Enhancing patient safety in trauma: Understanding adverse events, assessment tools, and the role of trauma video review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate adverse events (AEs) in trauma resuscitation, evaluate contributing factors, and assess methods, such as trauma video review (TVR), to mitigate AEs. BACKGROUND: Trauma remains a leading cause of global mortality and morbidity, necessitating effective trauma care. Despite progress, AEs during trauma resuscitation persist, impacting patient outcomes and the healthcare system. Identifying and analyzing AEs and their determinants are crucial for improving trauma care. METHODS: This narrative review explored the definition, identification, and assessment of AEs associated with trauma resuscitation within the trauma system. It includes various studies and assessment tools such as STAT Taxonomy and T-NOTECHs. Additionally, it assessed the role of TVR in detecting AEs and strategies to enhance patient safety. CONCLUSION: Integrated with standardized tools, TVR shows promise for identifying AEs. Challenges include ensuring reporting consistency and integrating approaches into existing protocols. Future research should prioritize linking trauma team performance to patient outcomes, and develop sustainable TVR programs to enhance patient safety.

Reliability of the safety threats and adverse events in trauma (STAT) taxonomy using trauma video review.

PURPOSE: The STAT (Safety Threats and Adverse Events in Trauma) taxonomy was developed through expert consensus, and groups 65 identified trauma resuscitation adverse events (AEs) into nine distinct categories. It provides a framework for standardized analysis of trauma resuscitations and creates a foundation for targeted quality improvement and patient safety initiatives. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the STAT taxonomy in identifying AEs during video-recorded trauma resuscitations. METHODS: High-definition audiovisual data from 30 trauma resuscitations were reviewed. Videos were assessed and scored by four independent reviewers (two trainees and two staff). The STAT taxonomy was used to identify AEs based on binary responses: yes and no. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Gwet's AC1. The frequencies of AEs were tallied and reported as counts and percentages. RESULTS: The most common AEs identified in the videos were failure to measure temperature (86.7%) and inadequate personal protective equipment (86.7%), followed by inability to use closed-loop communication (76.7%). The agreement on all AEs between reviewers was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95). The Gwet's AC1 agreement across the 9 AE categories was paramedic handover (0.82), airway and breathing (0.99), circulation (0.95), assessment of injuries (0.91), management of injuries (0.96), procedure-related (0.97), patient monitoring and IV access (0.99), disposition (0.98), team communication and dynamics (0.87). CONCLUSION: The STAT taxonomy demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability between reviewers and can be used to identify AEs in video-recorded trauma resuscitations. These results provide a foundation for adapting video review to objectively quantify and assess AEs in the trauma bay.