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

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b).

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

Development of a set of quality indicators in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan with a modified Delphi method

BACKGROUNDS

Few paediatric and perinatal quality indicators (QIs) have been developed in the Japanese setting, and the quality of care is not assured or validated. The aim of this study was to develop QIs in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database and confirm the feasibility and applicability of the indicators using a single-site practice test.

METHODS

We used a RAND-modified Delphi method that integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. QI candidates were generated from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available in English or Japanese and existing QIs in nine selected paediatric or perinatal conditions. Consensus building was based on independent panel ratings. The performance of QIs was retrospectively assessed using data from an administrative database at the National Children's Hospital. Data between April 2018 and March 2019 were used, while data between April 2019 and March 2021 were also used for selected condition, considering the small number of patients. Each QI was calculated as follows: number of times the indicator was met/number of participants×100.

RESULTS

From the literature review conducted between 2010 and 2020, 124 CPGs and 193 existing indicators were identified to generate QI candidates. Through the consensus-building process, 133 QI candidates were assessed and 79 QIs were accepted. The practice test revealed wide variations in the process-level performance of QIs in four categories: patient safety: median 43.9% (IQR 16.7%-85.6%), general paediatrics: median 98.8% (IQR 84.2%-100%), advanced paediatrics: median 94.4% (IQR 46.0%-100%) and advanced obstetrics: median 80.3% (IQR 59.6%-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

We established 79 QIs for paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database that can be applied to hospitals nationwide. The practice test confirmed the measurability of the developed QIs. Benchmarking these QIs will be an attractive approach to improving the quality of care.

Indicators for the evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma systems: A scoping review and Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Musculoskeletal trauma results in the majority of post-traumatic morbidity and disability globally. The literature has reported many performance indicators relating to trauma care, but few specific to musculoskeletal injuries.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to establish a practical list of performance indicators to evaluate and monitor the quality and equity of musculoskeletal trauma care delivery in health systems worldwide.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed that identified performance indicators related to musculoskeletal trauma care. Indicators were organized by phase of care (general, prevention, pre-hospital, hospital, post-hospital) within a modified Donabedian model (structure, process, outcome, equity). A panel of 21 experts representing 45 countries was assembled to identify priority indicators utilizing a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 1,206 articles and 114 underwent full text review. We included 95 articles which reported 498 unique performance indicators. Most indicators related to the hospital phase of care (n = 303, 60%) and structural characteristics (n = 221, 44%). Mortality (n = 50 articles) and presence of trauma registries (n = 16 articles) were the most frequently reported indicators. After 3 rounds of surveys our panel reached consensus on a parsimonious list of priority performance indicators. These focused on access to trauma care; processes and key resources for polytrauma triage, patient stabilization, and hemorrhage control; reduction and immobilization of fractures and dislocations; and management of compartment syndrome and open fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature has reported many performance indicators relating to trauma care, but few specific to musculoskeletal injuries. To create quality and equitable trauma systems, musculoskeletal care must be incorporated into development plans with continuous monitoring and improvement. The performance indicators identified by our expert panel and organized in a modified Donabedian model can serve as a method for evaluating musculoskeletal trauma care.

The role of autopsy on the diagnosis of missed injuries and on the trauma quality program goal definitions: study of 192 cases

OBJECTIVE

to assess the role of autopsy in the diagnosis of missed injuries (MI) and definition of trauma quality program goals.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of autopsy reports and patient's charts. Injuries present in the autopsy, but not in the chart, were defined as "missed". MI were characterized using Goldman's criteria: Class I, if the diagnosis would have modified the management and outcome; Class II, if it would have modified the management, but not the outcome; Class III, if it would not have modified neither the management nor the outcome. We used Mann-Whitney's U and Pearson's chi square for statistical analysis, considering p<0.05 as significant.

RESULTS

We included 192 patients, with mean age of 56.8 years. Blunt trauma accounted for 181 cases, and 28.6% were due to falls from the same level. MI were diagnosed in 39 patients (20.3%). Using Goldman's criteria, MI were categorized as Class I in 3 (1.6%) and Class II in 11 (5.6%). MI were more often diagnosed in the thoracic segment (25 patients, 64.1% of the MI). The variables significantly associated (p<0.05) to MI were: time of hospitalization < 48 h, severe trauma mechanism, and not undergoing surgery or computed tomography. At autopsy, the values of ISS and NISS were higher in patients with MI.

CONCLUSION

the review of the autopsy report allowed diagnosis of MIs, which did not influence outcome in their majority. Many opportunities of improvement in quality of care were identified.

Length of stay as quality indicator in emergency departments: analysis of determinants in the German Emergency Department Data Registry (AKTIN registry)

Several indicators reflect the quality of care within emergency departments (ED). The length of stay (LOS) of emergency patients represents one of the most important performance measures. Determinants of LOS have not yet been evaluated in large cohorts in Germany. This study analyzed the fixed and influenceable determinants of LOS by evaluating data from the German Emergency Department Data Registry (AKTIN registry). We performed a retrospective evaluation of all adult (age ≥ 18 years) ED patients enrolled in the AKTIN registry for the year 2019. Primary outcome was LOS for the whole cohort; secondary outcomes included LOS stratified by (1) patient-related, (2) organizational-related and (3) structure-related factors. Overall, 304,606 patients from 12 EDs were included. Average LOS for all patients was 3 h 28 min (95% CI 3 h 27 min-3 h 29 min). Regardless of other variables, patients admitted to hospital stayed 64 min longer than non-admitted patients. LOS increased with patients' age, was shorter for walk-in patients compared to medical referral, and longer for non-trauma presenting complaints. Relevant differences were also found for acuity level, day of the week, and emergency care levels. We identified different factors influencing the duration of LOS in the ED. Total LOS was dependent on patient-related factors (age), disease-related factors (presentation complaint and triage level), and organizational factors (weekday and admitted/non-admitted status). These findings are important for the development of management strategies to optimize patient flow through the ED and thus to prevent overcrowding.

Designing and conducting initial application of a performance assessment model for in-hospital trauma care

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a major cause of death worldwide, especially in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). The increase in health care costs and the differences in the quality of provided services indicates the need for trauma care evaluation. This study was done to develop and use a performance assessment model for in-hospital trauma care focusing on traffic injures.

METHODS

This multi-method study was conducted in three main phases of determining indicators, model development, and model application. Trauma care performance indicators were extracted through literature review and confirmed using a two-round Delphi survey and experts' perspectives. Two focus group discussions and 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted to design the prototype. In the next step, components and the final form of the model were confirmed following pre-determined factors, including importance and necessity, simplicity, clarity, and relevance. Finally, the model was tested by applying it in a trauma center.

RESULTS

A total of 50 trauma care indicators were approved after reviewing the literature and obtaining the experts' views. The final model consisted of six components of assessment level, teams, methods, scheduling, frequency, and data source. The model application revealed problems of a selected trauma center in terms of information recording, patient deposition, some clinical services, waiting time for deposit, recording medical errors and complications, patient follow-up, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Performance assessment with an appropriate model can identify deficiencies and failures of services provided in trauma centers. Understanding the current situation is one of the main requirements for designing any quality improvement programs.

