Injury outcomes across Canadian trauma systems: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Most North American trauma systems have designated trauma centres (TCs) including level I (ultraspecialized high-volume metropolitan centres), level II (specialized medium-volume urban centres), and/or level III (semirural or rural centres). Trauma system configuration varies across provinces and it is unclear how these differences influence patient distributions and outcomes. We aimed to compare patient case mix, case volumes, and risk-adjusted outcomes of adults with major trauma admitted to designated level I, II, and III TCs across Canadian trauma systems. METHODS: In a national historical cohort study, we extracted data from Canadian provincial trauma registries on major trauma patients treated between 2013 and 2018 in all designated level I, II, or III TCs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; level I and II TCs in New Brunswick; and four TCs in Ontario. We used multilevel generalized linear models to compare mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and competitive risk models for hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS). Ontario could not be included in outcome comparisons because there were no population-based data from this province. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 50,959 patients. Patient distributions in level I and II TCs were similar across provinces but we observed significant differences in case mix and volumes for level III TCs. There was low variation in risk-adjusted mortality and LOS across provinces and TCs but interprovincial and intercentre variation in risk-adjusted ICU admission was high. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that differences in the functional role of TCs according to their designation level across provinces leads to significant variations in the distribution of patients, case volumes, resource use, and clinical outcomes. These results highlight opportunities to improve Canadian trauma care and underline the need for standardized population-based injury data to support national quality improvement efforts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La plupart des systèmes de traumatologie nord-américains disposent de centres de traumatologie (CT) désignés, y compris de niveau I (centres métropolitains ultraspécialisés à volume élevé), de niveau II (centres urbains spécialisés à volume moyen) et/ou de niveau III (centres semi-ruraux ou ruraux). La configuration des systèmes de traumatologie varie d'une province à l'autre et nous ne savons pas comment ces différences influent sur la répartition de la patientèle et sur les issues. Notre objectif était de comparer le mélange de cas des patient·es, le volume de cas et les issues ajustées en fonction du risque des adultes ayant subi un traumatisme majeur admis·es dans des CT désignés de niveaux I, II et III dans l'ensemble des systèmes de traumatologie canadiens. MéTHODE: Dans une étude de cohorte historique nationale, nous avons extrait des données des registres provinciaux canadiens de traumatologie sur les patient·es ayant subi un traumatisme majeur traité·es entre 2013 et 2018 dans tous les CT désignés de niveau I, II ou III en Colombie-Britannique, en Alberta, au Québec et en Nouvelle-Écosse, les CT de niveau I et II au Nouveau-Brunswick, et dans quatre CT en Ontario. Nous avons utilisé des modèles linéaires généralisés à plusieurs niveaux pour comparer la mortalité, les admissions en unité de soins intensifs (USI) et les modèles de risque compétitif pour la durée du séjour à l'hôpital et à l'USI. L'Ontario n'a pas pu être inclus dans les comparaisons des devenirs parce qu'il n'y avait pas de données démographiques pour cette province. RéSULTATS: L'échantillon de l'étude comptait 50 959 patient·es. La répartition des patient·es dans les CT de niveaux I et II était similaire d'une province à l'autre, mais nous avons observé des différences significatives dans le mélange des cas et les volumes pour les CT de niveau III. Il y avait une faible variation de la mortalité ajustée en fonction du risque et des durées de séjour entre les provinces et les CT, mais la variation interprovinciale et intercentre des admissions à l'USI ajustées en fonction du risque était élevée. CONCLUSION: Nos résultats suggèrent que les différences dans le rôle fonctionnel des CT selon leur niveau de désignation d'une province à l'autre entraînent des variations importantes dans la répartition des patient·es, le nombre de cas, l'utilisation des ressources et les issues cliniques. Ces résultats mettent en évidence les possibilités d'amélioration des soins de traumatologie au Canada et soulignent la nécessité de disposer de données normalisées sur les blessures dans la population pour appuyer les efforts nationaux d'amélioration de la qualité.

