Search

Quality improvement activities in trauma systems are widely based on comparisons between trauma centers within the same system. Comparisons across different trauma systems may reveal further opportunities for quality improvement.This study aimed to compare the integrated trauma systems in Québec, Canada and in Victoria, Australia, regarding their structures, care processes and patient outcomes.The elements recommended by the American College of Surgeons were used to compare trauma systems structures. Comparisons of care processes and patient outcomes were based on data from major trauma admissions extracted from trauma registries (2013 and 2017). Care processes included time to reach a definitive care facility, time spent in the emergency department, and time lapsed before the first head computed tomography (CT) scan. These care processes were compared using a z-test of log-transformed times. Hospital mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared using indirect standardization based on multiple logistic and linear regression.Major differences in trauma system structure were Advanced Trauma Life Support at the scene of injury (Victoria), the use of validated prehospital triage tools (Québec), and mandatory accreditation of all trauma centers (Québec). Patients in Québec arrived at their definitive care hospital earlier than their counterparts in Victoria (median: 1.93 vs. 2.13 h, p = 0.002), but spent longer in the emergency department (median: 8.23 vs. 5.15 h, p0.0001) and waited longer before having their first head CT (median: 1.90 vs. 1.52 h, p0.0001). In-hospital mortality and hospital LOS were higher in Québec than in Victoria (standardized mortality ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.20; standardized LOS ratio: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.11).We observed important differences in the structural components and care processes in Québec and Victoria's trauma systems, which might explain some of the observed differences in patient outcomes. This study shows the potential value of international comparisons in trauma care and identifies possible opportunities for quality improvement.

Multiple clinical practice guidelines recommend minimizing radiation in trauma patients but there is a knowledge gap on the importance of this problem for trauma transfers. We aimed to estimate the incidence of pretransfer and repeat posttransfer computed tomography (CT) overall and in patients with an indication for immediate transfer, to assess interhospital practice variation, to identify predictors, and to quantify the influence of pretransfer CT on time to transfer. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study on patients transferred to major trauma centers from 2013 to 2019. Multilevel generalized linear regression was used to generate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess interhospital variation, multilevel logistic regression to generate odds ratios for each predictor, and geometric mean ratios to quantify the influence of CT on time to transfer. Results Of 18,244 patients included, 8501 (47%) had a pretransfer CT and one-quarter (26%) had a repeat posttransfer CT. Interhospital variation was moderate for pretransfer CT (5%-66%, ICC 12.5%) and for repeat posttransfer CT (7%-44%, ICC 14.7%). Pretransfer imaging was more frequent in elders and in males and repeat posttransfer imaging decreased over the study period but was more frequent in patients transferred in from Level III/IV centers than nondesignated hospitals. Time to transfer was doubled in patients who had a pretransfer CT.Results suggest that pretransfer CT and repeat posttransfer CT are frequent and are subject to significant practice variation. In addition, pretransfer CT is associated with increased times to transfer though additional studies are needed to demonstrate causation. These results highlight potential opportunities to reduce low-value imaging for trauma transfers.

Approximately, one out of five patients hospitalized following injury will develop at least one hospital complication, more than three times that observed for general admissions. We currently lack actionable Quality Indicators (QI) targeting specific complications in this population. We aimed to derive and validate QI targeting hospital complications for injury admissions and develop algorithms to identify patient charts to review. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II adult trauma center an integrated Canadian trauma system (2014–2019). We used the trauma registry to develop five QI targeting deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), decubitus ulcers, delirium, pneumonia and urinary tract infection (UTI). We developed algorithms to identify patient charts to revise on consultation with a group of clinical experts. The study population included 14,592 patients of whom 5.3% developed DVT or PE, 2.7% developed a decubitus ulcer, 8.6% developed delirium, 14.7% developed pneumonia and 7.3% developed UTI. The indicators demonstrated excellent predictive performance (Area Under the Curve 0.81–0.87). We identified 4 hospitals with a higher than average incidence of at least one of the targeted complications. The algorithms identified on average 50 and 20 charts to be reviewed per year for level I and II centers, respectively. In line with initiatives to improve the quality of trauma care, we propose QI targeting reductions in hospital complications for injury admissions and algorithms to generate case lists to facilitate the review of patient charts.