Improving Serious Illness Care for Surgical Patients: Quality Indicators for Surgical Palliative Care

OBJECTIVE

Develop quality indicators that measure access to and the quality of primary PC delivered to seriously ill surgical patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

PC for seriously ill surgical patients, including aligning treatments with patients' goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by a lack of surgical quality indicators to evaluate primary PC delivery.

METHODS

We developed a set of 27 preliminary indicators that measured palliative processes of care across the surgical episode, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative surgery. Then using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of each indicator twice: (1) remotely and (2) after an in-person moderated discussion.

RESULTS

After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the preoperative evaluation (9 indicators), immediate preoperative readiness (2 indicators), intraoperative (1 indicator), postoperative (8 indicators), and end of life (4 indicators) phases of surgical care.

CONCLUSIONS

This set of quality indicators provides a comprehensive set of process measures that possess the potential to measure high quality PC for seriously ill surgical patients throughout the surgical episode.

Valor da autópsia no diagnóstico de lesões despercebidas e na definição de metas para programa de qualidade em trauma: estudo de 192 casos

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a utilidade da autópsia no diagnóstico de lesões despercebidas (LD) e no estabelecimento de metas para programa de qualidade em trauma. Método: análise retrospectiva dos laudos de autópsia por trauma entre outubro/2017 e março/2019 provenientes do mesmo hospital. Lesões descritas na autópsia, mas não no prontuário médico, foram consideradas como despercebidas (LD) e classificadas pelos critérios de Goldman: Classe I: mudariam a conduta e alterariam o desfecho; Classe II: mudariam a conduta, mas não o desfecho; Classe III: não mudariam nem a conduta nem o desfecho. As variáveis coletadas foram comparadas entre o grupo com LD e os demais, através de método estatístico orientado por profissional na área. Consideramos p<0,05 como significativo. Resultados: analisamos 192 casos, com média etária de 56,8 anos. O trauma fechado foi o mecanismo em 181 casos, sendo 28,6% por quedas da própria altura. LD foram observadas em 39 casos (20,3%), sendo 3 (1,6%) classe I e 11 (5,6%) classe II. O tórax foi o segmento com maior número de LD (25 casos - 64,1% das LD). Foram associados à presença de LD (p<0,05): tempo de internação menor que 48 horas, mecanismo de trauma grave e a não realização de procedimento cirúrgico ou tomografia. Nos óbitos até 48h, valores de ISS e NISS nas autópsias foram maiores que os da internação. Conclusão: a revisão das autópsias permitiu identificação de LD, na sua maioria sem influência sobre conduta e prognóstico. Mesmo assim, várias oportunidades foram criadas para o programa de qualidade.

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).

METHODS

We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.

RESULTS

Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Delayed Diagnosis of Injury in Pediatric Trauma Patients at a Level I Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Trauma care per Advanced Trauma Life Support addresses immediate threats to life. Occasionally, delays in injury diagnosis occur. Delayed diagnosis of injury (DDI) is a common quality indicator in trauma care, and pediatric DDI data are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to describe the DDI rate in a severely injured pediatric trauma population and identify any factors associated with DDI in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of trauma activations in 0- to 16-year-old patients admitted to a pediatric level I trauma center over 12 months with injuries prospectively recorded were followed during admission to identify DDI.

RESULTS

A total of 170 trauma activations were enrolled. Twelve patients had type I DDI (7.1%), 15 patients had type II DDI (8.8%), and 5 patients had both type I and type II DDI (2.9%). DDI patients had twice as many injuries and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) as non-DDI patients. DDI patients were more likely to require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, longer hospital stay, and ventilator support. Controlling for age and ISS in multivariate analysis, the number of injuries found and requiring a ventilator were significantly associated with DDI.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study found a type I DDI rate of 7.1% and a type II DDI rate of 8.8% in the pediatric population. DDI patients had a greater number of injuries, higher ISS, higher rate of ICU admission, and were more likely to require mechanical ventilation. This study adds prospective data to the pediatric DDI literature, increases provider awareness of pediatric DDI, and lays the foundation for future study and quality improvement.

What happens in the shock room stays in the shock room? A time-based audio/video audit framework for trauma team performance analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

A precise tool for analysis of trauma team performance is missing.

Evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department (ENQuIRE): study protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Quality of emergency department (ED) care affects patient outcomes substantially. Quality indicators (QIs) for ED care are a major challenge due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, health care structures and processes in Germany. Although a number of quality measures are already in use, there is a paucity of data on the importance of these QIs on medium-term and long-term outcomes. The evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department study (ENQuIRE) aims to identify and investigate the relevance of QIs in the ED on patient outcomes in a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is a prospective non-interventional multicentre cohort study conducted in 15 EDs throughout Germany. Included are all patients in 2019, who were ≥18 years of age, insured at the Techniker Krankenkasse (statutory health insurance (SHI)) and gave their written informed consent to the study.The primary objective of the study is to assess the effect of selected quality measures on patient outcome. The data collected for this purpose comprise medical records from the ED treatment, discharge (claims) data from hospitalised patients, a patient questionnaire to be answered 6-8 weeks after emergency admission, and outcome measures in a 12-month follow-up obtained as claims data from the SHI.Descriptive and analytical statistics will be applied to provide summaries about the characteristics of QIs and associations between quality measures and patient outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval of the leading ethics committee at the Medical Faculty of the University of Magdeburg (reference number 163/18 from 19 November 2018) has been obtained and adapted by responsible local ethics committees.The findings of this work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations as conference contributions (abstracts, poster or oral presentations).Moreover, results will be discussed with clinical experts and medical associations before being proposed for implementation into the quality management of EDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00015203); Pre-results.

Factors analysis on the use of key quality indicators for narrowing the gap of quality of care of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There are differences in the quality of care among breast cancer patients. Narrowing the quality differences could be achieved by increasing the utilization rate of indicators. Here we explored key indicators that can improve the quality of care and factors that may affect the use of these indicators.

METHODS

A total of 3669 breast cancer patients were included in our retrospective study. We calculated patient quality-of-care composite score based on patient average method. Patients were divided into high- and low-quality groups according to the mean score. We obtained the indicators with large difference in utilization between the two groups. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to analyze the factors influencing quality of care and use of indicators.

RESULTS

The mean composite score was 0.802, and the number of patients in the high- and low-quality groups were 1898 and 1771, respectively. Four indicators showed a difference in utilization between the two groups of over 40%. Histological grade, pathological stage, tumor size and insurance type were the factors affecting the quality of care. In single indicator evaluation, besides the above factors, age, patient income and number of comorbidities may also affect the use of these four indicators. Number of comorbidities may have opposite effects on the use of different indicators, as does pathological stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying key indicators for enhancing the quality-of-care of breast cancer patients and factors that affect the indicator adherence may provide guides for enhancing the utilization rate of these indicators in clinical practice.

