Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review

Evidence-Informed Quality Indicators for Pediatric Trauma Care

Importance

Despite the unique physiological characteristics and health care needs of pediatric trauma patients, there is a lack of quality indicators (QIs) based on pediatric-specific evidence to support quality improvement in this population.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based set of QIs for acute pediatric trauma care that considers evidence on effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, equity, and caregiver perspectives and is applicable in pediatric and nonpediatric trauma centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A modified Research and Development (RAND)/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) expert consensus study was conducted consisting of an online survey and a virtual workshop, led by an independent moderator. Panelists represented key areas of pediatric trauma patient management, diverse care settings (from level I pediatric trauma centers to level III referring centers), 5 high-resource countries, and caregivers. Data were analyzed from May to August 2024.

Exposure

Likert-scale ratings of 41 QIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Panelists rated 41 QIs on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. QIs with a global score of 24 of 28 or greater and an importance score of 6 of 7 or greater were considered accepted by consensus.

Results

A total of 65 experts were invited, of whom 59 accepted (91%; 25 over 50 years of age [44.7%]; 34 female [60.7%]), 56 (95%) completed the first round, and 54 (92%) completed both rounds. Twenty-three QIs were selected covering key areas of acute pediatric trauma management (eg, transfer to a pediatric trauma center for neurotrauma or major multisystem trauma, documentation of vital signs, early rehabilitation, nutritional support), the most common types of injuries (eg, hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury, stabilization of femoral shaft fractures, nonoperative management of solid organ injuries), value in care (eg, imaging in children at low risk on a clinical decision rule), patient-centered care (eg, designated support person, caregiver presence), and equity (eg, mental health screening).

Conclusions

These results may be used by trauma quality improvement programs in high-resource countries to select context-specific quality indicators to improve the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, equity, and patient-centered nature of pediatric trauma care.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care.

METHODS

We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

DISCUSSION

On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care

Importance

Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences.

Objective

To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time).

Results

The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.