OBJECTIVE Evaluate interhospital variation in resource use for in-hospital injury deaths. BACKGROUND Significant variation in resource use for end-of-life care has been observed in the US for chronic diseases. However, there is an important knowledge gap on end-of-life resource use for trauma patients. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of injury deaths following hospitalization in any of the 57 trauma centers in a Canadian trauma system (2013-2016). Resource use intensity was measured using activity-based costing (2016 $CAN) according to time of death (72 h, 3-14 d, ≥14 d). We used multilevel log-linear regression to model resource use and estimated interhospital variation using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS Our study population comprised 2044 injury deaths. Variation in resource use between hospitals was observed for all 3 time frames (ICC = 6.5%, 6.6%, and 5.9% for < 72 h, 3-14 d, and ≥14 d, respectively). Interhospital variation was stronger for allied health services (ICC = 18 to 26%), medical imaging (ICC = 4 to 10%), and the ICU (ICC = 5 to 6%) than other activity centers. We observed stronger interhospital variation for patients < 65 years of age (ICC = 11 to 34%) than those ≥65 (ICC = 5 to 6%) and for traumatic brain injury (ICC = 5 to 13%) than other injuries (ICC = 1 to 8%). CONCLUSIONS We observed variation in resource use intensity for injury deaths across trauma centers. Strongest variation was observed for younger patients and those with traumatic brain injury. Results may reflect variation in level of care decisions and the incidence of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

ImportanceReducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences.ObjectiveTo assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsData from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts.Main Outcomes and MeasuresValidity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time).ResultsThe study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.

Background Injury represents 260 000 hospitalisations and $27 billion in healthcare costs each year in Canada. Evidence suggests that there is significant variation in the prevalence of hospital admissions among emergency department presentations between countries and providers, but we lack data specific to injury admissions. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of potentially low-value injury admissions following injury in a Canadian provincial trauma system, identify diagnostic groups contributing most to low-value admissions and assess inter-hospital variation. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study based on all injury admissions in the Quebec trauma system (2013-2018). Using literature and expert consultation, we developed criteria to identify potentially low-value injury admissions. We used a multilevel logistic regression model to evaluate inter-hospital variation in the prevalence of low-value injury admissions with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We stratified our analyses by age (1-15; 16-64; 65-74; 75+ years). Results The prevalence of low-value injury admissions was 16% (n = 19 163) among all patients, 26% (2136) in children, 11% (4695) in young adults and 19% (12 345) in older adults. Diagnostic groups contributing most to low-value admissions were mild traumatic brain injury in children (48% of low-value paediatric injury admissions; n = 922), superficial injuries (14%, n = 660) or minor spinal injuries (14%, n = 634) in adults aged 16-64 and superficial injuries in adults aged 65+ (22%, n = 2771). We observed strong inter-hospital variation in the prevalence of low-value injury admissions (ICC = 37%). Conclusion One out of six hospital admissions following injury may be of low value. Children with mild traumatic brain injury and adults with superficial injuries could be good targets for future research efforts seeking to reduce healthcare services overuse. Inter-hospital variation indicates there may be an opportunity to reduce low-value injury admissions with appropriate interventions targeting modifications in care processes.

