Error reduction in trauma care: Lessons from an anonymized, national, multicenter mortality reporting system

Non-technical skills and teamwork in trauma: from the emergency department to the operating room

Management of a trauma patient is a challenging process. Swift and accurate clinical assessment is required and time-sensitive decisions and life-saving procedures must be performed in an unstable patient. This requires a coordinated response by both the emergency room (ER) and operating room (OR) teams. However, a team of experts does not necessarily make an expert team. Root cause analysis of adverse events in surgery has shown that failures in coordination, planning, task management and particularly communication are the main causes for medical errors. While most research is focused on the ER trauma team, the trauma OR team also deserves attention. In fact, OR team dynamics may resemble more the ER team than the elective OR team. ER and OR trauma teams assemble on short notice, and their members, who are from different specialties and backgrounds, may not train regularly together or even know each other beforehand. And yet, they have to perform high-risk procedures and make high stake decisions, in a time-sensitive manner. The airline industry has long recognized the role of team training and non-technical skills (NTS) in reducing hazards. The implementation of the so called crew resource management or crisis resource management (CRM) has significantly made airline travel safer and the transposition to the medical context, with specific training in non-technical skills, has also brought great benefits. In fact, it is clear that adoption of non-technical skills (NTS) in healthcare has led to an increase in patient safety. In this narrative review we recapitulate some of the key non-technical skills and their relevance in trauma, with a focus on both the emergency department (ER) and the operating room (OR) teams, as well as on the transition of care from one to the other. Also, we explore the use of debriefing the team, as well as the roles of NTS training in both undergraduate and postgraduate settings. We review some of the existing trauma training courses and their roles in developing NTS. Finally, we briefly address the challenges posed by the development of trauma hybrid operating rooms.

How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement is a cornerstone for any verified trauma center. Conducting effective quality and performance improvement, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we sought to better explore the landscape and challenges facing the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) through a survey.

METHODS

A survey was designed by the EAST Quality Patient Safety and Outcomes Committee. It was reviewed by the EAST Research and Scholarship Committee and then distributed to 2511 EAST members. The questions were designed to understand the frequency, content, and perceptions surrounding quality improvement processes.

RESULTS

There were 151 respondents of the 2511 surveys sent (6.0%). The majority were trauma faculty (55%) or trauma medical directors (TMDs) (37%) at American College of Surgeons level I (62%) or II (17%) trauma centers. We found a wide variety of resources being used across hospitals with the majority of cases being identified by a TMD or attending (81%) for a multidisciplinary peer review (70.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the quality improvement process with TMDs being more likely to describe their process as moderately or very effective compared with their peers (77.5% vs. 57.7%, p=0.026). The 'Just Culture' model appeared to have a positive effect on the process improvement environment, with providers less likely to report a non-conducive environment (10.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.012) and less feelings of assigning blame (3.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.026).

CONCLUSION

Case review remains an essential but challenging process. Our survey reveals a need to continue to advocate for appropriate time and resources to conduct strong quality improvement processes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological study, level III.