Canadian benchmarks for acute injury care

Complication reporting in trauma: An environmental scan and comparison of nationwide trauma registry data

BACKGROUND

To explore variability in quality measurement, this study aimed to compare abstraction and definitions of complications reported across trauma registries in Canada.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify active trauma registries used in Canadian hospitals. Registry characteristics, data abstraction, and reported complications and definitions based on registry data dictionaries were compared.

RESULTS

Nine registries were included, most of which were provincial-level registries (67 ​%). A total of 53 individual complications were identified. Twenty-one (40 ​%) were recorded by only one registry each whereas 5 (9 ​%) were collected by all. Of the 32 complications collected by ​> ​1 registry, 18 (56 ​%) had different definitions. Of the 18 with different definitions, 12 (67 ​%), 5 (28 ​%), and 1 (6 ​%) had 2, 3, and 4 different definitions across registries, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications reported by trauma registries are variable. Reliable benchmarking is likely challenging, and efforts to standardize complication reporting may be a valuable undertaking.

Derivation and validation of actionable quality indicators targeting reductions in complications for injury admissions

PURPOSE

Approximately, one out of five patients hospitalized following injury will develop at least one hospital complication, more than three times that observed for general admissions. We currently lack actionable Quality Indicators (QI) targeting specific complications in this population. We aimed to derive and validate QI targeting hospital complications for injury admissions and develop algorithms to identify patient charts to review.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II adult trauma center an integrated Canadian trauma system (2014-2019). We used the trauma registry to develop five QI targeting deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), decubitus ulcers, delirium, pneumonia and urinary tract infection (UTI). We developed algorithms to identify patient charts to revise on consultation with a group of clinical experts.

RESULTS

The study population included 14,592 patients of whom 5.3% developed DVT or PE, 2.7% developed a decubitus ulcer, 8.6% developed delirium, 14.7% developed pneumonia and 7.3% developed UTI. The indicators demonstrated excellent predictive performance (Area Under the Curve 0.81-0.87). We identified 4 hospitals with a higher than average incidence of at least one of the targeted complications. The algorithms identified on average 50 and 20 charts to be reviewed per year for level I and II centers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In line with initiatives to improve the quality of trauma care, we propose QI targeting reductions in hospital complications for injury admissions and algorithms to generate case lists to facilitate the review of patient charts.

Trauma systems in North America

North American trauma systems are well developed yet vary widely in form across the continent. Comparatively, the Canadian trauma system is more unified, and approximately 80% of Canadians live within 1 hour of a level I or II center. In the United States, trauma centers are specifically verified by the individual states and thus there tends to be more variability across the country. Although many states use the criteria developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the individual agencies are free to utilize their own verification standards. Both Canada and the United States utilize efficient prehospital care, and both countries recognize that postdischarge care is a financial challenge to the system. Population dense areas offer rapid admission to well-developed trauma centers, but injured patients in remote areas may have challenges regarding access. Trauma centers are classified according to their capabilities from level I (highest ability) to level IV. Although each trauma system has opportunities for improvement, they both provide effective access and quality care to the vast majority of injured patients.