A novel computerized approach to scoping reviews using Synthesis software: the first 15 years of The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Scoping reviews of innovations in health care characterized by large numbers and types of publications present a unique challenge. A novel software application, Synthesis, can efficiently scan the literature to map the evidence and inform practice. We applied Synthesis to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), a high-quality database designed to measure risk-adjusted 30-day surgical outcomes for national and international benchmarking. The scoping review describes the breadth of studies in the NSQIP literature. We performed a comprehensive electronic literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge and Scopus to capture all NSQIP articles published between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed articles to determine their relevance using predefined inclusion criteria. We imported references into Synthesis to semiautomate data management. Extracted data included surgical specialty, study type and year of publication. Of the 4661 NSQIP articles included, 3631 (77.9%) were published within the last 5 years. Among NSQIP-related articles, the most common study types were based on outcomes (46.7%) and association (41.7%), and the most common surgical specialties were general surgery and orthopedic surgery, representing 35.7% and 24.0% of the articles, respectively. Synthesis enabled a rapid review of thousands of NSQIP publications. The scoping review provided an overview of the articles in the NSQIP literature and suggested that the NSQIP is increasingly being described in publications of quality and safety in surgery.

Allocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design. RESULTS: From 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA > 11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.

A 30-day prospective audit of all inpatient complications following acute care surgery: How well do we really perform?

Background: Acute care surgery (ACS) and emergency general surgery (EGS) services must provide timely care and intervention for patients who have some of the most challenging needs. Patients treated by ACS services are often critically ill and have both substantial comorbidities and poor physiologic reserve. Despite the widespread implemention of ACS/EGS services across North America, the true postoperative morbidity rates remain largely unknown. Methods: In this prospective study, inpatients at 8 high-volume ACS/EGS centres in geographically diverse locations in Canada who underwent operative interventions were followed for 30 days or until they were discharged. Readmissions during the 30-day window were also captured. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables were tracked. Standard statistical methodology was employed. Results: A total of 601 ACS/EGS patients were followed for up to 30 inpatient or readmission days after their index emergent operation. Fifty-one percent of patients were female, and the median age was 51 years. They frequently had substantial medical comorbidities (42%) and morbid obesity (15%). The majority of procedures were minimally invasive (66% laparoscopic). Median length of stay was 3.3 days and the early readmission (< 30 d) rate was 6%. Six percent of patients were admitted to the critical care unit. The overall complication and mortality rates were 34% and 2%, respectively. Cholecystitis (31%), appendicitis (21%), bowel obstruction (18%), incarcerated hernia (12%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (7%) and soft tissue infections (7%) were the most common diagnoses. The morbidity and mortality rates for open surgical procedures were 73% and 5%, respectively. Conclusion: Nontrauma ACS/EGS procedures are associated with a high postoperative morbidity rate. This study will serve as a prospective benchmark for postoperative complications among ACS/EGS patients and subsequent quality improvement across Canada.

Contexte: Les services de chirurgie dans les unités de soins actifs (CSA) et de chirurgie générale dans les services d'urgence (CGSU) doivent fournir rapidement des soins et des interventions à des patients dont les besoins sont parmi les plus complexes. En effet, les patients pris en charge par les services de CSA sont souvent gravement malades et présentent des comorbidités sur fond de faible réserve physiologique. Même si les services de CSA/CGSU se sont répandus en Amérique du Nord, les taux réels de morbidité postopératoire demeurent pour une bonne part inconnus. Méthodes: Dans cette étude prospective, on a suivi pendant 30 jours ou jusqu'à leur congé, les patients hospitalisés pour des interventions chirurgicales dans 8 centres de CSA/CGSU achalandés de divers endroits au Canada. On a également tenu compte des réadmissions dans les 30 jours. Les paramètres pré-, per- et postopératoires ont été enregistrés. Une méthodologie statistique standard a été appliquée. Résultats: En tout, 601 patients de CSA/CGSU ont ainsi été suivis pendant une durée allant jusqu'à 30 jours d'hospitalisation ou de réadmission après leur intervention urgente initiale. Cinquante et un pour cent étaient de sexe féminin et l'âge moyen était de 51 ans. Ces patients étaient nombreux à présenter des comorbidités de nature médicale substantielles (42 %) et une obésité morbide (15 %). La majorité des interventions ont été minimalement effractives (66 % laparoscopiques). La durée médiane des séjours a été de 3,3 jours et le taux de réadmission précoce (< 30 j) a été de 6 %. Six pour cent des patients ont été admis aux soins intensifs. Les taux globaux de complications et de mortalité ont été respectivement de 34 % et de 2 %. Cholécystite (31 %), appendicite (21 %), obstruction intestinale (18 %), hernie incarcérée (12 %), hémorragie digestive (7 %) et infections des tissus mous (7 %) comptent parmi les diagnostics les plus fréquents. Les taux de morbidité et de mortalité dans les cas de chirurgies ouvertes ont été respectivement de 73 % et 5 %. Conclusion: Les interventions de CSA/CGSU non liées à la traumatologie sont associées à un taux de morbidité postopératoire élevé. Cette étude fournira un ensemble de valeurs de références pour l'étude prospective des complications chez les patients pris en charge par les services de CSA/CGSU et l'amélioration subséquente des soins partout au Canada.

