Implementation of a Trauma Quality Improvement Program Communications Package Decreases Time-to-Operation for Facial Trauma

Facilitators and barriers impacting in-hospital Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) implementation across country income levels: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Trauma is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity globally, disproportionately affecting low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Understanding the factors determining implementation success for in-hospital Trauma Quality Improvement Programs (TQIPs) is critical to reducing the global trauma burden. We synthesised topical literature to identify key facilitators and barriers to in-hospital TQIP implementation across country income levels.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus databases were searched from June 2009 to January 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Published literature involving any study design, written in English and evaluating any implemented in-hospital quality improvement programme in trauma populations worldwide. Literature that was non-English, unpublished and involved non-hospital TQIPs was excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers completed a three-stage screening process using Covidence, with any discrepancies resolved through a third reviewer. Content analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research identified facilitator and barrier themes for in-hospital TQIP implementation.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria from 3923 studies identified. The most discussed in-hospital TQIPs in included literature were trauma registries. Facilitators and barriers were similar across all country income levels. The main facilitator themes identified were the prioritisation of staff education and training, strengthening stakeholder dialogue and providing standardised best-practice guidelines. The key barrier theme identified in LMICs was poor data quality, while high-income countries (HICs) had reduced communication across professional hierarchies.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholder prioritisation of in-hospital TQIPs, along with increased knowledge and consensus of trauma care best practices, are essential efforts to reduce the global trauma burden. The primary focus of future studies on in-hospital TQIPs in LMICs should target improving registry data quality, while interventions in HICs should target strengthening communication channels between healthcare professionals.

Comprehensive facial injury (CFI) score as a predictor of surgical time, length of hospital stay, and head injury? Our experience at level I trauma center

Purpose:

The present study aimed to evaluate the statistical significance of comprehensive facial injury (CFI) score concerning total surgical time (ST), length of hospital stay (LHS), and head injury in maxillofacial trauma patients.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study included 288 patients having maxillofacial injuries with or without associated head injury. CFI score was calculated for each of them. One-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis H-test were used to compare ST (minutes), LHS (days), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score among the CFI score clusters. Head injury among the CFI score clusters was compared using Fisher's exact test. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results:

Of total 288 cases (males: 83.68%, females: 16.31%, mean age: 30 ± 15.92 years), road traffic accidents accounted for 76.0% of admissions. A definitive approach (open reduction and internal fixation) was used in 26.38% of cases. Statistically significant association of CFI score was obtained with ST and LHS in high-dependency unit (P < 0.001). Posttraumatic head injury was seen in 21.25% of cases. A significant association of CFI score with GCS score (P = 0.032) and with head injury (P = 0.019) was found.

Conclusion:

CFI score is a comprehensive yet simple scale to assess ST and LHS. A strong correlation established between CFI score and these variables further validate its reliability as a perfect tool for communication of the maxillofacial morbidity and in making a treatment protocol, although its predictive ability for associated head injuries needs to be studied further.

Cost-effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Care in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary care has been previously shown to improve outcomes for patients and providers alike, fostering interprofessional collaboration and communication. Many studies have demonstrated the beneficial health care outcomes of interdisciplinary care. However, there has been minimal focus on the cost-effectiveness of such care, particularly in the realm of plastic surgery. This is the first systematic review to examine cost savings attributable to plastic surgery involvement in multidisciplinary care.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of articles published on cost outcomes associated with multidisciplinary teams including a plastic surgeon was performed. Included articles reported on cost outcomes directly or indirectly attributable to a collaborative intervention. Explicitly reported cost savings were totaled on a per-patient basis. Each article was also reviewed to determine whether the authors ultimately recommended the team-based intervention described.