Indicators to measure prehospital care quality: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to locate, examine and describe the literature on indicators used to measure prehospital care quality.

INTRODUCTION

The performance of ambulance services and quality of prehospital care has traditionally been measured using simple indicators, such as response time intervals, based on low-level evidence. The discipline of paramedicine has evolved significantly over the last few decades. Consequently, the validity of utilizing such measures as holistic prehospital care quality indicators (QIs) has been challenged. There is growing interest in finding new and more significant ways to measure prehospital care quality.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review examined the concepts of prehospital care quality and QIs developed for ambulance services. This review considered primary and secondary research in any paradigm and utilizing any methods, as well as text and opinion research.

METHODS

Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting scoping reviews was employed. Separate searches were conducted for two review questions; review question 1 addressed the definition of prehospital care quality and review question 2 addressed characteristics of QIs in the context of prehospital care. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The searches were limited to publications from January 1, 2000 to the day of the search (April 16, 2017). Non-English articles were excluded. To supplement the above, searches for gray literature were performed, experts in the field of study were consulted and applicable websites were perused.

RESULTS

Review question 1: Nine articles were included. These originated mostly from England (n = 3, 33.3%) and the USA (n = 3, 33.3%). Only one study specifically aimed at defining prehospital care quality. Five articles (55.5%) described attributes specific to prehospital care quality and four (44.4%) articles considered generic healthcare quality attributes to be applicable to the prehospital context. A total of 17 attributes were identified. The most common attributes were Clinical effectiveness (n = 17, 100%), Efficiency (n = 7, 77.8%), Equitability (n = 7, 77.8%) and Safety (n = 6, 66.7%). Timeliness and Accessibility were referred to by four and three (44.4% and 33.3%) articles, respectively.Review question 2: Thirty articles were included. The predominant source of articles was research literature (n = 23; 76.7%) originating mostly from the USA (n = 13; 43.3%). The most frequently applied QI development method was a form of consensus process (n = 15; 50%). A total of 526 QIs were identified. Of these, 283 (53.8%) were categorized as Clinical and 243 (46.2%) as System/Organizational QIs. Within these categories respectively, QIs related to Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (n = 57; 10.8%) and Time intervals (n = 75; 14.3%) contributed the most. The most commonly addressed prehospital care quality attributes were Appropriateness (n = 250, 47.5%), Clinical effectiveness (n = 174, 33.1%) and Accessibility (n = 124, 23.6%). Most QIs were process indicators (n = 386, 73.4%).

CONCLUSION

Whilst there is paucity in research aiming to specifically define prehospital care quality, the attributes of generic healthcare quality definitions appear to be accepted and applicable to the prehospital context. There is growing interest in developing prehospital care QIs. However, there is a need for validation of existing QIs and de novo development addressing broader aspects of prehospital care.

[Empirical evaluation of quality indicators for severely injured patients in the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic assessment of the quality of medical treatment by using key indicators has been required in Germany for many years. These quality indicators (QI) have to satisfy many requirements. Besides an expert review an empirical data-based evaluation is also necessary. The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) has reported QI in the annual reports from the beginning. The objective of this study was to validate 40 QI for the treatment of severely injured patients reviewed by experts using data from the TR-DGU.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The association of the 40 QI with hospital mortality was verified using healthcare data from the TR-DGU from a 5‑year period (2012-2016). Of these 26 QI consider events while the remaining 14 QI are key indicators, such as time spent in the trauma room. To compensate differences in injury severity, adjusted mortality rates were calculated using the revised injury severity classification (RISC) II score. For this two different approaches were chosen: the hospital-based approach classifies all hospitals into three categories and analyzes the grade of fulfilment of the indicator. The indicator-based approach considers the adjusted mortality depending on the grade of fulfilment of the indicator.

RESULTS

The analysis was based on 111,656 cases documented in the TR-DGU (mean age 50 years; 70 % male). The data analysis showed an obvious correlation with mortality for half of the QI, including only three procedural times. A clear correlation in both approaches was shown for two QI: prehospital capnometry in intubated patients and sonography used for patients without whole body computed tomography (CT) scans. Of the 20 QI with a positive result 15 were also positively rated by the experts. Of the 14 QI reported annually since 2017 in the TR-DGU report, 8 (57%) showed a clear correlation with mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt regarding the necessity of scientifically assessing QI. Approximately half of the evaluated QI showed an empirical association with mortality. Interventions and events showed better results than measurements of procedural times; however, many QI may require a refined definition. The interpretation of the results is still challenging due to differences in the patient groups. Secondary endpoints, such as hospital length of stay and quality of life after trauma were not considered here.

Military Preventable Death Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Approach for Reducing Battlefield Mortality

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report on Zero Preventable Deaths highlighted the need for a military and civilian partnership to take lessons learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and incorporate them into a national learning trauma care system. One of the specific objectives in the report was to establish military preventable death metrics. Upon further inspection, it became apparent that the Department of Defense did not have an established methodology to reliably estimate and report preventable death metrics and opportunities to improve the military trauma care system. Over the last year, clinical and non-clinical subject matter experts from the Joint Trauma System and Armed Forces Medical Examiners System began the process of establishing a standard military preventable death review process to meet the objective outlined in the report. Based on an assessment to understand methodological best practices for preventable death reviews, this manuscript presents the conceptual framework that is guiding our effort to establish the first ever battle-related mortality surveillance system with preventable death metrics and opportunities to improve the trauma care system.

Recognizing Preventable Death: Is There a Role of Survival Prediction Algorithms?

Monitoring the quality of trauma care is important but particularly challenging. Preventable death assessment aims to identify those cases where the patient's death would have not occurred if the patient had been treated differently. Determination of preventable death in trauma care is often based on calculated probability of survival, commonly by using the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). TRISS is not suited for identifying all cases with opportunities for improvement. Combined with other methods such as morbidity and mortality conferences, however, it might be a valid approach if a complete review of all trauma deaths is not feasible at an institution.

Evaluating quality indicators of tertiary care hospitals for trauma care in Japan

Objective

This study examined the associations between trauma mortality and quality of care indicators currently used in Japan.

Design

This is a retrospective two-level discrete-time survival analysis. Quality indicators were derived from the 2012-2013 annual hospital survey conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Trauma mortality data were derived from the Japan Trauma Data Bank for the period of April 2012 to March 2013.

Setting

Tertiary care centers designated as emergency and critical care centers (ECCCs) in Japan.

Participants

The analysis included 12 378 patients aged ≥15 years with blunt trauma and an Injury Severity Score ≥9, registered to the data bank from 91 ECCCs.

Intervention

Quality of care indicators examined in the annual hospital survey.

Main Outcome Measures

Deaths within 30 days.