Background: Injury represents 260,000 hospitalisations and $27 billion in healthcare costs each year in Canada. Evidence suggests that there is significant variation in the prevalence of hospital admissions among ED presentations between countries and providers but we lack data specific to injury admissions. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of potentially low-value injury admissions following injury in a Canadian provincial trauma system, identify diagnostic groups contributing most to low-value admissions and assess inter-hospital variation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study based on all injury admissions in the Québec trauma system (2013-2018). Using literature and expert consultation, we developed criteria to identify potentially low-value injury admissions. We used a multilevel logistic regression model to evaluate inter-hospital variation in the prevalence of low-value injury admissions with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We stratified our analyses by age (1-15; 16-64; 65-74; 75+ years). Results: The prevalence of low-value injury admissions was 16% (n=19,163) among all patients, 26% (2136) in children, 11% (4695) in young adults and 19% (12,345) in older adults. Diagnostic groups contributing most to low-value admissions were mild traumatic brain injury in children (48% of low-value pediatric injury admissions; n=922), superficial injuries (14%, n=660) or minor spinal injuries (14%, n=634) in adults aged 16-64, and superficial injuries in adults aged 65+ (22%, n=2771). We observed strong inter-hospital variation in the prevalence of low-value injury admissions (ICC=37%). Conclusion: One out of six hospital admissions following injury may be of low-value. Children with mild traumatic brain injury and adults with superficial injuries could be good targets for future research efforts seeking to reduce health care services overuse. Inter-hospital variation indicates there may be an opportunity to reduce low-value injury admissions with appropriate interventions targeting modifications in care processes.

Objectives Low-value clinical practices have been identified as one of the most important areas of excess healthcare spending. Nevertheless, there is a knowledge gap on the scale of this problem in injury care. We aimed to identify clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations pertaining to low-value injury care, estimate how frequently they are used in practice, and evaluate interhospital variations in their use. Methods We identified low-value clinical practices from internationally recognized CPGs. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from a Canadian trauma system (2014-2019) to calculate frequencies and assess interhospital variations. Results We identified 29 low-value practices. Fourteen could be measured using trauma registry data. The 3 low-value clinical practices with the highest absolute and relative frequencies were computed tomography (CT) in adults with minor head injury (n = 5591, 24%), cervical spine CT (n = 2742, 31%), and whole-body CT in minor or single-system trauma (n = 530, 32%). We observed high interhospital variation for decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury. Frequencies and interhospital variations were low for magnetic resonance imaging, intracranial pressure monitoring, inferior vena cava filter use, and surgical management of blunt abdominal injuries. Conclusions We observed evidence of poor adherence to CPG recommendations on low-value CT imaging and high practice variation for decompressive craniectomy. Results suggest that adherence to recommendations for the 10 other low-value practices is high. These data can be used to advance the research agenda on low-value injury care and inform the development of interventions targeting reductions in healthcare overuse in this population.

BACKGROUND Guidelines for injury care are increasingly moving away from surgical management towards less invasive procedures but there is a knowledge gap on how these recommendations are influencing practice. We aimed to assess inter-hospital variation in surgical intensity for injury admissions and evaluate the correlation between hospital surgical intensity and mortality/complications. METHODS We included adults admitted for major trauma between 2006 and 2016 in a Canadian provincial trauma system. Analyses were stratified for orthopaedic (n = 16 887), neurological (n = 12 888) and torso injuries (n = 9816). Surgical intensity was quantified with the number of surgical procedures

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.

Background: The evaluation of trauma center performance implies the use of indicators that evaluate clinical processes. Despite the availability of routinely collected clinical data in most trauma systems, quality improvement efforts are often limited to hospital-based audit of adverse patient outcomes. Objective: To identify and evaluate a series of process performance indicators (PPI) that can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. Materials and Methods: PPI were identified using a review of published literature, trauma system documentation, and expert consensus. Data from the 59 trauma centers of the Quebec trauma system (1999, 2006; N = 99,444) were used to calculate estimates of conformity to each PPI for each trauma center. Outliers were identified by comparing each center to the global mean. PPI were evaluated in terms of discrimination (between-center variance), construct validity (correlation with designation level and patient volume), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: Fifteen PPI were retained. Global proportions of conformity ranged between 6% for reduction of a major dislocation within 1 h and 97% for therapeutic laparotomy. Between-center variance was statistically significant for 13 PPI. Five PPI were significantly associated with designation level, 7 were associated with volume, and 11 were correlated over time. Conclusion: In our trauma system, results suggest that a series of 15 PPI supported by literature review or expert opinion can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. We have provided evidence of their discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting properties. The between-center variance observed in this study highlights the importance of evaluating process performance in integrated trauma systems.