RESULTS

A total of 604 articles were identified in the initial query, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Three studies reported explicit cost savings from multidisciplinary care, with cost savings ranging from $707 to $26,098 per patient, and 5 studies reported changes in secondary factors such as complication rates and length of stay. All studies ultimately recommended multidisciplinary care, regardless of whether cost savings were achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary plastic surgery care examined both primary cost savings and associated quality outcomes, such as length of stay, complication rate, and resource consumption. Our findings indicate that the inclusion of plastic surgery in team-based care provides both direct and indirect cost savings to all involved parties.

No Difference in Mortality Between Level I and II Trauma Centers for Combined Burn and Trauma

BACKGROUND

Trauma patients with burn injuries have higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with patients who solely experience burn or trauma injuries. There is a paucity of data regarding burn-trauma (BT) patient outcomes at level I (LI) trauma centers compared with level II (LII) centers. We hypothesized that BT patients at LI trauma centers have lower mortality rates than those at LII trauma centers.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients aged ≥18 y who had BT injuries. Patients treated at an LI were compared with those at an LII center with a primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

From 1971 BT patients, 1540 (78%) were treated at an LI trauma center, and 431 (22%) at an LII center. Compared with LII centers, LI BT patients had a longer median LOS (10 versus 7 d; P < 0.001) and ICU LOS (5 versus 4 d; P < 0.001). Both LI and LII centers had similar mortality rates (8.5% versus 7.0%; P = 0.300). On multivariable analysis, receiving care at an LI trauma center was not associated with decreased mortality (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.48; P = 0.456).

CONCLUSIONS

We report that LI trauma center BT patients had an increased hospital and ICU LOS compared with those at LII centers. However, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients cared for at LI and LII trauma centers in risk-adjusted models.

Understanding the relevance of comprehensive facial injury (CFI) score: Statistical analysis of overall surgical time and length of stay outcomes

Comprehensive facial injury (CFI) score is a powerful and extremely simple scale used to grade the clinical severity of all facial injuries, and is expressed in terms of the overall surgical time needed for definitive treatment. Its statistical validation was previously reported in 2019. The aim of this study was to investigate further the link with duration of surgery, applying the score to a larger sample of patients, and to evaluate the relationship between CFI score and other extremely relevant dependent variables: length of stay (LOS) in high care units (HCU) and in intensive care units (ICU). 1406 patients with diagnosis of at least one facial bone fracture, and treated by the same team in two highly specialized trauma centers, were studied. For each patient a specific CFI score is assigned and overall surgical time, length of stay, and presence of associated injuries were recorded. Data were divided into six clusters according to CFI score: (1) 0-5, (2) 6-10, (3) 11-15, (4) 16-20, (5) 21-25, and (6) >25. Regressions between CFI clusters and duration of surgery (minutes), LOS in ICU (days), and in HCU (days) were established. In addition, the presence of associated head and/or somatovisceral injuries was analyzed and related to CFI score. Statistical analysis confirmed linear regression existing between each CFI cluster and overall surgical time (p < 0.00001), with improved significance of the results using median values of surgical duration for each cluster (p = 0.0001). It also demonstrated the existence of linear regression between all CFI clusters and LOS in HCU (p = 0.0001) and between CFI clusters 3-6 and median values of LOS in ICU (p = 0.0001). Finally, associated injuries were observed to be more frequent in high CFI score clusters, occurring in around 90% of patients with a CFI score >25 (p < 0.00001). Association of head and facial injuries play a major role in high LOS in ICU values, whereas coexistence of facial, head and somatovisceral involvement increases LOS in ICU to over twice that for single association. Surgical time and length of stay are outcomes traditionally used to assess the statistical significance of many new proposed trauma score. The strong correlation demonstrated between CFI score and each of these variables confirms its value and reliability. CFI score is proven to be an ideal, simple, informative, and reproducible tool for measuring severity of facial injuries and their clinical impact. It allows correlation with associated head and somatovisceral injuries, focusing attention on the interesting field of reciprocal influences in simultaneous, multidistrectual involvement. None of the previously proposed facial injury severity scales have offered such informative and statistically significant features.