Results

Of the 12 378 patients, 660 (5%) died within 30 days. Higher indicator score was significantly associated with lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] for the second, third and fourth quartiles vs. lowest quartile 0.61, 0.55 and 0.52, respectively). Factors significantly associated with lower mortality risk were, higher patient volume (HR for the highest vs. lowest quartile, 0.74), director's qualification as specialist (HR 0.57) or consultant (HR 0.58), review of patient arrival process (HR 0.68), triage functions (HR 0.69), availability of psychiatrists (HR 0.75) and operating room being ready 24-h (HR 0.81).

Conclusions

The study identified certain indicators associated with trauma patient mortality. Further refinement of indicators is required to specifically identify what needs changing.

Trauma Transitional Care Coordination: protecting the most vulnerable trauma patients from hospital readmission

Background

Unplanned hospital readmissions increase healthcare costs and patient morbidity. We hypothesized that a program designed to reduce trauma readmissions would be effective.

Methods

A Trauma Transitional Care Coordination (TTCC) program was created to support patients at high risk for readmission. TTCC interventions included call to patient (or caregiver) within 72 hours of discharge to identify barriers to care, complete medication reconciliation, coordination of appointments, and individualized problem solving. Information on all 30-day readmissions was collected. 30-day readmission rates were compared with center-specific readmission rates and population-based, risk-adjusted rates of readmission using published benchmarks.

Results

260 patients were enrolled in the TTCC program from January 2014 to September 2015. 30.8% (n=80) of enrollees were uninsured, 41.9% (n=109) reported current substance abuse, and 26.9% (n=70) had a current psychiatric diagnosis. 74.2% (n=193) attended outpatient trauma appointments within 14 days of discharge. 96.3% were successfully followed. Only 6.6% (n=16) of patients were readmitted in the first 30 days after discharge. This was significantly lower than both center-specific readmission rates before start of the program (6.6% vs. 11.3%, P=0.02) and recently published population-based trauma readmission rates (6.6% vs. 27%, P<0.001).

Discussion

A nursing-led TTCC program successfully followed patients and was associated with a significant decrease in 30-day readmission rates for patients with high-risk trauma. Targeted outpatient support for these most vulnerable patients can lead to better utilization of outpatient resources, increased patient satisfaction, and more consistent attainment of preinjury level of functioning or better.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Quality Indicators for Evaluating Prehospital Emergency Care: A Scoping Review

Introduction Historically, the quality and performance of prehospital emergency care (PEC) has been assessed largely based on surrogate, non-clinical endpoints such as response time intervals or other crude measures of care (eg, stakeholder satisfaction). However, advances in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems and services world-wide have seen their scope and reach continue to expand. This has dictated that novel measures of performance be implemented to compliment this growth. Significant progress has been made in this area, largely in the form of the development of evidence-informed quality indicators (QIs) of PEC. Problem Quality indicators represent an increasingly popular component of health care quality and performance measurement. However, little is known about the development of QIs in the PEC environment. The purpose of this study was to assess the development and characteristics of PEC-specific QIs in the literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted through a search of PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); EMBase (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA); and the Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom). To increase the sensitivity of the literature, a search of the grey literature and review of select websites was additionally conducted. Articles were selected that proposed at least one PEC QI and whose aim was to discuss, analyze, or promote quality measurement in the PEC environment.

RESULTS

The majority of research (n=25 articles) was published within the last decade (68.0%) and largely originated within the USA (68.0%). Delphi and observational methodologies were the most commonly employed for QI development (28.0%). A total of 331 QIs were identified via the article review, with an additional 15 QIs identified via the website review. Of all, 42.8% were categorized as primarily Clinical, with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest contributing the highest number within this domain (30.4%). Of the QIs categorized as Non-Clinical (57.2%), Time-Based Intervals contributed the greatest number (28.8%). Population on Whom the Data Collection was Constructed made up the most commonly reported QI component (79.8%), followed by a Descriptive Statement (63.6%). Least reported were Timing of Data Collection (12.1%) and Timing of Reporting (12.1%). Pilot testing of the QIs was reported on 34.7% of QIs identified in the review.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there is considerable interest in the understanding and development of PEC quality measurement. However, closer attention to the details and reporting of QIs is required for research of this type to be more easily extrapolated and generalized. Howard I , Cameron P , Wallis L , Castren M , Lindstrom V . Quality indicators for evaluating prehospital emergency care: a scoping review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):43-52.

Comparative quality measures of emergency care: an outcome cockpit proposal to survey clinical processes in real life

Background

Benchmarking of real-life quality of care may improve evaluation and comparability of emergency department (ED) care. We investigated process management variables for important medical diagnoses in a large, well-defined cohort of ED patients and studied predictors for low quality of care.

Methods

We prospectively included consecutive medical patients with main diagnoses of community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), myocardial infarction (MI), acute heart failure, deep vein thrombosis, and COPD exacerbation and followed them for 30 days. We studied predictors for alteration in ED care (treatment times, satisfaction with care, readmission rates, and mortality) by using multivariate regression analyses.

Results

Overall, 2986 patients (median age 72 years, 57% males) were included. The median time to start treatment was 72 minutes (95% CI: 23 to 150), with a median length of ED stay (ED LOS) of 256 minutes (95% CI: 166 to 351). We found delayed treatment times and longer ED LOS to be independently associated with main medical admission diagnosis and time of day on admission (shortest times for MI and longest times for UTI). Time to first physician contact (−0.01 hours, 95% CI: −0.03 to −0.02) and ED LOS (−0.01 hours, 95% CI: −0.02 to −0.04) were main predictors for patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

Within this large cohort of consecutive patients seeking ED care, we found time of day on admission to be an important predictor for ED timeliness, which again predicted satisfaction with hospital care. Older patients were waiting longer for specific treatment, whereas polymorbidity predicted an increased ED LOS.

Patient Experiences of Trauma Resuscitation

Importance

Patient satisfaction is an increasingly common feature of quality measurement, and patient-centered care is a key aspect of high-quality clinical care. Incorporating patient preferences in an acute context, such as trauma resuscitation, presents distinct challenges; however, to our knowledge, patients' experiences of trauma resuscitation have not been explored.

Objectives

To describe patient experiences of trauma resuscitation and to identify opportunities to improve patient experience without compromising speed or thoroughness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative, descriptive study was conducted at an urban, academic, level I trauma center. Semistructured interviews and video observations were conducted from May to December 2015. Interview participants were adult English-speaking patients who had experienced trauma resuscitation and were clinically stable with no alteration in consciousness. We recruited interview participants and conducted video observations until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 30 interviews and 20 observations. Video observation patients did not overlap with interview participants. The purposive sample included equal numbers of violently and nonviolently injured patients. Data were analyzed for thematic content from June 2015 to April 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes reported are themes of patient experience.