Background: Trauma care of thoracic and abdominal injuries is currently in turmoil because of both a decrease in the number of these injuries and a concomitant increase in their nonsurgical management. The goal of this study was to evaluate the incidence of thoracic and abdominal injuries in the province of Quebec and the number of associated surgical procedures. Methods: Patients with blunt thoracic or abdominal injuries taken to a tertiary trauma center in the province of Quebec from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 2002 were identified. Patients who were dead on arrival were excluded. Only patients with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥2 for the thoracic or abdominal regions were included. Results: During the study period, a total of 16,430 blunt trauma patients were admitted to one of the four trauma centers. A total of 2,660 (16.2%) patients sustained thoracic and/or abdominal injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score >1. Among these, the median Injury Severity Score was 24 (range: 4-75) and the inhospital mortality rate was 11.0%. There were 2,196 patients (82.5%) with thoracic injuries, 977 patients (36.7%) with abdominal injuries, and 520 patients (19.5%) with injuries to both regions. A surgical intervention was undertaken in 76 patients with thoracic injuries (3.5%) and in 414 patients with abdominal injuries (42.3%). On average, 4.7 thoracic and 28.8 abdominal trauma procedures were performed per center, yearly. Each trauma surgeon performed, on average, less than one thoracic and less than five abdominal trauma procedures yearly. Conclusions: The incidence of blunt thoracic and abdominal injuries needing surgical intervention is low in Quebec tertiary trauma centers. The competence of general surgeons in trauma-related procedures might be compromised by such low patient volume unless they frequently perform nontrauma surgical procedures. We think that in Quebec, trauma care must be provided by surgeons who practice both acute emergency and elective surgical care in addition to trauma care. These findings should have an important impact on the development of on-going education and resident training programs.

To assess whether the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion influences the results of trauma center benchmarking. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study with data from an integrated Canadian trauma system. The study population included all patients admitted between 1999 and 2010 to any of the 57 adult trauma centers. Seven definitions of IHF based on diagnostic codes, age, mechanism of injury, and secondary injuries, identified in a systematic review, were used. Trauma centers were benchmarked using risk-adjusted mortality estimates generated using the Trauma Risk Adjustment Model. The agreement between benchmarking results generated under different IHF definitions was evaluated with correlation coefficients on adjusted mortality estimates. Correlation coefficients >0.95 were considered to convey acceptable agreement. The study population consisted of 172,872 patients before exclusion of IHF and between 128,094 and 139,588 patients after exclusion. Correlation coefficients between risk-adjusted mortality estimates generated in populations including and excluding IHF varied between 0.86 and 0.90. Correlation coefficients of estimates generated under different definitions of IHF varied between 0.97 and 0.99, even when analyses were restricted to patients aged ≥65 years. Although the exclusion of patients with IHF has an influence on the results of trauma center benchmarking based on mortality, the definition of IHF in terms of diagnostic codes, age, mechanism of injury and secondary injury has no significant impact on benchmarking results. Results suggest that there is no need to obtain formal consensus on the definition of IHF for benchmarking activities.