Hospital and Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay for Injury Admissions: A Pan-Canadian Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions across Canadian provinces and to evaluate the relative contribution of patient case mix and treatment-related factors (intensity of care, complications, and discharge delays) to explaining observed variations. BACKGROUND: Identifying unjustified interprovider variations in resource use and the determinants of such variations is an important step towards optimizing health care. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on admissions for major trauma (injury severity score >12) to level I and II trauma centers across Canada (2006-2012). We used data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry linked to hospital discharge data to compare risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across provinces. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted hospital LOS was shortest in Ontario (10.0 days) and longest in Newfoundland and Labrador (16.1 days; P < 0.001). Risk-adjusted ICU LOS was shortest in Québec (4.4 days) and longest in Alberta (6.1 days; P < 0.001). Patient case-mix explained 32% and 8% of interhospital variations in hospital and ICU LOS, respectively, whereas treatment-related factors explained 63% and 22%. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant variation in risk-adjusted hospital and ICU LOS across trauma systems in Canada. Provider ranks on hospital LOS were not related to those observed for ICU LOS. Treatment-related factors explained more interhospital variation in LOS than patient case-mix. Results suggest that interventions targeting reductions in low-value procedures, prevention of adverse events, and better discharge planning may be most effective for optimizing LOS for injury admissions.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

Mortality in Canadian Trauma Systems: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the variation in trauma center mortality across Canadian trauma systems, assess the contribution of traumatic brain injury and thoracoabdominal injury to observed variations, and evaluate whether the presence of recommended trauma system components is associated with mortality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Injuries represent one of the leading causes of mortality, disability, and health care costs worldwide. Trauma systems have improved injury outcomes, but the impact of trauma system configuration on mortality is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted for major injury to trauma centers across Canada (2006-2012). Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate risk-adjusted hospital mortality and assess the impact of 13 recommended trauma system components. RESULTS: Of 78,807 patients, 8382 (10.6%) died in hospital including 6516 (78%) after severe traumatic brain injury and 749 (9%) after severe thoracoabdominal injury. Risk-adjusted mortality varied from 7.0% to 14.2% across provinces (P < 0.0001); 11.1% to 26.0% for severe traumatic brain injury (P < 0.0001), and 4.7% to 5.9% for thoracoabdominal injury (P = 0.2). Mortality decreased with increasing number of recommended trauma system elements; adjusted odds ratio = 0.93 (0.87-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant variation in trauma center mortality across Canadian provinces, specifically for severe traumatic brain injury. Provinces with more recommended trauma system components had better patient survival. Results suggest that trauma system configuration may be an important determinant of injury mortality. A better understanding of which system processes drive optimal outcomes is required to reduce the burden of injury worldwide.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care. BACKGROUND: Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care. METHODS: Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

Canadian benchmarks for acute injury care.

BACKGROUND: Acute care injury outcomes vary substantially across Canadian provinces and trauma centres. Our aim was to develop Canadian benchmarks to monitor mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions. METHODS: Benchmarks were derived using data from the Canadian National Trauma Registry on patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II trauma centre in Canada and from the following patient subgroups: isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), isolated thoracoabdominal injury, multisystem blunt injury, age 65 years or older. We assessed predictive validity using measures of discrimination and calibration, and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of replacing analytically complex methods (multiple imputation, shrinkage estimates and flexible modelling) with simple models that can be implemented locally. RESULTS: The mortality risk adjustment model had excellent discrimination and calibration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.886, Hosmer-Lemeshow 36). The LOS risk-adjustment model predicted 29% of the variation in LOS. Overall, observed:expected ratios of mortality and mean LOS generated by an analytically simple model correlated strongly with those generated by analytically complex models (r > 0.95, κ on outliers > 0.90). CONCLUSION: We propose Canadian benchmarks that can be used to monitor quality of care in Canadian trauma centres using Excel (see the appendices, available at canjsurg.ca). The program can be implemented using local trauma registries, providing that at least 100 patients are available for analysis.