Results

Of 30 interview participants, 25 were men (83.3%), and 21 were black (70.0%). Of 20 video observation patients, 16 were men (80.0%), and 17 were black (85.0%). Salient aspects of patient experience of trauma resuscitation included emotional responses, physical experience, nonclinical concerns, treatment and procedures, trauma team members' interactions, communication, and comfort. Participants drew satisfaction from trauma team members' demeanor, expertise, and efficiency and valued clear clinical communication, as well as words of reassurance. Dissatisfaction stemmed from the perceived absence of these attributes and from participants' emotional or physical discomfort. Observation data added insight into the components of care that may have contributed to participants' responses and those aspects of care that were not salient to participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the urgency of trauma care limits explicit discussion and consideration of patient priorities, we found that patient concerns corresponded well with trauma team goals. Patients perceived trauma team members as competent, efficient, and caring. Focusing on patient communication could further improve patient-centeredness in this setting.

American vs. European Trauma Centers: A Comparison of Preventable Deaths

INTRODUCTION

The aim is comparing the quality of care at a typical American trauma center (USC) vs. an equivalent European referral center in Spain (SRC), through the analysis of preventable and potentially preventable deaths.

METHODS

Comparative study that evaluated trauma patients older than 16 years old who died during their hospitalization. We cross-referenced these deaths and extracted all deaths that were classified as potentially preventable or preventable. All errors identified were then classified using the JC taxonomy.

RESULTS

The rate of preventable and potentially preventable mortality was 7.7% and 13.8% in the USC and SRC respectively. According to the JC taxonomy, the main error type was clinical in both centers, due to errors in intervention (treatment). Errors occurred mostly in the emergency department and were caused by physicians. In the USC, 73% of errors were therapeutic as compared to 59% in the SRC (P=.06). The SRC had a 41% of diagnosis errors vs just 18% in the USC (P = .001). In both centers, the main cause of error was human. At the USC, the most frequent human cause was 'knowledge-based' (44%). In contrast, at the SRC center the most common errors were 'rule-based' (58%) (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a common language of errors among centers is key in establishing benchmarking standards. Comparing the quality of care of an American trauma center and a Spanish referral center, we have detected remarkably similar avoidable errors. More diagnostic and 'ruled-based' errors have been found in the Spanish center.

A critical review of patient safety indicators attributed to trauma surgeons

BACKGROUND

The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) developed patient safety indicators (PSIs) to identify events with a high likelihood of representing medical error. The purpose of this study was to validate PSIs attributed to trauma surgeons and compare validated PSIs to performance improvement (PI) and morbidity and mortality (M&M) data. We hypothesized that PSIs are not an indicator of quality of care in trauma.

METHODS

PSI's attributed to trauma surgeons (n=9) at our institution were reviewed (Jan-Dec 2015). An initial review was conducted to ensure they met inclusion and exclusion criteria (valid). "Valid" PSIs were distributed to the trauma division for secondary review.

RESULTS

48 PSIs were identified (17.2 per 1000 cases) during the study period. 19 were false positives yielding a positive predictive value of 60% (95% CI 45-74%). False positive PSIs were the result of coding error (78%), present on admission status (17%) and documentation error (5%). Valid PSIs (n=29) were further analyzed. The most common were post-op PE/DVT (n=14), failure to rescue (n=6) and accidental puncture/laceration (n=3). 60% of patients with a post-op PE/DVT were started on chemoprophylaxis on admission and 40% had significant intracranial hemorrhage; all were deemed non-preventable through trauma PI. All deaths considered failure to rescue were classified as expected mortalities during M&M review. Although not clinically significant, all cases of accidental puncture/laceration (10% of valid PSIs) represented opportunities for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Overall, PSIs have low validity and do not reflect quality of care in trauma.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care.

BACKGROUND

Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care.

METHODS

Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

Education, exposure and experience of prehospital teams as quality indicators in regional trauma systems

OBJECTIVE

Indicators to measure the quality of trauma care may be instrumental in benchmarking and improving trauma systems. This retrospective, observational study investigated whether data on three indicators for competencies of Dutch trauma teams (i.e. education, exposure, experience; agreed upon during a prior Delphi procedure) can be retrieved from existing registrations. The validity and distinctive power of these indicators were explored by analysing available data in four regions.

METHODS

Data of all polytrauma patients treated by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Services were collected retrospectively over a 1-year period. During the Delphi procedure, a polytrauma patient was defined as one with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 9 or less or a Paediatric Coma Scale of 9 or less, together with a Revised Trauma Score of 10 or less. Information on education, exposure and experience of the Helicopter Emergency Medical Services physician and nurse were registered for each patient contact.

RESULTS

Data on 442 polytrauma patients could be retrieved. Of these, according to the Delphi consensus, 220 were treated by a fully competent team (i.e. both the physician and the nurse fulfilled the three indicators for competency) and 22 patients were treated by a team not fulfilling all three indicators for competency. Across the four regions, patients were treated by teams with significant differences in competencies (P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

The quality indicators of education, exposure and experience of prehospital physicians and nurses can be measured reliably, have a high level of usability and have distinctive power.

An environmental scan of quality indicators in critical care

BACKGROUND

We performed a directed environmental scan to identify and categorize quality indicators unique to critical care that are reported by key stakeholder organizations.

METHODS

We convened a panel of experts (n = 9) to identify key organizations that are focused on quality improvement or critical care, and reviewed their online publications and website content for quality indicators. We identified quality indicators specific to the care of critically ill adult patients and then categorized them according to the Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine frameworks. We also noted the organizations' rationale for selecting these indicators and their reported evidence base.

RESULTS

From 28 targeted organizations, we identified 222 quality indicators, 127 of which were unique. Of the 127 indicators, 63 (32.5%) were safety indicators and 61 (31.4%) were effectiveness indicators. The rationale for selecting quality indicators was supported by consensus for 58 (26.1%) of the 222 indicators and by published research evidence for 45 (20.3%); for 119 indicators (53.6%), the rationale was not reported or the reader was referred to other organizations' reports. Of the 127 unique quality indicators, 27 (21.2%) were accompanied by a formal grading of evidence, whereas for 52 (40.9%), no reference to evidence was provided.

INTERPRETATION

There are many quality indicators related to critical care that are available in the public domain. However, owing to a paucity of rationale for selection, supporting evidence and results of implementation, it is not clear which indicators should be adopted for use.

Preventable injury deaths: identifying opportunities to improve timeliness and reach of emergency healthcare services in New Zealand

Background

Traumatic injury is a leading cause of premature death and health loss in New Zealand. Outcomes following injury are very time sensitive, and timely access of critically injured patients to advanced hospital trauma care services can improve injury survival.

Objective

This cross-sectional study will investigate the epidemiology and geographic location of prehospital fatal injury deaths in relation to access to prehospital emergency services for the first time in New Zealand.

Design and study population

Electronic Coronial case files for the period 2008–2012 will be reviewed to identify cases of prehospital fatal injury across New Zealand.

Methods

The project will combine epidemiological and geospatial methods in three research phases: (1) identification, enumeration, description and geocoding of prehospital injury deaths using existing electronic injury data sets; (2) geocoding of advanced hospital-level care providers and emergency land and air ambulance services to determine the current theoretical service coverage in a specified time period and (3) synthesising of information from phases I and II using geospatial methods to determine the number of prehospital injury deaths located in areas without timely access to advanced-level hospital care.