BACKGROUND: Process performance indicators that evaluate trauma centers in clinical case management provide information essential to the improvement of trauma care. However, multiple indicators are needed to adequately evaluate process performance, which renders comparisons cumbersome. Several methods are available for generating composite indicators that measure global performance. The goal of this study was to compare three composite methods that are widely used in other health care domains to identify the most appropriate for trauma care process performance evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, 15 process performance indicators were implemented using data from a Canadian provincial trauma registry (19,853 patients; 59 centers) on patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15. Composite scores were derived using three methods as follows: the indicator average, the opportunity model, and a latent variable model. Composite scores were evaluated in terms of discrimination, construct validity (association with an indicator of trauma center structural performance), criterion predictive validity (association with clinical outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). RESULTS: All composite scores discriminated well between trauma centers. Only the average indicator score was correlated with improved structure (r = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07Y0.53), lower risk-adjusted mortality (r = j0.22; 95% CI, j0.46 to 0.04), and lower risk-adjusted complication rate (r = j0.48; 95% CI, j0.65 to j0.25). Composite scores calculated with 1999 to 2002 data all correlated with those calculated with 2003 to 2006 data (r = 0.49, 0.87, and 0.84 for the indicator average, the opportunity model, and the latent variable model, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that of the three composite scores evaluated, only the indicator average demonstrates content and predictive criterion validity, discriminates between centers, and has good forecasting properties. In addition, this score is simple and intuitive and not subject to variation in weights over trauma systems and time. The observed association between higher indicator average scores and lower risk-adjusted mortality and complication rates suggests that improving process performance may improve patient outcome. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74: 1344Y1350. Copyright * 2013 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)

METHODS: As a part of a quality control study for the critical care service a chart review of all the hospital death from January 2002 to December 2004 was done. Patient who died from a known neurological disease that necessitate mechanical ventilation were identified as potential donors (PD). The medical record of these patients were review and the following data analysed: Age, gender, cause of death, whether OD was discussed with PD families, consent and refusal for organ donation, causes that precluded donation, number of donors, organ retrieved per donors and time delay from hospital admission to death.

Background: Patients with isolated hip fractures are frequently excluded from trauma registries. The goal of this study was to show that patients with these injuries have higher resource use and poorer outcomes than the rest of the trauma population. Methods: The Quebec Trauma Registry was used to identify all trauma patients from April 1, 1998, to March 31, 2003. Patients who were dead on arrival at the emergency room were excluded. Isolated hip fracture (HIP) was defined as a diagnosis of a single fracture to the neck of the femur (Abbreviated Injury Scale 1990 codes 851808.3, 851810.3, 851812.3, and 851818.3) secondary to a fall and for which the Injury Severity Score was 9 or 10 (no other Abbreviated Injury Scale code higher than 1). Patients with all other trauma diagnosis (OT) were used for comparison. Outcome variables were length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, in-hospital complications, and status and orientation at discharge. Chi-square and Wilcoxon ranksum tests were used. Results: There were 68,422 patients: 14,426 (21.1%) HIP patients and 53,996 (78.9%) OT patients. The median Injury Severity Score was 9 for HIP (range, 9-10) and 9 for OT (range, 1-75). Mean length of hospital stay was 18.4 days for HIP compared with 11.7 days for OT (p < 0.0001). HIP patients represented 29.5% of the total hospital stay. ICU stay was required for 1,353 HIP patients (9.4%) and for 12,395 (23.0%) OT patients (p < 0.0001). Mean ICU stay was 3.9 days for HIP compared with 5.5 days for OT (p = 0.0006). In-hospital mortality was 8.5% in HIP compared with 3.7% in OT (p < 0.0001). HIP represented 62.7% of patients referred for long-term care and 39.3% of patients referred to a rehabilitation center. Conclusion: Patients with HIP represented 21.1% of admissions while accounting for 42% of total days of hospitalization and 38% of deaths. Patients with hip fractures have a significantly higher risk of death, prolonged hospital stay, and complication rate, and are more often transferred to a rehabilitation center or to a long-term nursing home than the rest of the trauma population despite lower severity. They require multidisciplinary care typical of the rest of the trauma population and should be included in the trauma registry if the registry is to document the full outcome and resource use of the trauma population.