Comparing regression-adjusted mortality to standardized mortality ratios for trauma center profiling

Addressing Competing Risks When Assessing the Impact of Health Services Interventions on Hospital Length of Stay

BACKGROUND

Although hospital length of stay is generally modeled continuously, it is increasingly recommended that length of stay should be considered a time-to-event outcome (i.e., time to discharge). Additionally, in-hospital mortality is a competing risk that makes it impossible for a patient to be discharged alive. We estimated the effect of trauma center accreditation on risk of being discharged alive while considering in-hospital mortality as a competing risk. We also compared these results with those from the "naive" approach, with length of stay modeled continuously.

METHODS

Data include admissions to a level I trauma center in Quebec, Canada, between 2008 and 2017. We computed standardized risk of being discharged alive at specific days by combining inverse probability weighting and the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function. We estimated effect of accreditation using pre-post, interrupted time series (ITS) analyses, and the "naive" approach.

RESULTS

Among 5,300 admissions, 12% died, and 83% were discharged alive within 60 days. Following accreditation, we observed increases in risk of discharge between the 7th day (4.5% [95% CI = 2.3, 6.6]) and 30th day since admission 3.8% (95% CI = 1.5, 6.2). We also observed a stable decrease in hospital mortality, -1.9% (95% CI = -3.6, -0.11) at the 14th day. Although pre-post and ITS produced similar results, we observed contradictory associations with the naive approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating length of stay as time to discharge allows for estimation of risk of being discharged alive at specific days after admission while accounting for competing risk of death.

A Value-Based Comparison of the Management of Ambulatory Respiratory Diseases in Walk-in Clinics, Primary Care Practices, and Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In Canada, 30%-60% of patients presenting to emergency departments are ambulatory. This category has been labeled as a source of emergency department overuse. Acting on the presumption that primary care practices and walk-in clinics offer equivalent care at a lower cost, governments have invested massively in improving access to these alternative settings in the hope that patients would present there instead when possible, thereby reducing the load on emergency departments. Data in support of this approach remain scarce and equivocal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the value of care received in emergency departments, walk-in clinics, and primary care practices by ambulatory patients with upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, influenza-like illness, pneumonia, acute asthma, or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective cohort study will be performed in Ontario and Québec. In phase 1, a time-driven activity-based costing method will be applied at each of the 15 study sites. This method uses time as a cost driver to allocate direct costs (eg, medication), consumable expenditures (eg, needles), overhead costs (eg, building maintenance), and physician charges to patient care. Thus, the cost of a care episode will be proportional to the time spent receiving the care. At the end of this phase, a list of care process costs will be generated and used to calculate the cost of each consultation during phase 2, in which a prospective cohort of patients will be monitored to compare the care received in each setting. Patients aged 18 years and older, ambulatory throughout the care episode, and discharged to home with one of the aforementioned targeted diagnoses will be considered. The estimated sample size is 1485 patients. The 3 types of care settings will be compared on the basis of primary outcomes in terms of the proportion of return visits to any site 3 and 7 days after the initial visit and the mean cost of care. The secondary outcomes measured will include scores on patient-reported outcome and experience measures and mean costs borne wholly by patients. We will use multilevel generalized linear models to compare the care settings and an overlap weights approach to adjust for confounding factors related to age, sex, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, registration with a family physician, socioeconomic status, and severity of illness.

RESULTS

Phase 1 will begin in 2021 and phase 2, in 2023. The results will be available in 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The end point of our program will be for deciders, patients, and care providers to be able to determine the most appropriate care setting for the management of ambulatory emergency respiratory conditions, based on the quality and cost of care associated with each alternative.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/25619.

Impact of trauma centre accreditation on mortality and complications in a Canadian trauma system: an interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Periodic external accreditation visits aiming to determine whether trauma centres are fulfilling the criteria for optimal care are part of most trauma systems. However, despite the growing trend towards accreditation of trauma centres, its impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. In addition, a recent systematic review found inconsistent results on the association between accreditation and patient outcomes, mostly due to the lack of robust controls. We aim to address these gaps by assessing the impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality and complications, using an interrupted time series (ITS) design.