Discussion

The findings of this research will identify opportunities to optimise access to advanced-level hospital care in New Zealand to increase the chances of survival from serious injury. The resulting epidemiological and geospatial analyses will represent an advancement of knowledge for injury prevention and health service quality improvement towards better patient outcomes following serious injury in New Zealand and similar countries.

Proposal of quality indicators for cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome in Japan: a modified Delphi method and practice test

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac rehabilitation is underused and its quality in practice is unclear. A quality indicator is a measurable element of clinical practice performance. This study aimed to propose a set of quality indicators for cardiac rehabilitation following an acute coronary event in the Japanese population and conduct a small-size practice test to confirm feasibility and applicability of the indicators in real-world clinical practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study used a modified Delphi technique (the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method), a consensus method which involves an evidence review, a face-to-face multidisciplinary panel meeting and repeated anonymous rating. Evidence to be reviewed included clinical practice guidelines available in English or Japanese and existing quality indicators. Performance of each indicator was assessed retrospectively using medical records at a university hospital in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

10 professionals in cardiac rehabilitation for the consensus panel.

RESULTS

In the literature review, 23 clinical practice guidelines and 16 existing indicators were identified to generate potential indicators. Through the consensus-building process, a total of 30 indicators were assessed and finally 13 indicators were accepted. The practice test (n=39) revealed that 74% of patients underwent cardiac rehabilitation. Median performance of process measures was 93% (IQR 46-100%). 'Communication with the doctor who referred the patient to cardiac rehabilitation' and 'continuous participation in cardiac rehabilitation' had low performance (32% and 38%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A modified Delphi technique identified a comprehensive set of quality indicators for cardiac rehabilitation. The single-site, small-size practice test confirmed that most of the proposed indicators were measurable in real-world clinical practice. However, some clinical processes which are not covered by national health insurance in Japan had low performance. Further studies will be needed to clarify and improve the quality of care in cardiac rehabilitation.

How the changes in the system affect trauma care provision: The assessment of and implications for Lithuanian trauma service performance in 2007-2012

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify and assess the effects of changes in the Lithuanian trauma service from 2007 to 2012. We postulate that the implications derived from this study will be of importance to trauma policy planners and makers in Lithuania and throughout other countries of Eastern and Central Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Out of 10,390 trauma admissions to four trauma centers in 2007, 294 patients (2.8%) were randomly selected for the first arm of a representative study sample. Similarly, of 9918 trauma admissions in 2012, 250 (2.5%) were randomly chosen for comparison in the study arm. Only cases with a diagnosis falling into the ICD-10 "S" and "T" codes were included. A survey of whom regarding changes in quality of trauma care from 2007 to 2012 was carried out by emergency medical service (EMS) providers.

RESULTS

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) mean value was 7.45±1.04 for the 2007 year arm; it was 7.53±0.93 for the 2012 year arm (P=0.33). Mean time from the moment of a call from the site of the traumatic event to the patient's arrival at the trauma center did not differ between the arms of the sample: 49.95min in 2007 vs. 51.6min in 2012 (P=0.81). An application of the operational procedures such as a cervical spine protection using a hard collar, oxygen therapy, infusion of intravenous fluids, and pain relief on the trauma scene was more frequent in 2012 than in 2007. Management of trauma patients in the emergency department improved regarding the availability of 24/7 computed tomography scanner facilities and an on-site radiographer. Time to CT-scanning was reduced by 38.8%, and time to decision-making was reduced by 16.5% in 2012.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in operational procedures in the Lithuanian pre-hospital care provision and management of trauma patients in emergency departments of trauma centers improved the efficiency of trauma care delivery over the 2007-2012 period.

A retrospective cohort study of the relationship between quality indicator measurement and patient outcomes in adult trauma centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Improving care is a key strategy for reducing the burden of injuries, but it is unknown whether the use of quality indicators (QI) is associated with patient outcomes. We sought to evaluate the association between the use of QIs by trauma centers and outcomes in adult injury patients.

METHODS

We identified consecutive adult patients (n=223,015) admitted to 233 verified trauma centers January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 that contributed data to the National Trauma Data Bank and participated in a survey of QI practices. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were employed to evaluate the association between the intensity (number of QIs) and nature (report cards, internal and external benchmarking) of QI use and survival to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the odds of survival to trauma center discharge according to the number of QIs measured (quartiles; odds ratio{OR} [95% confidence interval{CI}] 1.00 vs. 1.08 [0.90-1.31] vs. 1.00 [0.82-1.22] vs. 1.21 [0.99-1.49]), or whether centers used reports cards (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.94-1.23), internal (OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.89-1.26) or external (OR 1.09, 95%CI 0.92-1.31) benchmarking. The duration (geometric mean) of mechanical ventilation (4.0days), ICU stay (4.6days), hospital stay (7.7days) and proportion of patients with a complication (13.6%) did not significantly differ according to the intensity or nature of QI use.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensity and nature of the QIs used by trauma centers was not associated with outcomes of patient care. Alternative quality improvement strategies may be needed.

Failure-to-rescue after injury is associated with preventability: The results of mortality panel review of failure-to-rescue cases in trauma

BACKGROUND

Failure-to-rescue is defined as the conditional probability of death after a complication, and the failure-to-rescue rate reflects a center's ability to successfully "rescue" patients after complications. The validity of the failure-to-rescue rate as a quality measure is dependent on the preventability of death and the appropriateness of this measure for use in the trauma population is untested. We sought to evaluate the relationship between preventability and failure-to-rescue in trauma.

METHODS

All adjudications from a mortality review panel at an academic level I trauma center from 2005-2015 were merged with registry data for the same time period. The preventability of each death was determined by panel consensus as part of peer review. Failure-to-rescue deaths were defined as those occurring after any registry-defined complication. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models between failure-to-rescue status and preventability were constructed and time to death was examined using survival time analyses.

RESULTS

Of 26,557 patients, 2,735 (10.5%) had a complication, of whom 359 died for a failure-to-rescue rate of 13.2%. Of failure-to-rescue deaths, 272 (75.6%) were judged to be non-preventable, 65 (18.1%) were judged potentially preventable, and 22 (6.1%) were judged to be preventable by peer review. After adjusting for other patient factors, there remained a strong association between failure-to-rescue status and potentially preventable (odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.66) and preventable (odds ratio 14.84, 95% confidence interval, 3.30-66.71) judgment.

CONCLUSION

Despite a strong association between failure-to-rescue status and preventability adjudication, only a minority of deaths meeting the definition of failure to rescue were judged to be preventable or potentially preventable. Revision of the failure-to-rescue metric before use in trauma care benchmarking is warranted.

