Search

Background: Trauma centers (TCs) vary in the inclusion of patients with isolated hip fractures (IHFs) in their registries. This inconsistent case ascertainment may have significant implications on the assessment of TC performance and external benchmarking efforts., Methods: Data were derived from the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-8.1). We included patients (aged 16 years or older) with Injury Severity Score value ≥ 9 who were admitted to Level I and II TCs. To ensure data quality, we limited the study to TC that routinely reported comorbidities and Abbreviated Injury Scale codes. IHF were defined as patients, aged 65 years or older, injured as a result of falls, with Abbreviated Injury Scale codes for hip fracture and without other significant injuries. TCs were stratified according to their reported inclusion of IHF in their registry. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios were used to rank TC performance first with and then, without the inclusion of patients with IHF., Results: In total, 91,152 patients in 132 TCs were identified; 5% (n = 4,448) were IHF. The proportion of IHF per TC varied significantly, ranging from 0% to 31%. When risk-adjusted mortality was evaluated, excluding patients with IHF had significant effects: 37% (n = 49) of TCs changed their performance rank by ≥ 3 (range, 1-25) and 12% of centers changed their performance quintile. The greatest change in rank performance was evident in centers that routinely include IHF in their registries., Conclusions: Given the fact that IHFs in the elderly significantly influence risk-adjusted outcomes and are variably reported by TCs, these patients should be excluded from subsequent benchmarking efforts.

Background: : Previous studies have demonstrated variations in severity-adjusted mortality between trauma centers. However, it is not clear if outcomes vary by the type of injury being treated., Methods: : National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify patients 16 years or older with moderate to severe injuries (Abbreviated Injury score > or =3) treated at level I or II trauma centers (n = 127,439 patients, 105 centers). Observed-to-Expected mortality ratios (O/E ratios, 95% confidence interval [CI]) were calculated for each trauma center within each of the three injury types: blunt multisystem (two or more body regions; n = 27,980; crude mortality, 15%), penetrating torso (neck, chest, or abdomen; n = 9,486; crude mortality, 9%), and blunt single system (n = 89,973; crude mortality 5%). Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for age, gender, mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity (Glasgow Coma Scale, blood pressure). For each injury type, trauma centers' performance was ranked as high (O/E with 95% CI <1), low (O/E with 95% CI >1), or average performers (O/E overlapping 1)., Results: : Almost three quarters of the trauma centers achieved the same performance rank in each of the three injury categories. There were 14 low-performing trauma centers in blunt multisystem injuries, six in penetrating torso injuries, and nine in the blunt single system injuries group. None of these centers achieved high performance in any other type of injury., Conclusions: : Risk-adjusted outcomes are consistent within trauma centers across different types of injuries, suggesting that quality improvement efforts should measure, analyze, and focus on hospital-wide systems of care, rather than on isolated quality domains related to specific types of injury.

Objective: Many trauma centers use the pan-computed tomography (CT) scan (head, neck, chest, and abdomen/pelvis) for the evaluation of blunt trauma. This prospective observational study was undertaken to determine whether a more selective approach could be justified., Methods: We evaluated injuries in blunt trauma victims receiving a pan-CT scan at a level I trauma center. The primary outcome was injury needing immediate intervention. Secondary outcome was any injury. The perceived need for each scan was independently recorded by the emergency medicine and trauma surgery service before patients went to CT. A scan was unsupported if at least one of the physicians deemed it unnecessary., Results: Between July, 1, 2007, and December, 28, 2007, 284 blunt trauma patients (average Injury Severity Score = 11) underwent a pan-CT after the survey form was completed. A total of 311 CT scans were judged to be unnecessary in 143 patients (27%), including scans of the head (62), neck (50), chest (116), and abdomen/pelvis (83). Of the 284 patients, 48 (17%) had injuries on 52 unsupported CT scans. An immediate intervention was required in 2 of the 48 patients (4%). Injuries that would have been missed included 5 of 62 unsupported head scans (8%), 2 of 50 neck scans (4%), 33 of 116 chest scans (28%), and 12 of 83 abdominal scans (14%). These missed injuries represent 5 of the 61 patients with closed head injuries (8%) in the series, 2 of the 23 with C-spine injuries (9%), 33 of the 112 with chest injuries (29%), and 12 of the 86 with abdominal injuries (14%). In 19 patients, none of the four CT scans was supported; nine of these had an injury identified, and six were admitted to the hospital (1 to the intensive care unit). Injuries that would have been missed included intraventricular and intracerebral hemorrhage (4), subarachnoid hemorrhage (2), cerebral contusion (1), C1 fracture (1), spinous and transverse process fractures (3), vertebral fracture (6), lung lacerations (1), lung contusions (14), small pneumothoraces (7), grade II-III liver and splenic lacerations (6), and perinephric or mesenteric hematomas (2)., Conclusions: In this small sample, physicians were willing to omit 27% of scans. If this was done, two injuries requiring immediate actions would have been missed initially, and other potentially important injuries would have been missed in 17% of patients.

Purpose: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources., Methods: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1)., Results: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers., Conclusions: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.