Inter-hospital variation in surgical intensity for trauma admissions: A multicentre cohort study

Beyond American College of Surgeons Verification: Quality Metrics Associated with High Performance at Level I and II Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma has established a framework for trauma center quality improvement. Despite efforts, recent studies show persistent variation in patient outcomes across national trauma centers. We aimed to investigate whether risk-adjusted mortality varies at the hospital level and if high-performing centers demonstrate better adherence to ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation (VRC) program quality measures.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed data from the 2018 to 2021 ACS TQIP Participant Use Files, focusing on adult admissions at ACS-verified level I or II trauma centers for blunt, penetrating, or isolated traumatic brain injury. We used mixed-effects models to assess center-specific risk-adjusted mortality and identified high-performing centers (HPTCs), defined as those with the lowest decile of overall risk-adjusted mortality. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, outcomes, and adherence to ACS-VRC quality measures between HPTC and non-HPTC.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,498,602 patients across 442 level I and II trauma centers met inclusion criteria: 65.3% presenting with blunt injury, 9.3% with penetrating injury, and 25.4% with isolated TBI. Management at HPTC was associated with lower odds of major complications, failure to rescue, and takeback. Additionally, HPTC status was associated with increased odds of adherence to several ACS-VRC quality measures, including balanced resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51), appropriate pediatric admissions (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.68), and substance abuse screening (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in risk-adjusted mortality persists across trauma centers. Given the association between adherence to quality measures and high performance, multidisciplinary efforts to refine and implement guidelines are warranted.

Low-value injury care in the adult orthopaedic trauma population: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Fifteen potentially low value practices in adult orthopaedic trauma care were previously identified in a scoping review. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence on these practices.

METHODS

We searched four databases for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series that assessed the effectiveness of selected practices. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. We evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool for observational studies. We summarised findings with measures of frequency and association for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 30,670 records screened, 70 studies were retained. We identified high-level evidence of lack of effectiveness or harm for routine initial imaging of ankle injury, orthosis for A0-A3 thoracolumbar burst fracture in patients <60 years of age, cast or splint immobilisation for suspected scaphoid fracture negative on MRI or confirmed fifth metacarpal neck fracture, and routine follow-up imaging for distal radius and ankles fractures. However, evidence was mostly based on studies of low methodological quality or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we identified clinical practices in orthopaedic injury care which are not supported by current evidence and whose use may be questioned. In future research, we should measure their frequency, assess practice variations and evaluate root causes to identify practices that could be targeted for de-implementation.