Search

Background: Quality improvement (QI) programs have shown to reduce preventable mortality in trauma care. Detailed review of all trauma deaths is a time and resource consuming process and calculated probability of survival (Ps) has been proposed as audit filter. Review is limited on deaths that were 'expected to survive'. However no Ps-based algorithm has been validated and no study has examined elements of preventability associated with deaths classified as 'expected'. The objective of this study was to examine whether trauma performance review can be streamlined using existing mortality prediction tools without missing important areas for improvement.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all trauma deaths reviewed by our trauma QI program. Deaths were classified into non-preventable, possibly preventable, probably preventable or preventable. Opportunities for improvement (OPIs) involve failure in the process of care and were classified into clinical and system deviations from standards of care. TRISS and PS were used for calculation of probability of survival. Peer-review charts were reviewed by a single investigator.Results: Over 8 years, 626 patients were included. One third showed elements of preventability and 4% were preventable. Preventability occurred across the entire range of the calculated Ps band. Limiting review to unexpected deaths would have missed over 50% of all preventability issues and a third of preventable deaths. 37% of patients showed opportunities for improvement (OPIs). Neither TRISS nor PS allowed for reliable identification of OPIs and limiting peer-review to patients with unexpected deaths would have missed close to 60% of all issues in care.Conclusions: TRISS and PS fail to identify a significant proportion of avoidable deaths and miss important opportunities for process and system improvement. Based on this, all trauma deaths should be subjected to expert panel review in order to aim at a maximal output of performance improvement programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Death during acute care hospitalisation is commonly used as a principal outcome indicator in injury research. This endpoint excludes post-hospital trauma-related deaths, which are substantial according to recent US studies. Two additional ways of defining outcome in trauma victims are also used; by end of somatic care, and at 30 days after injury. Our primary aim was to analyse how the different definitions of trauma outcome influence performance analyses. Secondly, we wanted to evaluate whether 30 days mortality after injury, which is widely used in other parts of biomedicine and recommended by the United Nations for use in transport statistics, is a suitable endpoint in trauma research. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the hospital based trauma registry at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) in Oslo, Norway. Outcome measure was mortality at discharge from UUH, i.e., by “end of acute care”, at end of somatic care defined as discharge from final acute care hospital, and at 30 days after injury. Analyses were performed according to conventional TRISS methodology. Results: 3332 of 3446 patients from the years 2000–2004 were included. Of these, 323 (9.7%) died within 30 days of injury or during somatic care more than 30 days after injury. Mortality varied with outcome definition, with 264 deaths (81.7% of total deaths) before discharge from UUH, 318 (98.4%) before end of somatic care, and 308 (95.4%) within 30 days after injury. TRISS-based trauma system performance evaluation for blunt trauma showed significantly better outcome than predicted with discharge from UUH as outcome definition, whereas for category 30 days after injury, performance was clearly less favourable. Performance for penetrating trauma was not affected, since all deaths occurred before 30 days, and nearly all before discharge from UUH. Conclusions: A substantial number of in-hospital deaths following blunt trauma occurs after discharge from the primary institution, i.e., unnoticed when “end of acute care” is used as outcome definition. Consequently, outcome definition influenced performance when comparing our institution to an acknowledged standard. We recommend mortality occurring within 30 days of injury as endpoint in trauma research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: Although several changes were implemented in the 1998 update of the abbreviated injury scale (AIS 98) versus the previous AIS 90, both are still used worldwide for coding of anatomic injury in trauma. This could possibly invalidate comparisons between systems using different AIS versions. Our aim was to evaluate whether the use of different coding dictionaries affected estimation of Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and probability of survival (Ps) according to TRISS in a hospital-based trauma registry. Materials and methods: In a prospective study including 1654 patients from Ulleval University Hospital, a Norwegian trauma referral centre, patients were coded according to both AIS 98 and AIS 90. Agreement between the classifications of ISS, NISS and Ps according to TRISS methodology was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% CI. Results: ISS changed for 378 of 1654 patients analysed (22.9%). One hundred and forty seven (8.9%) were coded differently due to different injury descriptions and 369 patients (22.3%) had a change in ISS value in one or more regions due to the different scoring algorithm for skin injuries introduced in AIS 98. This gave a minimal change in mean ISS (14.74 versus 14.54). An ICC value of 0.997 (95% CI 0.9968–0.9974) for ISS indicates excellent agreement between the scoring systems. There were no significant changes in NISS and Ps. Conclusions: There was excellent agreement for the overall population between ISS, NISS and Ps values obtained using AIS 90 and AIS 98 for injury coding. Injury descriptions for hypothermia were re-introduced in the recently published AIS 2005. We support this change as coding differences due to hypothermia were encountered in 4.3% of patients in the present study. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Although mortality is an important outcome parameter for pre-hospital trauma care, it is influenced by many factors other than pre-hospital trauma care alone. We therefore studied an alternative method to evaluate pre-hospital trauma care by calculating the change in probability of survival (Ps) according to the TRISS methodology, before and directly after the pre-hospital trauma care. Correlations between patient characteristics and a change in Ps were assessed. Further, required sample sizes were calculated for an 80% power to detect a hypothetical 3% reduction in mortality and the corresponding change in Ps. In 140 of 191 patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥16, the Ps did not change. In 36, the Ps increased and in 15 patients, the Ps decreased. Between these three groups, significant differences were found in Revised Trauma Score and age, but no clear differences in Injury Severity Score or mortality. A 3% difference in mortality would require 6800 patients, in contrast to 3500 when the change in Ps was the primary outcome parameter. A change in Ps is a promising outcome parameter for a more efficient evaluation of pre-hospital trauma care. A good collaboration is, however, required between ambulance services and the trauma center for reliable registration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In this prospective study, the TRISS methodology is used to compare trauma care at a university hospital (Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General (LTMG) Hospital) in Mumbai, India, with the standards reported in the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS). Methods: Between 1 August 2001 and 31 May 2002, 1074 severely injured patients were included in the study. Survival analysis was completed for 98.3% of the patients. Results: The majority of the patients were men (84%) and the average age was 31 years. 90.4% were blunt injuries, with road traffic crashes (39.2%) being the most common cause. The predicted mortality was 10.89% and the observed mortality was 21.26%. The mean Revised Trauma Score (RTS) was 6.61±1.65 and the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 16.7±10.67. The average probability of survival (Ps) was 89.14. The M and Z statistics were 0.84 and −14.1593, respectively. Conclusion: The injured in India were found to be older, the injuries more severe and with poorer outcomes, than in the MTOS study. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]