METHODS

We included all major trauma admissions to five level I and four level II trauma centres in Quebec, Canada between 2008 and 2017. In order to perform ITS, we first obtained monthly and quarterly estimates of the proportions of in-hospital mortality and complications, respectively, for level I and level II centres. Prognostic scores were used to standardise these proportions to account for changes in patient case mix and segmented regressions with autocorrelated errors were used to estimate changes in levels and trends in both outcomes following accreditation.

RESULTS

There were 51 035 admissions, including 20 165 for major trauma during the study period. After accounting for changes in patient case mix and secular trend in studied outcomes, we globally did not observe an association between accreditation and patient outcomes. However, associations were heterogeneous across centres. For example, in a level II centre with worsening preaccreditation outcomes, accreditation led to -9.08 (95% CI -13.29 to -4.87) and -9.60 (95% CI -15.77 to -3.43) percentage point reductions in mortality and complications, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Accreditation seemed to be beneficial for centres that were experiencing a decrease in performance preceding accreditation.

Canadian benchmarks for acute injury care

BACKGROUND

Acute care injury outcomes vary substantially across Canadian provinces and trauma centres. Our aim was to develop Canadian benchmarks to monitor mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions.

METHODS

Benchmarks were derived using data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry on patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II trauma centre in Canada and from the following patient subgroups: isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), isolated thoracoabdominal injury, multisystem blunt injury, age 65 years or older. We assessed predictive validity using measures of discrimination and calibration, and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of replacing analytically complex methods (multiple imputation, shrinkage estimates and flexible modelling) with simple models that can be implemented locally.

RESULTS

The mortality risk adjustment model had excellent discrimination and calibration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.886, Hosmer-Lemeshow 36). The LOS risk-adjustment model predicted 29% of the variation in LOS. Overall, observed:expected ratios of mortality and mean LOS generated by an analytically simple model correlated strongly with those generated by analytically complex models (r > 0.95, κ on outliers > 0.90).

CONCLUSION

We propose Canadian benchmarks that can be used to monitor quality of care in Canadian trauma centres using Excel (see the appendices, available at canjsurg.ca). The program can be implemented using local trauma registries, providing that at least 100 patients are available for analysis.

In-hospital mortality among patients injured in motor vehicle crashes in a Saudi Arabian hospital relative to large U.S. trauma centers

Background

Traffic-related fatalities are a leading cause of premature death worldwide. According to the 2012 report the Global Burden of Disease 2010, traffic injuries ranked 8th as a cause of death in 2010, compared to 10th in 1990. Saudi Arabia is estimated to have an overall traffic fatality rate more than double that of the U.S., but it is unknown whether mortality differences also exist for injured patients seeking medical care. We aim to compare in-hospital mortality between Saudi Arabia and the United States, adjusting for severity and demographic variables.

Methods

The analysis included 485,611 patients from the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) and 5,290 patients from a trauma registry at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. For comparability, we restricted our sample to NTDB data from level-I public trauma centers (≥400 beds) in the U.S. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of setting (KAMC vs. NTDB) on in-hospital mortality after adjusting for age, sex, Triage-Revised Scale (T-RTS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism of injury, hypotension, surgery and head injuries. Interactions between setting and ISS, and predictors were also evaluated.

Results

Injured patients in the Saudi registry were more likely to be males, and younger than those from the NTDB. Patients at the Saudi hospital were at higher risk of in-hospital death than their U.S. counterparts. In the highest severity group (ISSs, 25–75), the odds ratio of in-hospital death in KAMC versus NTDB was 5.0 (95% CI 4.3-5.8). There were no differences in mortality between KAMC and NTDB among patients from lower ISS groups (ISSs, 1–8, 9–15, and 16–24).

Conclusions

Patients who are severely injured following traffic crash injuries in Saudi Arabia are significantly more likely to die in the hospital than comparable patients admitted to large U.S. trauma centers. Further research is needed to identify reasons for this disparity and strategies for improving the care of patients severely injured in traffic crashes in Saudi Arabia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40621-014-0021-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.