Are all trauma centers created equally? A statewide analysis

Trauma Quality Improvement Program: A Retrospective Analysis from A Middle Eastern National Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (American College of Surgery (ACS-TQIP)) uses the existing infrastructure of the Committee on Trauma programs and provides feedback to participating hospitals on risk-adjusted outcomes. This study aimed to analyze and compare the performance of the Level I Hamad Trauma Centre (HTC) with other TQIP participating centers by comparing TQIP aggregate database reports. The primary goal was to pinpoint the variations in adult trauma outcomes and quality measures, identify areas that need improvement, and leverage existing resources to facilitate quality improvement.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for the TQIP data from April 2019-March 2020 to April 2020-March 2021. We used the TQIP methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 915 patients from Fall 2020 and 884 patients from Fall 2021 that qualified for the TQIP database. The HTC patients' demographics differed from the TQIP's aggregate data; they were younger, more predominantly male, and had significantly different mechanisms of injury (MOI) with more traffic-related blunt trauma. Penetrating injuries were more severe in the other centers. During the TQIP Fall 2020 report, the HTC was a low outlier (good performer) in one cohort (all patients) and an average performer in the remaining cohorts. However, during Fall 2021, the HTC showed an improvement and was a low outlier in two cohorts (all patients and severe TBI patients). Overall, the HTC remained an average performer during the report cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an improvement over time in the risk-adjusted mortality, which reflects the continuous and demanding effort put together by the trauma team. The ACS-TQIP for the external benchmarking of quality improvement could be a contributor to better monitored patient care. Evaluating the TQIP data with emphases on appropriate methodologies, quality measurements, corrective measures, and accurate reporting is warranted.

Collecting data on organizational structures of trauma centers: the CAFE web service

Background

During the past several decades, the American College of Surgeons has led efforts to standardize trauma care through their trauma center verification process and Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Despite these endeavors, great variability remains among trauma centers functioning at the same level. Little research has been conducted on the correlation between trauma center organizational structure and patient outcomes. We are attempting to close this knowledge gap with the Comparative Assessment Framework for Environments of Trauma Care (CAFE) project.

Methods

Our first action was to establish a shared terminology that we then used to build the Ontology of Organizational Structures of Trauma centers and Trauma systems (OOSTT). OOSTT underpins the web-based CAFE questionnaire that collects detailed information on the particular organizational attributes of trauma centers and trauma systems. This tool allows users to compare their organizations to an aggregate of other organizations of the same type, while collecting their data.

Results

In collaboration with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, we tested the system by entering data from three trauma centers and four trauma systems. We also tested retrieval of answers to competency questions.

Discussion

The data we gather will be made available to public health and implementation science researchers using visualizations. In the next phase of our project, we plan to link the gathered data about trauma center attributes to clinical outcomes.

External benchmarking of trauma services in New South Wales: Risk-adjusted mortality after moderate to severe injury from 2012 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Trauma centres and systems have been associated with improved morbidity and mortality after injury. However, variability in outcomes across centres within a given system have been demonstrated. Performance improvement initiatives, that utilize external benchmarking as the backbone, have demonstrated system-wide improvements in outcomes. This data driven approach has been lacking in Australia to date. Recent improvement in local data quality may provide the opportunity to engage in data driven performance improvement. Our objective was to generate risk-adjusted outcomes for the purpose of external benchmarking of trauma services in New South Wales (NSW) based on existing data standards.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of the NSW Trauma Registry. We included adults (>16 years), with an Injury Severity Score >12, that received definitive care at either Major Trauma Services (MTS) or Regional Trauma Services (RTS) between 2012-2016. Hierarchical logistic regression models were then used to generate risk-adjusted outcomes. Our outcome measure was in-hospital death. Demographics, vital signs, transfer status, survival risk ratios, and injury characteristics were included as fixed-effects. Median odds ratios (MOR) and centre-specific odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were generated. Centre-level variables were explored as sources of variability in outcomes.

RESULTS

14,452 patients received definitive care at one of seven MTS (n = 12,547) or ten RTS (n = 1905). Unadjusted mortality was lower at MTS (9.4%) compared to RTS (11.2%). After adjusting for case-mix, the MOR was 1.33, suggesting that the odds of death was 1.33-fold greater if a patient was admitted to a randomly selected centre with worse as opposed to better risk-adjusted mortality. Definitive care at an MTS was associated with a 41% lower likelihood of death compared to definitive care at an RTS (OR 0.59 95%CI 0.35-0.97). Similar findings were present in the elderly and isolated severe brain injury subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The NSW trauma system exhibited variability in risk-adjusted outcomes that did not appear to be explained by case-mix. A better understanding of the drivers of the described variation in outcomes is crucial to design targeted locally-relevant quality improvement interventions.

