Accuracy of Trauma Surgeons Prospective Estimation of the Injury Severity Score: A Pilot Study.

Injury Severity Score (ISS) has limited utility as a prospective predictor of trauma outcomes as it is currently scored by abstractors post-discharge. This study aimed to determine accuracy of ISS estimation at time of admission. Attending trauma surgeons assessed the Abbreviated Injury Scale of each body region for patients admitted during their call, from which estimated ISS (eISS) was calculated. The eISS was considered concordant to abstracted ISS (aISS) if both were in the same category: mild (<9), moderate (9-15), severe (16-25), or critical (>25). Ten surgeons completed 132 surveys. Overall ISS concordance was 52.2%; 87.5%, 30.8%, 34.8%, and 61.7% for patients with mild, moderate, severe, and critical aISS, respectively; unweighted k = .36, weighted k = .69. This preliminarily supports attending trauma surgeons' ability to predict severity of injury in real time, which has important clinical and research implications.

Improving Statewide Post-Operative Sepsis Performance Measurement Using Hospital Risk Adjustment Within a Surgical Collaborative.

Background: The Georgia Quality Improvement Program (GQIP) surgical collaborative participating hospitals have shown consistently poor performance in the post-operative sepsis category of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data as compared with national benchmarks. We aimed to compare crude versus risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings to determine high and low performers amongst GQIP hospitals. Patients and Methods: The cohort included intra-abdominal general surgery patients across 10 collaborative hospitals from 2015 to 2020. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) sepsis definition was used among all hospitals for case abstraction and NSQIP data were utilized to train and validate a multivariable risk-adjustment model with post-operative sepsis as the outcome. This model was used to rank GQIP hospitals by risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rates. Rankings between crude and risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings were compared ordinally and for changes in tertile. Results: The study included 20,314 patients with 595 cases of post-operative sepsis. Crude 30-day post-operative sepsis risk among hospitals ranged from 0.81 to 5.11. When applying the risk-adjustment model which included: age, American Society of Anesthesiology class, case complexity, pre-operative pneumonia/urinary tract infection/surgical site infection, admission status, and wound class, nine of 10 hospitals were re-ranked and four hospitals changed performance tertiles. Conclusions: Inter-collaborative risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings are important to present. These metrics benchmark collaborating hospitals, which facilitates best practice exchange from high to low performers.