Are Australian and New Zealand trauma service resources reflective of the Australasian Trauma Verification Model Resource Criteria?

The Australian Trauma Registry (ATR): a leading clinical quality registry

Operating since 2012 under the auspices of the Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program (AusTQIP), the Australian Trauma Registry (ATR) has established itself as a leading clinical quality registry (CQR). Initially developed as a national program for improved safety and quality trauma care across Australian trauma centers, it has since expanded to include New Zealand, becoming one of the few bi-national trauma registries. The registry has recorded close to 100,000 episodes of care for severely injured patients since its inception, with 10.7% growth in annual inclusions. The ATR, administered by the National Trauma Research Institute (NTRI), monitors the continuum of trauma care from pre-hospital settings, to discharge from definitive care. Collection and analysis of data about severely injured trauma patients, their injuries, management and outcomes, aims to inform future improvements to health service provision and reduce preventable morbidity and mortality.

Learning from the first 12 months of the Tasmanian Trauma Registry

The Tasmanian Trauma Registry began collecting data in April 2020 and in April 2021 the first 12 months' data were submitted to the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry. In this perspective, we share the lessons we have learned in establishing a trauma registry and acknowledge how important support from the broader trauma community has been in allowing Tasmania to participate in national benchmarking and quality assurance processes.

Making trauma registries more useful for improving patient care: A survey of trauma care and trauma registry stakeholders across Australia and New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Injury is a major global health burden. Trauma registries have been used for decades to monitor the burden of injury and inform trauma care. However, the extent to which trauma registries have fulfilled their potential remains uncertain. The aims of this study were to determine the current and priority uses of trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand and to establish the priority clinical outcomes, the probability for which, if known for an individual trauma patient, would better inform that same patient's care, during hospital admission.

METHODS

A prospective observational study using survey methodology was conducted. Participants were sourced from the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry (ATR) participating hospitals. The survey questions included: the current uses and priorities for both single-site trauma registries and the binational trauma registry; the five top-ranked priority outcomes for which knowing the probability, for an individual patient, would inform care; and the priority timepoints for applying patient-level outcome prediction models.

RESULTS

Of the 26 ATR-participating hospitals, 25 were represented by a total of 54 participants in the survey, including trauma service directors and trauma nurse coordinators. The main trauma registry use and priority for the single site registries was to inform the quality improvement program; for the ATR, the main use was periodic reporting and the main priority was benchmarking. For each potential purpose of the registry, the future priority level was ranked more highly than the current level of utilisation. The most highly ranked priority patient-level outcomes requiring prediction were: preventable death, missed injury, quality of life, admission costs, pulmonary embolism, post-traumatic stress disorder, length of hospital stay, errors in decision-making and deep venous thrombosis. The time period between leaving the emergency department and the 24 h mark following presentation was considered the preferred time for patient-level priority outcome prediction.

CONCLUSION

There is a mismatch between current trauma registry uses and future priorities. The priority outcomes demanding prediction in the first 24 h of a trauma patient's stay are preventable death, missed injury, quality of life, hospital costs, thromboembolism, post-traumatic stress disorder, length of hospital stay and errors in clinical decision-making.

Identifying the priority challenges in trauma care delivery for Australian and New Zealand trauma clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Injury is a leading cause of death and disability world-wide. Little is known about the day-to-day challenges the trauma clinicians face in their practice that they feel could be improved through an increased evidence base. This study explored and ranked the trauma clinical practice research priorities of trauma care professionals across Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

A modified-Delphi study was conducted between September 2019 and January 2020. The study employed two rounds of online survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand professional organisations using snowballing method. Participants were asked to rank the importance of 29 recommendations, each corresponding to a key challenge in trauma care delivery. Decisions on the priorities of the challenges were determined by a consensus of >70% of respondents ranking the challenge as important or very important.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five participants completed Round One, and 106 participants completed Round Two. A total of 15 recommendations reached >70% in Round One. Nine recommendations also reached >70% consensus in Round Two. Recommendations ranked highest were 'Caring for elderly trauma patients', 'Identifying and validating key performance indicators for trauma system benchmarking and improvement', and 'Management of traumatic brain injury'.