Barriers to clinical research in trauma

As with all areas of medicine, high-quality clinical research is essential to improving the care of trauma patients. This research is crucial in developing evidence-based treatments that decrease cost, decrease morbidity, and improve mortality. Trauma continues to extract a significant toll on society and is the single largest cause of years of life lost in the United States. The need to conduct high-quality clinical research in trauma is not disputed. However, significant challenges and barriers unique to the field of trauma make performing this research more difficult. It is critical to be aware of these challenges and barriers to performing clinical research involving trauma patients so these challenges can be accounted for and solutions implemented to minimize their impact on research. This review will focus on the barriers and challenges that are encountered while performing clinical research in trauma.

The impact of individual physicians on outcomes after trauma: is it the system or the surgeon?

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking of mortality outcomes across the country has revealed major differences in survival based on the trauma center at which a patient receives care. The role of the individual surgeon in determining trauma outcomes is unknown. Most believe that differences in outcomes are primarily driven by system- and process-based variations. Our objective was to determine if variation in individual surgeon outcomes could help explain difference in survival after trauma.

METHODS

Analysis of trauma patients in the Florida State Inpatient Database from 2010 to 2014. The presence of unique physician identifiers, in addition to hospital identifiers, rendered this data set ideal for performance of multilevel analysis. The amount of the variation attributable to surgeon-level variation was calculated using multilevel random-effects models controlling for patient clinical factors (such as injury severity and comorbidities/age) and hospital-level factors, such as case mix and bed size.

RESULTS

There were 31 hospitals, 175 surgeons, and 65,706 admissions. The overall mortality rate was 5.6%. The average mortality rate across surgeons ranged from 0% to 17.4% (mean 0.4%, standard deviation 1.85). At the individual surgeon level, when controlling for clinical and hospital-level factors, 9% of this variation was attributable solely to the surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

At the state level, we found that differences in outcomes among trauma centers are impacted by individual surgeon-level variation. Implementation of protocolized, system-based trauma care is useful for improving the overall quality of care for injured patients but does not entirely negate surgeon-specific variations in management.

Establishing consensus on the definition of an isolated hip fracture for trauma system performance evaluation: A systematic review

Background:

Risk-adjusted mortality is widely used to benchmark trauma center care. Patients presenting with isolated hip fractures (IHFs) are usually excluded from these evaluations. However, there is no standardized definition of an IHF. We aimed to evaluate whether there is consensus on the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers in terms of mortality.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, TRIP Database, and PROQUEST for cohort studies that presented data on mortality to assess the performance of trauma centers and excluded IHF. A standardized, piloted data abstraction form was used to extract data on study settings, IHF definitions and methodological quality of included studies. Consensus was considered to be reached if more than 50% of studies used the same definition of IHF.

Results:

We identified 8,506 studies of which 11 were eligible for inclusion. Only two studies (18%) used the same definition of an IHF. Three (27%) used a definition based on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Codes and five (45%) on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Four (36%) studies had inclusion criteria based on age, five (45%) on secondary injuries, and four (36%) on the mechanism of injury. Eight studies (73%) had good overall methodological quality.

Conclusions:

We observed important heterogeneity in the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers. Consensus on a standardized definition is needed to improve the validity of evaluations of the quality of trauma care.

Temporal trends and differences in mortality at trauma centres across Ontario from 2005 to 2011: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Care in a trauma centre is associated with significant reductions in mortality after severe injury. However, emerging evidence suggests that outcomes across similarly accredited trauma centres are not equivalent, even after adjusting for case-mix. The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate secular trends in overall mortality at trauma centres. Secondarily, we explored trauma centre-specific mortality to determine the extent of variation between centres.

METHODS

Data on 26 421 adults (≥□18 yr) admitted to a trauma centre between 2005 and 2011 were derived from the Ontario Trauma Registry. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate in-hospital mortality over time and hierarchical models to estimate trauma-centre-specific mortality. To quantify variability between centres, we calculated median odds ratios. Adjusted odds of death were calculated for each trauma centre to identify those with higher than expected, average and lower than expected mortality.

RESULTS

Overall mortality at trauma centres decreased from 13.2% in 2005 to 11.2% in 2009. After adjusting for case mix, the odds of death decreased by approximately 3% a year (95% confidence interval 0%-5%). Trauma centre-specific mortality ranged from 11.4% to 13.1%. After adjusting for case mix, differences in trauma centre-specific mortality were observed (median odds ratio = 1.25), suggesting that the odds of dying could be 1.25-fold greater if the same patient was admitted to 1 randomly selected trauma centre as opposed to another. Differences were most pronounced for patients with isolated head injuries and among older patients as evidenced by higher median odds ratios and the number of outliers.