CONTEXTE: L'issue des traitements dispensés dans les services de traumatologie d'urgence varie substantiellement d'une province canadienne et d'un centre de traumatologie à l'autre. Notre but était d'établir des valeurs de référence pour suivre la mortalité et la durée des séjours hospitaliers en traumatologie au Canada. MÉTHODES: Les paramètres ont été sélectionnés à partir des données du Registre national des traumatismes concernant les grands polytraumatisés admis dans tout centre de traumatologie de niveau I ou II au Canada et selon les catégories de patients suivantes : traumatisme crânien isolé (TCI), traumatisme thoraco-abdominal isolé, traumatisme plurisystémique fermé, âge de 65 ans ou plus. Nous avons évalué la validité prédictive à l'aide de critères discriminants et de paramètres d'étalonnage et nous avons procédé à des analyses de sensibilité pour évaluer l'impact du remplacement de méthodes analytiques complexes (imputation multiple, estimations par contraction des coefficients et modélisation flexible) par des modèles simples applicables à l'échelle locale. RÉSULTATS: Le modèle d'ajustement du risque de mortalité s'est révélé doté d'un pouvoir discriminant et d'un étalonnage excellents (aire sous la courbe de la fonction d'efficacité du récepteur [ROC] 0,886, test de Hosmer-Lemeshow 36). Le modèle d'ajustement du risque pour la durée du séjour hospitalier a permis de prédire 29 % de sa variation. De plus, les rapports observés:attendus pour la mortalité et la durée moyenne des séjours hospitaliers générés par un modèle analytique simple ont été en étroite corrélation avec les rapports générés par les modèles analytiques complexes (r > 0,95, κ pour valeurs aberrantes > 0,90). CONCLUSION: Nous proposons des valeurs de référence canadiennes qui peuvent être utilisées pour faire le suivi de la qualité des soins dans les centres de traumatologie canadiens à l'aide d'un simple programme Excel (voir les annexes, accessible à l'adresse canjsurg.ca). Le programme peut être appliqué à l'aide des données des registres de traumatologie locaux à la condition qu'au moins 100 patients y soient accessibles pour analyse.

Validation of Complications Selected by Consensus to Evaluate the Acute Phase of Adult Trauma Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the predictive validity of complications derived using expert consensus methodology to monitor the quality of trauma care. Secondary objectives were to assess the predictive validity of complications not selected by consensus and identify determinants of complications. BACKGROUND: A list of complications to monitor the quality of trauma care has recently been derived using Delphi consensus methodology. However, the predictive validity of consensus complications has not yet been demonstrated. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study of adults admitted to the 57 adult trauma centers of a Canadian integrated trauma system (2007-2012; n = 84,216). Multiple generalized linear models were used to assess the influence of complications on mortality and acute care length of stay (LOS) and to identify determinants of consensus complications. RESULTS: The presence of at least 1 consensus complication was associated with a 2.7-fold [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.45-2.90] and 2.2-fold (95% CI: 2.11-2.19) increase in the odds of mortality and mean LOS, respectively. Nonselected complications were associated with no increase in mortality (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80-1.01) and a 60% increase in LOS (geometric mean ratio = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.57-1.62). Patient-related factors and factors related to treatment explained 66% and 34% of the variation in complication rates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the face and content validity ensured by consensus methodology, this study suggests that consensus complications have good predictive validity. Monitoring these complications as part of quality improvement activities would provide an opportunity to improve outcome and resource use for injury admissions.

