BackgroundIn emergency department resuscitation units, writing down information related to interventions, physical examination, vital signs, investigations, and treatments ordered is a crucial task carried out by nurses. To facilitate this task, a team composed of emergency physicians, nurses, and one computer engineer created a novel electronic platform equipped with a tactile screen that allows systematic collection of critical data. This electronic platform also has medical software (ReaScribe+) that functions as an electronic medical record and a clinical decision support system.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a questionnaire that can help evaluate nurses’ intention to use a novel computerized platform in an emergency department resuscitation unit, based on Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB).MethodsThe sample for this study was composed of 87 nurses who worked in the resuscitation unit of a tertiary trauma center. We held three focus groups with nurses working in the resuscitation unit to identify the salient modal beliefs regarding their intended use of a new electronic medical charting system for the care of trauma patients. The system included a clinical decision support tool. We developed a questionnaire in which salient modal beliefs were used as items to evaluate the TPB constructs. We also added 13 questions to evaluate nurses’ computer literacy. The final questionnaire was composed of 46 questions to be answered on a 7-point Likert scale. All nurses in the resuscitation unit and present during a regular work shift were individually contacted by the principal investigator or a research assistant (phase 1). A subsample of the nurses who completed the questionnaire was invited to complete it a second time 2 weeks later (phase 2).ResultsIn phase 1, we received 62 of the 70 questionnaires administered (89% response rate). Of the 27 questionnaires administered in phase 2 (retest phase), 25 were completed (93% response rate). The questionnaire showed very good internal consistency, as Cronbach alpha was higher than .7 for all constructs. Temporal stability was acceptable with intraclass correlations between .41 and .66. The intention to use the electronic platform to chart the resuscitation of trauma patients was very high among the respondents. In the logistic regression model, the only construct that predicted nurses’ intention to adopt the computerized platform was the professional norm (odds ratio 3.31, 95% confidence interval 1.41–7.78).ConclusionsWe developed and validated a questionnaire that can now be used in other emergency departments prior to implementation of the computerized platform. The intention to adopt was very high among the respondents, which suggests that the implementation of this innovation could be successful at our institution.

for the Low-Value Practices in Trauma Care Expert Consensus Group IMPORTANCE The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. OBJECTIVE To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPanelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. RESULTSOf 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged Ն50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), ( 4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and ( 9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

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.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE Approximately 10% of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have intracranial bleeding (complicated mTBI) and 3.5% eventually require neurosurgical intervention, which is mostly available at centers with a higher level of trauma care designation and often requires interhospital transfer. In 2018, the Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) were updated in the United States to guide emergency department care and patient disposition for complicated mild to moderate TBI. The aim of this study was to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the updated BIG (uBIG) for predicting the need for interhospital transfer in Canadian patients with complicated mTBI. METHODS This study took place at three level I trauma centers. Consecutive medical records of patients with complicated mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13–15) who were aged ≥ 16 years and presented between September 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a penetrating trauma and those who had a documented cerebral tumor or aneurysm were excluded. The primary outcome was a combination of neurosurgical intervention and/or mTBI-related death. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed. RESULTS A total of 477 patients were included, of whom 8.4% received neurosurgical intervention and 3% died as a result of their mTBI. Forty patients (8%) were classified as uBIG-1, 168 (35%) as uBIG-2, and 269 (56%) as uBIG-3. No patients in uBIG-1 underwent neurosurgical intervention or died as a result of their injury. This translates into a sensitivity for predicting the need for a transfer of 100% (95% CI 93.2%–100%) and a specificity of 9.4% (95% CI 6.8%–12.6%). Using the uBIG could potentially reduce the number of transfers by 6% to 25%. CONCLUSIONS The patients in uBIG-1 could be safely managed at their initial center without the need for transfer to a center with a higher level of neurotrauma care. Although the uBIG could decrease the number of transfers, further refinement of the criteria could improve its specificity.