Evaluating trauma center structural performance: The experience of a Canadian provincial trauma system

Designing and conducting initial application of a performance assessment model for in-hospital trauma care

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a major cause of death worldwide, especially in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). The increase in health care costs and the differences in the quality of provided services indicates the need for trauma care evaluation. This study was done to develop and use a performance assessment model for in-hospital trauma care focusing on traffic injures.

METHODS

This multi-method study was conducted in three main phases of determining indicators, model development, and model application. Trauma care performance indicators were extracted through literature review and confirmed using a two-round Delphi survey and experts' perspectives. Two focus group discussions and 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted to design the prototype. In the next step, components and the final form of the model were confirmed following pre-determined factors, including importance and necessity, simplicity, clarity, and relevance. Finally, the model was tested by applying it in a trauma center.

RESULTS

A total of 50 trauma care indicators were approved after reviewing the literature and obtaining the experts' views. The final model consisted of six components of assessment level, teams, methods, scheduling, frequency, and data source. The model application revealed problems of a selected trauma center in terms of information recording, patient deposition, some clinical services, waiting time for deposit, recording medical errors and complications, patient follow-up, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Performance assessment with an appropriate model can identify deficiencies and failures of services provided in trauma centers. Understanding the current situation is one of the main requirements for designing any quality improvement programs.

Identifying indicators and evaluation steps with suggestions for improving trauma care in Iran: experts' perspective

BACKGROUND

Trauma is one of the major causes of mortality across the world. Trauma patients have critical status and need timely, adequate, and organized care. The different consequences of trauma care among service centers around the world and even within a country revealed the need for careful evaluation. This study was designed and executed to collect experts' opinions on the evaluation steps, related indicators, and improvement strategies in trauma care.

METHODS

This qualitative study was based on a conventional content analysis approach. 2 focus group discussions (FGD) with 6 participants per FGD and 16 face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted to collect the required information (from September 2018 to early 2019). Participants were selected through the purposive sampling method. The experts' viewpoints were classified by the main and sub themes.

RESULTS

Four basic themes extracted from the interviews and focus group discussions including, trauma care importance (sub-themes: the involved individuals' being young and productive and the effectiveness of trauma care); trauma care indicators (sub-themes: pre-hospital indicators, in-hospital indicators, and post-hospital indicators); stages of trauma care evaluation (sub-themes: evaluation prerequisites, finalization of indicators before the evaluation, determining evaluation time scope, determining evaluation dimensions, external and internal evaluation and use of evaluation results); trauma care improvement (sub-themes: balancing workload in trauma centers, enhancement of information system, considering extra-organizational dimensions in trauma care and empowerment of trauma care providers).

CONCLUSIONS

According to experts' viewpoints, trauma is a very important issue, because it involves young people. They believed that having indicators covering all aspects of care assist health managers and policymakers to understand under-standard performance. These indicators should be used in the form of a specific evaluation program and related to Iran context. Besides, reforming macro policies, planning, development of infrastructures, and education was some recommendations of experts to improve trauma care.

Development and Validation of a Hospital Indicator of Activity-Based Costs for Injury Admissions

OBJECTIVES

To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions.

METHODS

We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean.

RESULTS

We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r²) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r² of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk.

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.

SHAPING QUALITY THROUGH VISION, STRUCTURE, AND MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY INDICATORS: IMPACT STORY FROM THE QUEBEC TRAUMA NETWORK

Objectives: The Quebec Trauma Care Continuum (TCC) was initiated in 1991 with the objective of providing accessible, continuous, efficient, and high quality services for all injury cases in the province.

Methods: The TCC design relied on three key components: (i) the designation of a network of acute care and rehabilitation facilities with specific mandates and responsibilities; (ii) the elaboration of transfer protocols, standing agreements, and governing structures to ensure fluid and optimal patient flow; and (iii) the close monitoring of several indicators to facilitate the continuous evaluation and improvement of the network.

Results: Between 1992 and 2002, in-hospital mortality following major trauma decreased from 51.8 percent to 8.6 percent, followed by an additional 24 percent drop between 1999 and 2012. We also observed a 16 percent decrease in average LOS but no change in the incidence of complications or unplanned readmissions. These changes translate into 186 lives saved per year and cost savings, due to shorter LOS, of 6.3 million CD$ per year. The risk-adjusted incidence of in-hospital mortality following major injury between 2006 and 2012 (7 percent) was the lowest of all Canadian provinces.

Conclusions: Strategic transformation of a network's structure and processes, supported by continuous monitoring of validated quality indicators, can lead to significant and sustainable improvements in clinical outcomes. It is hoped that the Quebec trauma story will inspire other jurisdictions and other healthcare sectors.