INTERPRETATION

We observed a significant improvement over time in the mortality of severely injured patients cared for at Ontario's trauma centres. However, considerable differences in trauma centre-specific mortality were observed. Differences were most pronounced among older injured patients and those with isolated traumatic brain injury. System-wide performance improvement initiatives should target these subgroups.

Variation in prehospital use and uptake of the national Field Triage Decision Scheme

BACKGROUND

The Field Triage Decision Scheme is a national guideline that has been implemented widely for prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) and trauma systems. However, little is known about the uptake, modification, or variation in field application of triage criteria between trauma systems.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the use of field triage criteria by EMS personnel in six regions, including the timing of guideline uptake and the use of nonguideline criteria.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 EMS agencies to 105 hospitals (trauma centers and non-trauma centers) in six Western U.S. regions from 2006 through 2008. We used probabilistic linkage to match patient-level prehospital information from multiple sources, including EMS records, base-hospital phone communication records, and trauma registry data files. Triage criteria were evaluated individually and grouped by "steps" (physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special considerations). We used descriptive statistics to compare the frequency of triage criteria use (overall and between regions) and to evaluate the timing of guideline uptake across multiple versions of the guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 260,027 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS over the three-year study period, of whom 46,414 (18%) met at least one field triage criterion and formed the primary sample for analysis. The three most common criteria cited (of 33 in use) were EMS provider judgment (26%), age <5 or >55 years (10%), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score <14 (9%). Of the 33 criteria in use, five (15%) were previously retired from the guidelines and seven (21%) were never included in the guidelines. 11,048 (24%) patients had more than one criterion applied (range 1-21). There was large variation in the type and frequency of criteria used between systems, particularly among the nonphysiologic triage steps. Only one of six regions had translated the most recent guidelines into field use within two years after release.

CONCLUSION

There is large variation between regions in the frequency and type of field triage criteria used. Field uptake of guideline revisions appears to be slow and variable, suggesting opportunities for improvement in dissemination and implementation of updated guidelines.

Outcomes of different health care contexts for direct transport to a trauma center versus initial secondary center care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Within a trauma system, pre-hospital care is the first step in managing the trauma patient. Timely and appropriate transport of the injured patient to the most appropriate facility is important. Many trauma systems mandate that serious trauma cases are transported directly to a level I trauma center unless transfer to a closer hospital is deemed necessary to resuscitate and stabilize the patient prior to onward transfer to definitive care. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity is often high and is likely to be influenced by the heath care context.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes for patients with serious trauma transported directly to a Level I/II trauma center ('direct' group) to those transported to a healthcare facility before transfer to the Level I/ II trauma center ('transfer' group). A search of bibliographic databases and secondary sources that focus on trauma was made. Studies were grouped by region: United States of America, Canada, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa.

RESULTS

The review included 43,554 patients from the 30 studies that met the selection criteria. Heterogeneity of the studies was high (I(2) 71%) overall but low for European, Asian, and Australian and New Zealand studies. There was considerable variation between studies in the structure, policies and practices of the respective trauma systems. The effect of "directness" on patient outcomes was inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

The current research evidence does not support nor refute a position that all serious trauma patients be routinely transported directly to a level I/II trauma center. As this is a complex issue, local health-care context and injury profile influence trauma policy and practice.

Association between hospitals caring for a disproportionately high percentage of minority trauma patients and increased mortality: a nationwide analysis of 434 hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is an increased odds of mortality among trauma patients treated at hospitals with higher proportions of minority patients (ie, black and Hispanic patients combined).

DESIGN

Hospitals were categorized on the basis of the percentage of minority patients admitted with trauma. The adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were compared between hospitals with less than 25% of patients who were minorities (the reference group) and hospitals with 25% to 50% of patients who were minorities and hospitals with more than 50% of patients who were minorities. Multivariate logistic regression (with generalized linear modeling and a cluster-correlated robust estimate of variance) was used to control for multiple patient and injury severity characteristics.

SETTING

A total of 434 hospitals in the National Trauma Data Bank.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 to 64 years whose medical records were included in the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2007 and 2008 with an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater and who were white, black, or Hispanic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Crude mortality and adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 311,568 patients were examined. Hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was more than 50% also had younger patients, fewer female patients, more patients with penetrating trauma, and the highest crude mortality. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated at hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was 25% to 50% and at hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was more than 50% demonstrated increased odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34] and adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.61], respectively), compared with the reference group. This disparity increased further on subset analysis of patients with a blunt injury. Uninsured patients had significantly increased odds of mortality within all 3 hospital groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated at hospitals with higher proportions of minority trauma patients have increased odds of dying, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Differences in outcomes between trauma hospitals may partly explain racial disparities.