Clinical Presentation of Patients With Tension Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the reported clinical presentation of tension pneumothorax differs between patients who are breathing unassisted versus receiving assisted ventilation. BACKGROUND: Animal studies suggest that the pathophysiology and physical signs of tension pneumothorax differ by subject ventilatory status. METHODS: We searched electronic databases through to October 15, 2013 for observational studies and case reports/series reporting clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax. Two physicians independently extracted clinical manifestations reported at diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 5 cohort studies (n = 310 patients) and 156 case series/reports of 183 cases of tension pneumothorax (n = 86 breathing unassisted, n = 97 receiving assisted ventilation). Hypoxia was reported among 43 (50.0%) cases of tension pneumothorax who were breathing unassisted versus 89 (91.8%) receiving assisted ventilation (P < 0.001). Pulmonary dysfunction progressed to respiratory arrest in 9.3% of cases breathing unassisted. As compared to cases who were breathing unassisted, the adjusted odds of hypotension and cardiac arrest were 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.5) and 17.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.0-78.4) times higher among cases receiving assisted ventilation. One cohort study reported that none of the patients with tension pneumothorax who were breathing unassisted versus 39.6% of those receiving assisted ventilation presented without an arterial pulse. In contrast to cases breathing unassisted, the majority (70.4%) of those receiving assisted ventilation who experienced hypotension or cardiac arrest developed these signs within minutes of clinical presentation. DISCUSSION: The reported clinical presentation of tension pneumothorax depends on the ventilatory status of the patient. This may have implications for improving the diagnosis and treatment of this life-threatening disorder.

The right treatment at the right time in the right place: a population-based, before-and-after study of outcomes associated with implementation of an all-inclusive trauma system in a large Canadian province.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of an all-inclusive philosophy of trauma care in a large Canadian province. BACKGROUND: Challenges to regionalized trauma care may occur where transport distances to level I trauma centers are substantial and few level I centers exist. In 2008, we modified our predominantly regionalized model to an all-inclusive one with the hopes of increasing the role of level III trauma centers. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, before-and-after study of patient admission and transfer practices and outcomes associated with implementation of an all-inclusive provincial trauma system using multivariable Poisson and linear regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: In total, 21,772 major trauma patients were included. Implementation of the all-inclusive model of trauma care was associated with a decline in transfers directly to level I trauma centers [risk ratio (RR) = 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-0.94; P < 0.001] and an increase in transfers from level III to level I centers (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00-1.21; P = 0.04). These changes in trauma care occurred in conjunction with a 12% reduction in the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.98; P = 0.003) and a decrease in mean trauma patient hospital length of stay by 1 day (95% CI: 1.02-1.11; P = 0.02) after adjustment for differences in case mix. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, introduction of an all-inclusive provincial trauma system was associated with an increased number of injured patients cared for in their local systems and improved trauma patient mortality and hospital length of stay.

The use of cognitive interviews to revise the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

PURPOSE: The "Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure" is the first measure of patient experiences with overall injury care. The objective of this study was to use cognitive interviews to inform revision of the measure into a parsimonious set of items that function as intended, in preparation for multicenter testing. METHODS: Concurrent and retrospective cognitive interviews with injured patients (n = 17) and family members (n = 13) using semi-structured interview guides. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six broad themes were identified and guided revisions: (1) participants did not have the information to answer items (n = 9); (2) items were ambiguous or were inconsistently interpreted (n = 13); (3) items did not measure the intended constructs (n = 6); (4) items included assumptions about healthcare processes (n = 4); (5) items measured non-priority aspects of injury care (n = 8); and (6) items were redundant (n = 5). Two issues resulted in key conceptual and content changes: participants' difficulty to evaluate pre-hospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit services due to recall issues and the challenge to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care. In total, 39 items were deleted, 28 new items developed, and the final instrument included 63 items. CONCLUSIONS: Our results informed changes to item content, format, and response options. This study highlights key issues to consider when incorporating patient/family perspectives into quality measurement, most notably, that few participants can assess the quality of care in the pre-hospital and emergency department phases of care and that novel methods are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care.