Consensus recommendations for essential vascular care in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVE

Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are ill equipped to care for the large and growing burden of vascular conditions. We aimed to develop essential vascular care recommendations that would be feasible for implementation at nearly every setting worldwide, regardless of national income.

METHODS

The normative Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on essential vascular care resources among 27 experts in multiple areas of vascular care and public health as well as with experience in LMIC health care. Five anonymous, iterative rounds of survey with controlled feedback and a statistical response were used to reach consensus on essential vascular care resources.

RESULTS

The matrices provide recommendations for 92 vascular care resources at each of the four levels of care in most LMICs, comprising primary health centers and first-level, referral, and tertiary hospitals. The recommendations include essential and desirable resources and encompass the following categories: screening, counseling, and evaluation; diagnostics; medical care; surgical care; equipment and supplies; and medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The resources recommended have the potential to improve the ability of LMIC health care systems to respond to the large and growing burden of vascular conditions. Many of these resources can be provided with thoughtful planning and organization, without significant increases in cost. However, the resources must be incorporated into a framework that includes surveillance of vascular conditions, monitoring and evaluation of vascular capacity and care, a well functioning prehospital and interhospital transport system, and vascular training for existing and future health care providers.

[Potential for the survey of quality indicators based on a national emergency department registry : A systematic literature search]

BACKGROUND

Emergency department processes are often key for successful treatment. Therefore, collection of quality indicators is demanded. A basis for the collection is systematic, electronic documentation. The development of paper-based documentation into an electronic and interoperable national emergency registry is-besides the establishment of quality management for emergency departments-a target of the AKTIN project. The objective of this research is identification of internationally applied quality indicators.

METHODS

For the investigation of the current status of quality management in emergency departments based on quality indicators, a systematic literature search of the database PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the internet was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 170 internationally applied quality indicators, 25 with at least two references are identified. A total of 10 quality indicators are ascertainable by the data set. An enlargement of the data set will enable the collection of seven further quality indicators. The implementation of data of care behind the emergency processes will provide eight additional quality indicators.

CONCLUSION

This work was able to show that the potential of a national emergency registry for the establishment of quality indicators corresponds with the international systems taken into consideration and could provide a comparable collection of quality indicators.

Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model: Validation in an integrated trauma system

BACKGROUND

According to Donabedian's health care quality model, improvements in the structure of care should lead to improvements in clinical processes that should in turn improve patient outcome. This model has been widely adopted by the trauma community but has not yet been validated in a trauma system. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of an integrated trauma system in terms of structure, process, and outcome and evaluate the correlation between quality domains.

METHODS

Quality of care was evaluated for patients treated in a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 centers, n = 63,971) using quality indicators (QIs) developed and validated previously. Structural performance was measured by transposing on-site accreditation visit reports onto an evaluation grid according to American College of Surgeons criteria. The composite process QI was calculated as the average sum of proportions of conformity to 15 process QIs derived from literature review and expert opinion. Outcome performance was measured using risk-adjusted rates of mortality, complications, and readmission as well as hospital length of stay (LOS). Correlation was assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant correlations were observed between structure and process QIs (r = 0.33), and process and outcome QIs (r = -0.33 for readmission, r = -0.27 for LOS). Significant positive correlations were also observed between outcome QIs (r = 0.37 for mortality-readmission; r = 0.39 for mortality-LOS and readmission-LOS; r = 0.45 for mortality-complications; r = 0.34 for readmission-complications; 0.63 for complications-LOS).

CONCLUSION

Significant correlations between quality domains observed in this study suggest that Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model is a valid model for evaluating trauma care. Trauma centers that perform well in terms of structure also tend to perform well in terms of clinical processes, which in turn has a favorable influence on patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III.

Derivation and validation of a quality indicator of acute care length of stay to evaluate trauma care

OBJECTIVE

To derive and internally validate a quality indicator (QI) for acute care length of stay (LOS) after admission for injury.

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary hospital days represent an estimated 20% of total LOS implying an important waste of resources as well as increased patient exposure to hospital-acquired infections and functional decline.

METHODS

This study is based on a multicenter, retrospective cohort from a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 trauma centers; n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and the hospital discharge database. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for model derivation using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting.

RESULTS

The risk adjustment model explains 37% of the variation in LOS. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.011-0.028) and is correlated with the QI on processes of care (r = -0.32), complications (r = 0.66), unplanned readmissions (r = 0.38), and mortality (r = 0.35). Performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a QI on the basis of risk-adjusted LOS to evaluate trauma care that can be implemented with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a robust risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity, and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This QI can be used to target interventions to reduce LOS, which will lead to more efficient resource use and may improve patient outcomes after injury.