Development of a Statewide Trauma Registry

Gillott, Anthony R.; Thomas, John M.; Forrester, Carol

doi:10.1097/00005373-198912000-00015

Cited by 26 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• (113) injury reporting expanded reporting rate (nurses versus expanded) and teaehers) The focus of several trauma registry evaluations \Vas on the "complt:teness" of system data (101)(102)(103)(104). Data collection forms \Vith missing clinical ordemographic information were considered incomplete, while those \Vith illogical dma were deemed inaccurate.…”

Section: Evaluation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Quality of an Injury Surveillance System

Macarthur

Pless

1999

American Journal of Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Evaluation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Quality of an Injury Surveillance System

Macarthur

Pless

1999

American Journal of Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Optimal trauma outcomes require consistent delivery of care. Over the past 20 years, the management of trauma patients has evolved with the development of trauma care systems, 1 regionalization of trauma centres, 2 establishment of national trauma registries, 3,4 reduction of errors through audit 5–8 and the introduction of performance improvement strategies 9–12 . Consistent trauma care delivery requires a robust system incorporating optimal clinical judgement and experience coupled with sound practice guidelines 13,14 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and consistency of care in admitted trauma patients: our next great opportunity in trauma care?

Chua

D’Amours

Sugrue

et al. 2009

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies have prospectively analysed the delivery of care in trauma patients. This study undertook a prospective analysis of performance and consistency of care at a Level 1 trauma centre. A 3-month prospective study was undertaken of all admitted trauma patients at Liverpool Hospital. Data were collected on patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), length of hospital stay, patient outcome and cause of death. Delivery of care was evaluated using 30 performance indicators and assessment of errors. Two hundred and thirty-six consecutive major trauma patients were studied. 73.3% were male, mean age 39 years. The main mechanism of injury was road trauma in 46.2%. Mean ISS was 12 and 64 patients had an ISS > or = 16. Error-free care was delivered in 145/236 (61.4%). There were 145 errors in 91 patients (38.6%). Errors in judgement and delays in diagnosis accounted for 56/145 (38.6%) and 48/145 (33.1%), respectively. Errors occurred most commonly in the Emergency Department (ED) (48.3%), and trainees from all specialties were responsible for 67.5% of errors. There were 25 near misses detected. Three patients developed major sequelae or complications from errors. One of 13 deaths was deemed potentially preventable. This study has shown that while 61.4% of admitted trauma patients receive optimal care, errors are frequent, resulting in a spectrum of outcomes from near misses to death. The majority of errors result from the activity of unsupervised trainees and relate to errors in judgement and delays in diagnosis. Clearly, there is room for improvement of the delivery of trauma care.

show abstract

“…5 This study included submissions to the PTOS from July 1995 through June 1998 for patients with MII, defined as those who have one or more of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9-CM 6 codes listed in Table 1, and an Abbreviated Injury Score 1990 Version (AIS 90) 7 severity score of 3 or 4 but no higher. Analyzed data came from 26 trauma centers.…”

Section: Methods Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in Trauma Center Outcomes for Patients With Moderate Intracranial Injury

Trooskin

Copes

Bain

et al. 2004

The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two severity adjustment methods identified significant variability in trauma center outcomes for patients with MII. The difference in outcomes between the centers with better than expected (2PZW) and poorer than expected outcomes (3NZW) was substantial. Peer review identified significant opportunities for reducing unexpected deaths, stays in hospital and in ICU, and the occurrence of complications. Trauma registry data and peer reviews found little relationship between available process of care variables and patient outcomes. This study should stimulate discussions to understand reasons for outcome variability and ways to reduce it.

show abstract

Development of a Statewide Trauma Registry

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of the Quality of an Injury Surveillance System

Evaluation of the Quality of an Injury Surveillance System

Performance and consistency of care in admitted trauma patients: our next great opportunity in trauma care?

Variability in Trauma Center Outcomes for Patients With Moderate Intracranial Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About