Internal and external validation of an updated ICD-10-CA to AIS-2005 update 2008 algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Administrative data are a powerful tool for population-level trauma research but lack the trauma-specific diagnostic and injury severity codes needed for risk-adjusted comparative analyses. The objective of this study was to validate an algorithm to derive Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS-2005 update 2008) severity scores from Canadian International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA) diagnostic codes in administrative data. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the 2009 to 2017 Ontario Trauma Registry for the internal validation of the algorithm. This registry includes all patients treated at a trauma center who sustained a moderate or severe injury or were assessed by a trauma team. It contains both ICD-10-CA codes and injury scores assigned by expert abstractors. We used Cohen's kappa (𝜅) coefficient to compare AIS-2005 Update 2008 scores assigned by expert abstractors to those derived using the algorithm and the intraclass correlation coefficient to compare assigned and derived Injury Severity Scores. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of a severe injury (AIS score, ≥ 3) were then calculated. For the external validation of the algorithm, we used administration data to identify adults who either died in an emergency department or were admitted to hospital in Ontario secondary to a traumatic injury (2009-2017). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the discriminative ability and calibration of the algorithm. RESULTS: Of 41,869 patients in the Ontario Trauma Registry, 41,793 (99.8%) had at least one diagnosis matched to the algorithm. Evaluation of AIS scores assigned by expert abstractors and those derived using the algorithm demonstrated a high degree of agreement in identification of patients with at least one severe injury (𝜅 = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.76). Likewise, algorithm-derived scores had a strong ability to rule in or out injury with AIS ≥ 3 (specificity, 78.5%; 95% CI, 77.7-79.4; sensitivity, 95.1; 95% CI, 94.8-95.3). There was strong correlation between expert abstractor-assigned and crosswalk-derived Injury Severity Score (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.80-0.81). Among the 130,542 patients identified using administrative data, the algorithm retained its discriminative properties. CONCLUSION: Our ICD-10-CA to AIS-2005 update 2008 algorithm produces reliable estimates of injury severity and retains its discriminative properties with administrative data. Our findings suggest that this algorithm can be used for risk adjustment of injury outcomes when using population-based administrative data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests/Criteria; Level II.

Derivation and validation of actionable quality indicators targeting reductions in complications for injury admissions.

PURPOSE: Approximately, one out of five patients hospitalized following injury will develop at least one hospital complication, more than three times that observed for general admissions. We currently lack actionable Quality Indicators (QI) targeting specific complications in this population. We aimed to derive and validate QI targeting hospital complications for injury admissions and develop algorithms to identify patient charts to review. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients with major trauma admitted to any level I or II adult trauma center an integrated Canadian trauma system (2014-2019). We used the trauma registry to develop five QI targeting deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), decubitus ulcers, delirium, pneumonia and urinary tract infection (UTI). We developed algorithms to identify patient charts to revise on consultation with a group of clinical experts. RESULTS: The study population included 14,592 patients of whom 5.3% developed DVT or PE, 2.7% developed a decubitus ulcer, 8.6% developed delirium, 14.7% developed pneumonia and 7.3% developed UTI. The indicators demonstrated excellent predictive performance (Area Under the Curve 0.81-0.87). We identified 4 hospitals with a higher than average incidence of at least one of the targeted complications. The algorithms identified on average 50 and 20 charts to be reviewed per year for level I and II centers, respectively. CONCLUSION: In line with initiatives to improve the quality of trauma care, we propose QI targeting reductions in hospital complications for injury admissions and algorithms to generate case lists to facilitate the review of patient charts.

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.