patient throughput per hour by a factor of almost 3.