How Do Hospital-Specific Data Dictionaries Impact Competency Level With Data Collection: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Trauma registry staff are tasked with high-quality data collection to support program requirements. Hospital-specific data dictionaries are increasingly used to ensure accurate data collection, yet it is unknown how such a resource impacts a trauma registry team's competency with data collection. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to explore whether having a hospital-specific data dictionary affected trauma service team members' self-reported competency level with abstracting required and nonrequired data elements. METHODS: This study used an anonymous, cross-sectional survey distributed (July 2020 to September 2020) by the Society of Trauma Nurses, the American College of Surgeons, and the Trauma System News outlets to trauma registrars, trauma nurse coordinators, clinical quality specialists, program managers, program directors, and trauma research personnel. A 26-question survey was designed using a visual sliding scale from 0 to 100 to measure self-reported competence and associated variables. RESULTS: A total of 881 respondents completed the survey from at least 495 centers. Six hundred ninety-six (79.0%) respondents were from Level I or Level II programs. Several factors were associated with team members feeling highly competent in collecting data for various reporting requirements, including the level of trauma center verification, tenure working in trauma services, and the presence of a hospital-specific data dictionary. CONCLUSION: Trauma centers should consider establishing a hospital-specific data dictionary as they are associated with higher registry staff competence working with trauma registry data.

Trauma Registry Data Collection Practices and the Impact of Hospital Data Dictionaries: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Trauma programs are required to collect a uniform set of trauma variables and submit data to regional, state, and or national registries. Programs may also collect unique data elements to support hospital-specific initiatives. OBJECTIVE: This study explored what additional data elements are being collected by U.S. trauma programs and the impact of having a hospital-specific data dictionary. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional survey exploring what additional data are being collected, and the impact of having a hospital-specific data dictionary, was distributed by the Society of Trauma Nurses, Trauma System News, and the American College of Surgeons. The survey was open from July 2020 to September, 2020. RESULTS: There were 693 respondents from approximately 368 Level I/II trauma programs. The estimated trauma center response rate was 59.4% (n = 368/620). Level I programs had a higher response rate than Level II programs (66.9% and 53.4%, respectively).In our sample, 85.5% of responding centers collect additional data. The most common additional data collected at Level I/II programs concerned quality improvement initiatives (70.3% and 66.1%, respectively). Other commonly collected data pertained to deaths (60.6%) and complications (50.3%).Only 43% of responding centers (n = 161/368) have a hospital-specific data dictionary. Hospitals that collect additional data were more likely to have such a resource compared with those that do not (n = 147/315, 46.7% vs. n = 14/53, 26.4%, p = .01). CONCLUSION: Most trauma programs collect data outside required fields. Fewer than half define these data in a data dictionary. Centers should consider establishing a data dictionary to define data collected.

Effect of Pre-Hospital Use of the Assessment of Blood Consumption Score and Pre-Thawed Fresh Frozen Plasma on Resuscitation and Trauma Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Early blood product resuscitation reduces trauma patient mortality from hemorrhage. This mortality benefit depends on a system that can rapidly identify actively bleeding patients, initiate massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and mobilize resources to the bedside. We hypothesized that process improvement efforts that identify patients early and mobilize appropriate blood products to the bedside for immediate use would improve mortality. STUDY DESIGN: Pre-implementation, MTP activation was at the discretion of the trauma surgeon, and only PRBCs were immediately available. In June 2016, the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) score was incorporated in our pre-hospital triage process, and a process for thawed plasma to be available was developed. We performed a retrospective review of patients who were hypotensive on arrival or had MTP activated. We compared mortality and MTP component ratios 15 months pre- vs 15 months post-implementation. RESULTS: Activations of MTP increased 6-fold, while the specificity of the process remained the same. In patients receiving MTP, appropriate blood product transfusion ratios increased 44%. Overall and penetrating trauma mortality improved by 23% and 41%, respectively. When divided by the Injury Severity Score (ISS), penetrating trauma mortality decreased by 65% for the ISS subgroup 15 to 24 and by 38% for ISS subgroup ≥ 25. Length of stay, ICU length of stay, and readmission rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of balanced blood product resuscitation is essential to confer mortality benefits. Process improvement directed at early recognition of the hemorrhagic patient, immediate product availability, and product delivery to the bedside for transfusion allows for mortality reduction without increased resource use.