Survival prediction algorithms miss significant opportunities for improvement if used for case selection in trauma quality improvement programs

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) programs have shown to reduce preventable mortality in trauma care. Detailed review of all trauma deaths is a time and resource consuming process and calculated probability of survival (Ps) has been proposed as audit filter. Review is limited on deaths that were 'expected to survive'. However no Ps-based algorithm has been validated and no study has examined elements of preventability associated with deaths classified as 'expected'. The objective of this study was to examine whether trauma performance review can be streamlined using existing mortality prediction tools without missing important areas for improvement.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all trauma deaths reviewed by our trauma QI program. Deaths were classified into non-preventable, possibly preventable, probably preventable or preventable. Opportunities for improvement (OPIs) involve failure in the process of care and were classified into clinical and system deviations from standards of care. TRISS and PS were used for calculation of probability of survival. Peer-review charts were reviewed by a single investigator.

RESULTS

Over 8 years, 626 patients were included. One third showed elements of preventability and 4% were preventable. Preventability occurred across the entire range of the calculated Ps band. Limiting review to unexpected deaths would have missed over 50% of all preventability issues and a third of preventable deaths. 37% of patients showed opportunities for improvement (OPIs). Neither TRISS nor PS allowed for reliable identification of OPIs and limiting peer-review to patients with unexpected deaths would have missed close to 60% of all issues in care.

CONCLUSIONS

TRISS and PS fail to identify a significant proportion of avoidable deaths and miss important opportunities for process and system improvement. Based on this, all trauma deaths should be subjected to expert panel review in order to aim at a maximal output of performance improvement programs.

Leadership and Teamwork in Trauma and Resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Leadership skills are described by the American College of Surgeons' Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course as necessary to provide care for patients during resuscitations. However, leadership is a complex concept, and the tools used to assess the quality of leadership are poorly described, inadequately validated, and infrequently used. Despite its importance, dedicated leadership education is rarely part of physician training programs. The goals of this investigation were the following: 1. Describe how leadership and leadership style affect patient care; 2. Describe how effective leadership is measured; and 3. Describe how to train future physician leaders.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database using the keywords "leadership" and then either "trauma" or "resuscitation" as title search terms, and an expert in emergency medicine and trauma then identified prospective observational and randomized controlled studies measuring leadership and teamwork quality. Study results were categorized as follows: 1) how leadership affects patient care; 2) which tools are available to measure leadership; and 3) methods to train physicians to become better leaders.

RESULTS

We included 16 relevant studies in this review. Overall, these studies showed that strong leadership improves processes of care in trauma resuscitation including speed and completion of the primary and secondary surveys. The optimal style and structure of leadership are influenced by patient characteristics and team composition. Directive leadership is most effective when Injury Severity Score (ISS) is high or teams are inexperienced, while empowering leadership is most effective when ISS is low or teams more experienced. Many scales were employed to measure leadership. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) was the only scale used in more than one study. Seven studies described methods for training leaders. Leadership training programs included didactic teaching followed by simulations. Although programs differed in length, intensity, and training level of participants, all programs demonstrated improved team performance.

CONCLUSION

Despite the relative paucity of literature on leadership in resuscitations, this review found leadership improves processes of care in trauma and can be enhanced through dedicated training. Future research is needed to validate leadership assessment scales, develop optimal training mechanisms, and demonstrate leadership's effect on patient-level outcome.

[Potential for the survey of quality indicators based on a national emergency department registry : A systematic literature search]

BACKGROUND

Emergency department processes are often key for successful treatment. Therefore, collection of quality indicators is demanded. A basis for the collection is systematic, electronic documentation. The development of paper-based documentation into an electronic and interoperable national emergency registry is-besides the establishment of quality management for emergency departments-a target of the AKTIN project. The objective of this research is identification of internationally applied quality indicators.

METHODS

For the investigation of the current status of quality management in emergency departments based on quality indicators, a systematic literature search of the database PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the internet was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 170 internationally applied quality indicators, 25 with at least two references are identified. A total of 10 quality indicators are ascertainable by the data set. An enlargement of the data set will enable the collection of seven further quality indicators. The implementation of data of care behind the emergency processes will provide eight additional quality indicators.

CONCLUSION

This work was able to show that the potential of a national emergency registry for the establishment of quality indicators corresponds with the international systems taken into consideration and could provide a comparable collection of quality indicators.

Multicenter validation of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM)

BACKGROUND

Incorporating patient and family perspectives into injury care quality assessment is a necessary part of comprehensive quality improvement. However, tools to measure patient and family perspectives of injury care are lacking. Therefore, our objective was to assess the psychometric properties of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM), the first measure developed to assess patient experiences with overall injury care.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study of adult injury patients recruited from three trauma centers. Patients or surrogates completed an acute care survey measure in the hospital and a post-acute care survey measure after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Four hundred participants (78%) completed the acute care measure, and 207 (59%) completed the post-acute care measure. We identified three subscales on the acute measure and two subscales on the post-acute measure. All subscales and items had evidence of construct validity. Four subscales had good internal consistency, and three were independent predictors of participants' overall ratings of injury care quality. The majority of items demonstrated suitable test-retest reliability. Comparison of QTAC-PREM scores with those of an existing patient experience tool, the Hospital version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), demonstrated evidence of appropriate divergent and convergent validity.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the QTAC-PREM is feasible to implement at trauma centers and provides evidence of validity and reliability. The tool may be useful to incorporate patient perspectives into trauma care quality measurement and improvement.

Morbidade hospitalar de motociclistas acidentados: fatores associados ao tempo de internação

Resumo Objetivo Identificar fatores associados ao tempo de internação hospitalar de motociclistas acidentados. Métodos Estudo transversal, retrospectivo sobre motociclistas com lesões traumáticas agudas atendidos e internados em três hospitais referência para trauma de São Paulo. Prontuários de pacientes e laudo de necropsia foram consultados para obter variáveis que poderiam se associar ao tempo de internação, seguida da análise de regressão linear múltipla para verificar fatores associados. Resultados Análise de 91 motociclistas mostrou que o aumento da gravidade do trauma e as complicações infecciosas, úlcera por pressão, rabdomiólise e síndrome da angustia respiratória aguda associaram-se com maior tempo de internação (p<0,05). A úlcera por pressão e a infecção do sitio cirúrgico foram fatores preditores do aumento do tempo de internação e o óbito como preditor de redução da internação. Conclusão Os fatores que se associaram ao tempo de internação resultaram tanto das lesões traumáticas quanto do processo assistencial prestado aos motociclistas acidentados.

Preventable deaths and potentially preventable deaths. What are our errors?

BACKGROUND

A variety of systems have been applied to identify and address errors in the management of multiple trauma patients. This lack of standardisation represents a serious problem.

OBJECTIVES

Detect preventable and potentially preventable deaths, and classify all the errors with universal language.

METHODS

We studied all trauma patients over 16 admitted to the critical care unit or who died before. In multidisciplinary sessions we decided which deaths were preventable, potentially preventable and non preventable. Guided by ATLS protocols, we detected errors in their management that were classified using the taxonomy of Joint Commission.

