A multidimensional approach to identifying high-performing trauma centers across the United States

Author:

Hamad Doulia M.,Subacius Haris,Thomas Arielle,Guttman Matthew P.,Tillmann Bourke W.,Jerath Angela,Haas Barbara,Nathens Avery B.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The differentiators of centers performing at the highest level of quality and patient safety are likely both structural and cultural. We aimed to combine five indicators representing established domains of trauma quality and to identify and describe the structural characteristics of consistently performing centers. METHODS Using American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data from 2017 to 2020, we evaluated five quality measures across several care domains for adult patients in levels I and II trauma centers: (1) time to operating room for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds and shock, (2) proportion of patients receiving timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, (3) failure to rescue (death following a complication), (4) major hospital complications, and (5) mortality. Overall performance was summarized as a composite score incorporating all measures. Centers were ranked from highest to lowest performer. Principal component analysis showed the influence of each indicator on overall performance and supported the composite score approach. RESULTS We identified 272 levels I and II centers, with 28 and 27 centers in the top and bottom 10%, respectively. Patients treated in high-performing centers had significant lower rates of death major complications and failure to rescue, compared with low-performing centers (p < 0.001). The median time to operating room for gunshot wound was almost half that in high compared with low-performing centers, and rates of timely venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were over twofold greater (p < 0.001). Top performing centers were more likely to be level I centers and cared for a higher number of severely injured patients per annum. Each indicator contributed meaningfully to the variation in scores and centers tended to perform consistently across most indicators. CONCLUSION The combination of multiple indicators across dimensions of quality sets a higher standard for performance evaluation and allows the discrimination of centers based on structural elements, specifically level 1 status, and trauma center volume. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic /Care Management; Level IV.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Reference43 articles.

1. The trauma quality improvement program: pilot study and initial demonstration of feasibility;J Trauma,2010

2. The American College of Surgeons trauma quality improvement program;Surg Clin North Am,2012

3. Evaluating the quality of medical care;Milbank Mem Fund Q,1966

4. Donabedian's lasting framework for health care quality;N Engl J Med,2016

5. Ranking of trauma center performance: the bare essentials;J Trauma,2008

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3