CONCLUSION

This study identified the priority areas for trauma research as determined by clinician ranking of the most important for informing and improving their practice. Addressing these areas generates potential to improve the quality and safety of trauma care in Australian and New Zealand.

Challenges to trauma care delivery for Australian and New Zealand trauma clinicians

INTRODUCTION

The availability and implementation of evidence-based care is essential to achieving safe, quality trauma patient outcomes. Little is documented, however, about the challenges trauma clinicians face in their day-to day practice, or their views on the availability of evidence. This paper presents the most significant clinical practice challenges reported by multidisciplinary trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand, in particular those that may be resolved with focussed research or enhanced implementation activity.

METHODS

An exploratory survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand professional organisations was conducted between September 2018 and February 2019 using the Snowballing Method. Participants were recruited via a non-random sampling technique to complete an online survey. Thematic analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

There were nine significant clinical practice challenge themes in trauma care, arising from 287 individual clinical practice challenges reported. The most reported being clinical management (bleeding, spinal, older patients) and operationalisation of the trauma system. There was no consensus as to the availability of evidence to guide each theme.

CONCLUSION

Future research should seek to address the clinical practice challenge of Australian and New Zealand trauma community to enable safe, quality trauma patient outcomes.

Priorities for trauma quality improvement and registry use in Australia and New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

The Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry enables the collection and analysis of standardised data about trauma patients and their care for quality improvement, injury prevention and benchmarking. Little is known, however, about the needs of providers and clinicians in relation to these data, or their views on trauma quality improvement priorities. As clinical experts, trauma clinicians should have input to these as ultimately their practice may be influenced by report findings. This paper presents the perspectives of multidisciplinary trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand about the use of the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry data and trauma quality improvement priorities.

METHODS

An exploratory survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand professional organisations was conducted using the Snowballing Method between September 2018 and February 2019. Participants were recruited via a non-random sampling technique to complete an online survey. Descriptive statistical and content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The data use priorities identified by 102 trauma professionals from a range of locations participated were clinical improvement and system/process improvement (86.3%). Participants reported that access to trauma data should primarily be for clinicians (93.1%) and researchers (87.3%). Having a standardised approach to review trauma cases across hospitals was a priority in trauma quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

Trauma registry data are under-utilised and their use to drive clinical improvement and system/process improvement is fundamental to trauma quality improvement in Australia and New Zealand.

Over view of major traumatic injury in Australia--Implications for trauma system design

BACKGROUND

Trauma registries are known to drive improvements and optimise trauma systems worldwide. This is the first reported comparison of the epidemiology and outcomes at major centres across Australia.

METHODS

The Australian Trauma Registry was a collaboration of 26 major trauma centres across Australia at the time of this study and currently collects information on patients admitted to these centres who die after injury and/or sustain major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 12). Data from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 were analysed. Primary endpoints were risk adjusted length of stay and mortality (adjusted for age, cause of injury, arrival Glasgow coma scale (GCS), shock-index grouped in quartiles and ISS).

RESULTS

There were 8423 patients from 24 centres included. The median age (IQR) was 48 (28-68) years. Median (IQR) ISS was 17 (14-25). There was a predominance of males (72%) apart from the extremes of age. Transport-related cases accounted for 45% of major trauma, followed by falls (35.1%). Patients took 1.42 (1.03-2.12) h to reach hospital and spent 7.10 (3.64-15.00) days in hospital. Risk adjusted length of stay and mortality did not differ significantly across sites. Primary endpoints across sites were also similar in paediatric and older adult (>65) age groups.

CONCLUSION

Australia has the capability to identify national injury trends to target prevention and reduce the burden of injury. Quality of care following injury can now be benchmarked across Australia and with the planned enhancements to data collection and reporting, this will enable improved management of trauma victims.