RESULTS

We registered 1236 trauma patients (ISS 20.77). Of the 115 trauma deaths, 19 were preventable or potentially preventable deaths. We recorded 130 errors in all deaths, 46 of them in preventable or potentially preventable deaths. Using our own classification, the main errors were delay in starting correct treatment or performance of CT in hemodynamically unstable patients. Using the taxonomy of Joint Commission, the main type error was clinical, during the intervention: the delay in initiating correct treatment. Mistakes were made in the emergency department by medical specialists. The incidence of therapeutic and diagnostic errors was similar. The main cause of error was human failure, specifically 'rule-based' errors

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring and recording the results is the first step on the way to improving the quality of care for trauma patients. A common language like the taxonomy of Joint Commission will help standardise patient safety data, thus improving the recording of incidents and their analysis and treatment.

What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge.

Methods/Design

We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality.

Discussion

The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.

Trial registration

ANZCTR: ACTRN12613001218785, prospectively registered, 5 November 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in the emergency department: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

There is increasing importance placed on quality of health care for musculoskeletal injuries in emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review aimed to identify existing musculoskeletal quality indicators (QIs) developed for ED use and to critically evaluate their methodological quality.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the gray literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched in 2013. English-language articles were included that described the development of at least one QI related to the ED care of musculoskeletal injuries. Data extraction of each included article was conducted. A quality assessment was then performed by rating each relevant QI against the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) Instrument. QIs with similar definitions were grouped together and categorized according to the health care quality frameworks of Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine.

RESULTS

The search revealed 1,805 potentially relevant articles, of which 15 were finally included in the review. The number of relevant QIs per article ranged from one to 11, resulting in a total of 71 QIs overall. Pain (n = 17) and fracture management (n = 13) QIs were predominant. Ten QIs scored at least 50% across all AIRE Instrument domains, and these related to pain management and appropriate imaging of the spine.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality of the development of most QIs is poor. Recommendations for a core set of QIs that address the complete spectrum of musculoskeletal injury management in emergency medicine is not possible, and more work is needed. Currently, QIs with highest methodological quality are in the areas of pain management and medical imaging.

Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Background

Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres.

Methods

We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or –affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared.

Results

All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of timeliness of care (23% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Non-teaching centres were more likely to use indicators whose content evaluated triage and patient flow (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of efficiency of care (25% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). While over 80% of teaching centres used time to laparotomy, pulmonary complications, in hospital mortality, and appropriate admission physician/service as quality indicators, only two of these (in hospital mortality and appropriate admission physician/service) were used by over half of non-teaching trauma centres. The majority of centres reported using morbidity and mortality conferences (96% vs. 97%, p = 0.61) and quality of care audits (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.08) while approximately half used report cards (51% vs. 43%, p = 0.22).

Conclusions

Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres.

Establishing components of high-quality injury care: Focus groups with patients and patient families

BACKGROUND

Each year, injuries affect 700 million people worldwide, more than 5 million people die of injuries, and 68,000 survivors remain permanently impaired. Half of all critically injured patients do not receive recommended care, and medical errors are common. Little is known about the aspects of injury care that are important to patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of patients and families affected by injury on desired components of injury care in the hospital setting.

METHODS

With the use of a grounded theory approach, this qualitative study involved focus groups with injured patients, family members of survivors, and bereaved family members from four Canadian trauma (injury care) centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants included injured patients (n = 16), family members of survivors (n = 13), and bereaved family members (n = 9) across four trauma (injury care) centers in different jurisdictions. Participants articulated numerous themes reflecting important components of injury care organized across three domains as follows: clinical care (staff availability, professionalism, physical comfort, adverse events), holistic care (patient wellness, respect for patient and family, family access to patient, family wellness, hospital facilities, supportive care), and communication and information (among staff, with or from staff, content, delivery, and timing). Bereaved family members commented on decision making and end-of-life processes. Subthemes were revealed in most of these themes. Trends by site or type of participant were not identified.

CONCLUSION

The framework of patient- and family-derived components of quality injury care could be used by health care managers and policy makers to guide quality improvement efforts. Further research is needed to extend and validate these components among injured patients and families elsewhere. Translating these components into quality indicators and blending those with measures that reflect a provider perspective may offer a comprehensive means of assessing injury care.

Complications to evaluate adult trauma care: An expert consensus study

BACKGROUND

Complications affect up to 37% of patients hospitalized for injury and increase mortality, morbidity, and costs. One of the keys to controlling complications for injury admissions is to monitor in-hospital complication rates. However, there is no consensus on which complications should be used to evaluate the quality of trauma care. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus-based list of complications that can be used to assess the acute phase of adult trauma care.

METHODS

We used a three-round Web-based Delphi survey among experts in the field of trauma care quality with a broad range of clinical expertise and geographic diversity. The main outcome measure was median importance rating on a 5-point Likert scale (very low to very high); complications with a median of 4 or greater and no disagreement were retained. A secondary measure was the perceived quality of information on each complication available in patient files.

RESULTS

Of 19 experts invited to participate, 17 completed the first (brainstorming) round and 16 (84%) completed all rounds. Of 73 complications generated in Round 1, a total of 25 were retained including adult respiratory distress syndrome, hospital-acquired pneumonia, sepsis, acute renal failure, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, wound infection, decubitus ulcers, and delirium. Of these, 19 (76%) were perceived to have high-quality or very high-quality information in patient files by more than 50% of the panel members.

CONCLUSION

This study proposes a consensus-based list of 25 complications that can be used to evaluate the quality of acute adult trauma care. These complications can be used to develop an informative and actionable quality indicator to evaluate trauma care with the goal of decreasing rates of hospital complications and thus improving patient outcomes and resource use. DRG International Classification of Diseases codes are provided.

Routinely recorded versus dedicated time registrations during trauma work-up

Introduction

Since time intervals are used to determine quality of trauma care, it is relevant to know how reliable those intervals can be measured. The aim of our study was to assess the reliability of time intervals as recorded in our hospital databases.

Patients and methods

We conducted a prospective study on time intervals in our level-1 trauma centre and compared those with the routinely recorded data from February 2012 to June 2012. A convenience sample of all trauma patients admitted to our trauma room was included. The routinely recorded time intervals were retrieved from computerised hospital databases. The dedicated time registration was done on a standardised form on which five time intervals considered clinically relevant were evaluated for each patient by a dedicated person: trauma room time, time to start CT, imaging time, time from trauma room to ICU and time from trauma room to intervention.

Results

In a sample of 100 trauma patients dedicated registered trauma room time was median 47 minutes (IQR = 32-63), compared to 42 minutes (IQR = 28-56) in routinely recorded in hospital databases (P < 0.001). Time to start of CT scanning differed significantly as well, with again an increased time interval measured dedicatedly (median 20 minutes (IQR = 15-28)) compared to the routinely recorded time registration (median 13 minutes (IQR = 4-21)). The other time intervals recorded did not differ between the dedicated and routinely recorded registration. Bland-Altman plots also showed that there is considerable discrepancy between the two measurement methods with wide limits of agreement.

Conclusion

This study shows that routinely recorded time intervals in the trauma care setting differ statistically significant from dedicatedly registered intervals.