The evolution of trauma surgery at a high-volume Canadian centre: implications for public health, prevention, clinical care, education and recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centres continue to evolve with respect to clinical care and their impact on public health. Despite improvements in patient outcomes, operative volumes, and therefore maintenance of surgical skills, has become a challenging issue. We sought to determine whether injury demographics and treatments at a high-volume centre changed over time. METHODS: We used the Alberta Trauma Registry to analyze all severely injured (injury severity score [ISS] ≥ 12) patient admissions over a 16-year period (1995-2011). RESULTS: Of the 12,879 severely injured patients requiring admission, there was a 1.5- fold increase in the annual admission rate despite population normalization (p = 0.001). Over the 16-year interval, patients were older with a subsequent lower mortality (p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.007). In patients with the most severe ISS (≥ 48), there was no change in mortality (27%, p = 0.26). In 2011, falls were the most common mechanism compared with motor vehicle crashes (41% v. 23%; p < 0.001); this was a complete reversal compared with 1995 (25% v. 41%). Motorized recreational vehicle and motorcycle injuries also increased (p < 0.001). The mean number of operations performed by trauma surgeons decreased (laparotomies: 67 [17%] in 1995 v. 47 [5%] in 2011, p < 0.001). Thoracotomies and tracheostomies remained unchanged (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Clinical care has improved despite an increasing overall volume of severely injured patient admissions. The number of operative interventions performed by trauma surgeons continues to decrease concurrent to a change in injury mechanisms. Despite these improvements, maintenance of technical skills among trauma surgeons has become an important issue.

CONTEXTE: Les centres de traumatologie continuent d'évoluer au plan des soins cliniques et de leur impact sur la santé publique. Malgré certaines améliorations, les résultats pour les patients, le volume opératoire et par conséquent, le maintien des habiletés chirurgicales sont devenus un enjeu délicat. Nous avons voulu déterminer si les caractéristiques démographiques et les traitements en traumatologie ont évolué avec le temps dans un centre qui traite un volume élevé de cas. MÉTHODES: Nous avons eu recours au Registre albertain des traumatismes pour analyser toutes les admissions de grands blessés (indice de gravité des blessures [IGB] ≥ 12) au cours d'une période de 16 ans (1995­2011). RÉSULTANTS: Chez les 12 879 grands blessés ayant dû être hospitalisés, nous avons noté une augmentation selon un facteur de 1,5 du taux annuel d'admissions, malgré une normalisation de la population (p = 0,001). Au cours de cet intervalle de 16 ans, les patients ont graduellement été plus âgés, et la mortalité (p = 0,001) et la durée des séjours hospitaliers (p = 0,007) ont subséquemment diminué. Chez les patients présentant les IGB les plus élevés (≥ 48), on n'a noté aucun changement de la mortalité (27 %, p = 0,26). En 2011, les chutes ont été la cause la plus fréquente des traumatismes, par rapport aux accidents de la route (41 % c. 23 %, p < 0,001), ce qui s'est révélé être un renversement complet par rapport à 1995 (25 % c. 41 %). Le nombre de blessures subies avec des véhicules motorisés récréatifs et des motocyclettes a aussi augmenté (p < 0,001). Le nombre moyen d'interventions effectuées par les chirurgiens en traumatologie a diminué (laparotomies : 67 [17 %] en 1995 c. 47 [5 %] en 2011, p < 0,001). Le nombre de thoracotomies et de trachéotomies est resté inchangé (p = 0,19). CONCLUSION: Les soins cliniques se sont améliorés malgré l'augmentation du volume global d'hospitalisations de patients grièvement blessés. Le nombre d'interventions chirurgicales effectuées par les chirurgiens en traumatologie continue de diminuer parallèlement à une évolution des causes de traumatismes. Malgré ces améliorations, le maintien des habiletés techniques des chirurgiens en traumatologie est devenu un enjeu important.

The Advanced Trauma Operative Management course--a two student to one faculty model.

BACKGROUND: The internationally recognized Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM) course uses a 1:1 student-to-faculty teaching model. This study examines a two student to one faculty ATOM teaching model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 16 residents to four experienced ATOM faculty members. Half started with the one-student model and the other half with the two-student model and then switched using the same faculty. Students and faculty completed forms on the educational value of the two models (1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = average; 4 = good; and 5 = excellent) and identified educational preferences and recommendations. RESULTS: We assigned educational values for the 13 procedures as follows: All faculty rated the one-student model as excellent; six members rated the two-student model as excellent, and seven as good. Students rated 50%-75% as excellent and 12%-44% as good for the two-student model, and 56%-81% as excellent and 12%-44% as good for the one-student model. Given resource constraints, all faculty and 88% of students preferred the two-student model. With no resource constraints, 75% of students and 50% of faculty chose the two-student model. All faculty and students rated both models "acceptable." Overall, 81% of students and 50% of faculty rated the two-student model better. All faculty members recommended that the models be optional; 94% of students recommended that they be either optional (50%) or a two-student model (44%). Performing or assisting on each procedure twice was considered an advantage of the two-student model. CONCLUSIONS: The two-student teaching model was acceptable and generally preferred in this study. With appropriately trained faculty and students, the two-student model is feasible and should result in less animal usage and possibly wider promulgation.

