Trauma reception and resuscitation.

The hospital reception phase of major trauma management requires a great number of expedient decisions. However, despite widely taught programmes advocating a standardized, algorithmic approach to decision-making, there is an ongoing rate of human errors contributing to adverse outcomes. It is now time for a fundamental change in our approach to trauma resuscitation. Point-of-care computer technology linked to real-time decision-making and trauma team coordination may achieve error reduction through standardized decision-making and a corresponding reduction in preventable mortality and morbidity.

Standardising trauma monitoring: the development of a minimum dataset for trauma registries in Australia and New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma registries are central to the implementation of effective trauma systems. However, differences between trauma registry datasets make comparisons between trauma systems difficult. In 2005, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium began a process to develop a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for use in Australasian trauma registries. This study aims to describe the steps taken in the development and preliminary evaluation of the BMDS. METHODS: A working party comprising sixteen representatives from across Australasia identified and discussed the collectability and utility of potential BMDS fields. This included evaluating existing national and international trauma registry datasets, as well as reviewing all quality indicators and audit filters in use in Australasian trauma centres. After the working party activities concluded, this process was continued by a number of interested individuals, with broader feedback sought from the Australasian trauma community on a number of occasions. Once the BMDS had reached a suitable stage of development, an email survey was conducted across Australasian trauma centres to assess whether BMDS fields met an ideal minimum standard of field collectability. The BMDS was also compared with three prominent international datasets to assess the extent of dataset overlap. Following this, the BMDS was encapsulated in a data dictionary, which was introduced in late 2010. RESULTS: The finalised BMDS contained 67 data fields. Forty-seven of these fields met a previously published criterion of 80% collectability across respondent trauma institutions; the majority of the remaining fields either could be collected without any change in resources, or could be calculated from other data fields in the BMDS. However, comparability with international registry datasets was poor. Only nine BMDS fields had corresponding, directly comparable fields in all the national and international-level registry datasets evaluated. CONCLUSION: A draft BMDS has been developed for use in trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand. The email survey provided strong indications of the utility of the fields contained in the BMDS. The BMDS has been adopted as the dataset to be used by an ongoing Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program.