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