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centeredness is a key component of health care quality. However, patient-centered measures of quality have not been developed in injury care. In response to this challenge, we developed the Quality of Trauma Adult Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM) to measure injured patient experiences with trauma care and pilot-tested the instrument at a single Level 1 trauma centre. The objective of this study is to test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of the QTAC-PREM in multiple Canadian trauma centers and to refine the measure based on the results. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a prospective cohort study of consecutive adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients discharged from three trauma centres in Alberta, Canada with a primary diagnosis of injury. The target sample size is 400 participants to ensure precision for evaluating test-retest reliability. We will assess the psychometric properties of the measure (test-retest reliability, construct validity, internal consistency) and whether these properties vary by patient characteristics. We will also evaluate the predictive validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measure against other established tools (HCAHPS). DISCUSSION: A reliable and valid measure of patient reported experiences with injury care may be a valuable tool to evaluate quality of care and guide improvement efforts.

Emergency medical services response time and mortality in an urban setting.

BACKGROUND: A common tenet in emergency medical services (EMS) is that faster response equates to better patient outcome, translated by some EMS operations into a goal of a response time of 8 minutes or less for advanced life support (ALS) units responding to life-threatening events. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether an 8-minute EMS response time was associated with mortality. METHODS: This was a one-year retrospective cohort study of adults with a life-threatening event as assessed at the time of the 9-1-1 call (Medical Priority Dispatch System Echo- or Delta-level event). The study setting was an urban all-ALS EMS system serving a population of approximately 1 million. Response time was defined as 9-1-1 call receipt to ALS unit arrival on scene, and outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at hospital discharge. Potential covariates included patient acuity, age, gender, and combined scene and transport interval time. Stratified analysis and logistic regression were used to assess the response time-mortality association. RESULTS: There were 7,760 unit responses that met the inclusion criteria; 1,865 (24%) were ≥8 minutes. The average patient age was 56.7 years (standard deviation = 21.5). For patients with a response time ≥8 minutes, 7.1% died, compared with 6.4% for patients with a response time ≤7 minutes 59 seconds (risk difference 0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.5%, 2.0%). The adjusted odds ratio of mortality for ≥8 minutes was 1.19 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.47). An exploratory analysis suggested there may be a small beneficial effect of response ≤7 minutes 59 seconds for those who survived to become an inpatient (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: These results call into question the clinical effectiveness of a dichotomous 8-minute ALS response time on decreasing mortality for the majority of adult patients identified as having a life-threatening event at the time of the 9-1-1 call. However, this study does not suggest that rapid EMS response is undesirable or unimportant for certain patients. This analysis highlights the need for further research on who may benefit from rapid EMS response, whether these individuals can be identified at the time of the 9-1-1 call, and what the optimum response time is.

New technologies and surgical innovation: five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department.

There is pressure for surgical departments to introduce new and innovative health technologies in an evidence-based manner while ensuring that they are safe and effective and can be managed with available resources. A local health technology assessment (HTA) program was developed to systematically integrate research evidence with local operational management information and to make recommendations for subsequent decision by the departmental executive committee about whether and under what conditions the technology will be used. The authors present a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of this program as used by the Department of Surgery & Surgical Services in the Calgary Health Region over a 5-year period from December 2005 to December 2010. Of the 68 technologies requested, 15 applications were incomplete and dropped, 12 were approved, 3 were approved for a single case on an urgent/emergent basis, 21 were approved for "clinical audit" for a restricted number of cases with outcomes review, 14 were approved for research use only, and 3 were referred to additional review bodies. Subsequent outcome reports resulted in at least 5 technologies being dropped for failure to perform. Decisions based on local HTA program recommendations were rarely "yes" or "no." Rather, many technologies were given restricted approval with full approval contingent on satisfying certain conditions such as clinical outcomes review, training protocol development, or funding. Thus, innovation could be supported while ensuring safety and effectiveness. This local HTA program can be adapted to a variety of settings and can help bridge the gap between evidence and practice.

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care.

Importance: The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. Objective: To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. Results: Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.

Importance: Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences. Objective: To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.