Identifying areas for improvement in paediatric trauma care in NSW Australia using a clinical, system and human factors peer-review tool

BACKGROUND

There is known variability in the quality of care delivered to injured children. Identifying where care improvement can be made is critical. This study aimed to review paediatric trauma cases across the most populous Australian State to identify factors contributing to clinical incidents.

METHODS

Medical records from three New South Wales Paediatric Trauma Centres were reviewed for children <16 years requiring intensive care; with an injury severity score of ≥9, or who died following injury between July 2015 and September 2016. Records were peer-reviewed by nurse surveyors who identified cases that might not meet the expected standard of care or where the child died following the injury. A multidisciplinary panel conducted the peer-review using a major trauma peer-review tool. Records were reviewed independently, then discussed to establish consensus.

RESULTS

A total 535 records were reviewed and 41 cases were peer-reviewed. The median (IQR) age was 7 (2-12) years, the median ISS was 25 (IQR 16-30). The peer-review identified a combination of clinical (85%), systems (51%) and communication (12%) problems that contributed to difficulties in care delivery. In 85% of records, staff actions were identified to contribute to events; with medical task failure the most frequently identified cause (89%).

CONCLUSION

The peer-review of paediatric trauma cases assisted in the identification of contributing factors to clinical incidents in trauma care resulting in 26 recommendations for change. The prioritisation and implementation of these recommendations, alongside a uniform State-wide trauma case review process with consistent criteria (definitions), performance indicators, monitoring and reporting would facilitate improvement in health service delivery to children sustaining severe injury.

Enhancing the training of trauma resuscitation flash teams: A mixed methods study

AIMS

To determine whether simulated multidisciplinary team training influences teamwork practices and experiences when resuscitating critically injured patients and to generate evidence for training trauma resuscitation flash teams.

BACKGROUND

Trauma teams perform in stressful situations. They are 'flash' teams, mobilised quickly and comprise of different specialties and disciplines. Simulation is promoted as a training strategy. Significant gaps remain in evaluating the impact of this training on clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine the most effective way to train trauma resuscitation flash team.

DESIGN

Final integration phase of a mixed methods embedded experimental study.

METHODS

Primary quantitative results (time to critical operations, facilitators and barriers to teamwork) were merged with supplementary qualitative results (team members' experiences and perspectives) to explain the influences of simulated multidisciplinary trauma team training on teamwork and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Four main themes were developed: communication needs to be specific to the emergency context; collaborative decision-making influences resuscitation situations; standardisation promotes efficient trauma care; proficient leadership empowers multidisciplinary teamwork.

CONCLUSION

Frontline clinicians identified real-world experiences that enable or impede team performance in trauma resuscitations. Our findings ascertain why multidisciplinary team training enhances team performance and what content should be incorporated in training programmes.

How is care provided for patients with paediatric trauma and their families in Australia? A mixed-method study

AIM

This study describes clinical staff opinions on the availability and suitability of resources to provide trauma care to children and their families and any perceived strengths, gaps and potential interventions to strengthen care.

METHODS

A mixed-method study was conducted in five Australian paediatric trauma centres. The trauma coordinator at each site participated in a structured interview to determine models of care and trauma activity at their site. This informed the development of an electronic survey, which sought staff opinion on child and family access to services and perceived gaps in care.

RESULTS

Five trauma coordinators were interviewed, and 214 clinicians (medical, nursing, allied health) from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland completed the survey. Each site had a trauma director and coordinator, and there was variance in resource availability. Almost all survey participants (92.5%) considered their hospital met the physical needs of injured children, 68.2% thought that the psychosocial needs of children were met and 82.1% thought that the needs of families were met. The least accessible services reported were clinical psychology/family counselling, mental health and behaviour management services. No routine follow-up support services post-discharge for the child or their families were identified.

CONCLUSION

Staff providing care for injured children report that physical needs are better met than psychosocial needs. There is variability in resource levels across paediatric trauma centres. A coordinated model of care that provides psychosocial care both during hospitalisation and post-discharge could reduce this gap in care for injured children and their families.