Comparative Update on Documentation of Trauma in Seven National Registries

Probst, Christian; Paffrath, Thomas; Krettek, Christian; Pape, H.-C.

doi:10.1007/s00068-006-5113-6

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The EuroTARN is still in an early phase of development, and up to date no consensus on the detail and extension of the dataset between countries has been reached (22). The first report from EuroTARN concludes that it is possible to collect data from established trauma registries and that initial analysisr eveals significant international variations (23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Comparing Core Data from Existing Trauma Registries in Scandinavia. Reaching for a Scandinavian Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS)

Ringdal

Lossius

Registry³

2007

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: the organisationo ft raumac arei ns candinavia has several similarities, including trauma registries, but so far there are limited amount of research on efficiency and outcome. data and results from trauma outcome studies like the us mtos are not fully applicable to the scandinavian trauma population.Aims: to reveal the feasibility of usingd ata from existing trauma registries of major hospitals in scandinavia, for aminimal common dataset, in ajoint, prospective scandinavian mtos.Material and Methods: We collected data points, data point definitions, andinclusion/ exclusion criteria, from the major trauma registries of the swedish trauma registry standard, three university hospitalsindenmark, one university hospital in Finland, and the norwegian national tr auma registry.t he collected material was compared to reveal common data points, inclusion criteria, and the compatibilityofdata point definitions.Results: the median number of data points was 147 (range 71-257; interquartile range =90-205). Most registries lacked precise data definition catalogues. Only 16 data points could be considered as common, of which just afew were core trauma data. Four data points had the same data category options but were not considered having the same data point definitions. The inclusion criteria were not uniform.Conclusions: tr auma registries in scandinavia have few common core data and data point definitions. There were data points for calculating the Tr auma and Injury Severity score (triss) but the inclusion criteriav aried too much to ensure av alid comparison.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Comparing Core Data from Existing Trauma Registries in Scandinavia. Reaching for a Scandinavian Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS)

Ringdal

Lossius

Registry³

2007

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Auch vor dem Hintergrund der sich zunehmend [17,20,33]. Gleichermaßen wurden die Datensätze der bestehenden Register (Trauma Register DGU® [26], Schlaganfallregister, Reanimationsregister der DGAI) und weitere relevante Kerndatensätze wie der Kerndatensatz Anästhesie der DGAI berück-sichtigt [5]. In insgesamt sieben Arbeitssitzungen und Klausurtagungen der gesamten Sektion und mehreren zusätzli-chen Kleingruppentreffen wurde ein interdisziplinär und interprofessionell verwendbarer Kerndatensatz definiert.…”

Section: Hintergrundunclassified

Standardisierte Dokumentation im Schockraum mit dem Kerndatensatz „Notaufnahme“ der DIVI

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Germany the documentation of every prehospital emergency medical treatment has been standardized since 1997 based on the core data-set MIND (minimal emergency physician data-set). Against this background it is very surprising that there is still no standardized data-set implemented for the documentation of early inhospital emergency care. In order to create such a data-set the current state of documentation in many different hospitals all over the country was scrutinized. In addition existing registries and international requirements were taken into consideration. Finally, a modular data-set was created using a Delphi process. This data-set was tested, clinically validated and finally ratified by the executive committee of the DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care Medicine). The modular data-set was designed in such a way that a basic module forms the foundation for every patient. Process-oriented modules (e.g. surveillance) and symptom-oriented modules (e.g. trauma, neurology) were added if necessary. Along with this data-set a set of six modules was created for graphical representation when required. This high level of standardization not only allows an internal and external quality assessment but also provides a sophisticated documentation system especially to the trauma team in the emergency department. In terms of content major parameters of interhospital quality management are recorded and important factors of process management, such as MTS (Manchester triage system), ATLS (advanced trauma life support) and EWS (early warning score) have been implemented. The data-set includes all necessary information for transfers between physicians and non-academic staff as well as between physicians and could also be used as a fundamental discharge letter. Moreover, this new core data-set is the implementation of items required by existing registries into the daily routine documentation in order to reduce unnecessarily time-consuming and error-prone secondary data acquisition. For example, all items of the preclinical and emergency room documentation for the TraumaRegister DGU® (documentation phase S, A and B of the standard and QM form) have been included. This is sufficient for participation as a TraumaNetzwerk DGU® member as far as the early clinical treatment of multiple injured patients is concerned.

show abstract

“…Deshalb werden in vielen Ländern standardisierte Traumadokumentationssysteme betrieben [15,17]. In der aktuellen Arbeit stellen wir die beiden großen deutschen Systeme vor und stellen sie in den europäischen Vergleich mit den Nachbarn in Frankreich und Großbritannien.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

“…In der aktuellen Arbeit stellen wir die beiden großen deutschen Systeme vor und stellen sie in den europäischen Vergleich mit den Nachbarn in Frankreich und Großbritannien. Bei einer genauen Analyse fand sich das folgende Ergebnis: Bei Betrachtung der französischen und englischen Beispiele gruppieren sich UFO und TR nahtlos in die Reihe der anderen europäischen und auch nicht aufgeführten nordamerikanischen und australischen Register ein [17]. Die franzö-sischen Systeme publizieren einen vergleichsweise großen Anteil der Arbeiten auf nationaler Ebene.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified