Implementation of the World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist Program in 11 Centers Across Multiple Economic Strata: Effect on Care Process Measures.

BACKGROUND: Trauma contributes more than ten percent of the global burden of disease. Initial assessment and resuscitation of trauma patients often requires rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions, and errors are common. We investigated whether implementing a trauma care checklist would improve care for injured patients in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma Care Checklist program was assessed in 11 hospitals using a stepped wedge pre- and post-intervention comparison with randomly assigned intervention start dates. Study sites represented nine countries with diverse economic and geographic contexts. Primary end points were adherence to process of care measures; secondary data on morbidity and mortality were also collected. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in measures pre- versus post-intervention, accounting for patient age, gender, injury severity, and center-specific variability. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1641 patients before and 1781 after program implementation. Patient age (mean 34 ± 18 vs. 34 ± 18), sex (21 vs. 22 % female), and the proportion of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) ≥ 25 (10 vs. 10 %) were similar before and after checklist implementation (p > 0.05). Improvement was found for 18 of 19 process measures, including greater odds of having abdominal examination (OR 3.26), chest auscultation (OR 2.68), and distal pulse examination (OR 2.33) (all p < 0.05). These changes were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Trauma Care Checklist was associated with substantial improvements in patient care process measures among a cohort of patients in diverse settings.

Assessment of trauma quality improvement activities at public hospitals in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Given the current exceptional burden of injury in Thailand, the proven efficacy of quality improvement programs, and the current scarcity of national-level information on trauma quality improvement program (TQIP) implementation in Thailand, we aimed to examine the use of TQIPs and barriers to TQIP adoption in Thai public trauma centers. METHODS: We distributed a survey to 110 public hospitals which are designated to provide trauma care in Thailand. The survey assessed the presence or absence of the four core elements of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended TQIPs (morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences, preventable death panels, trauma registries, and audit filters), and provider perception of barriers and priorities in TQIP implementation. RESULTS: Responses were received from 80 (72%) respondents. Seventy-two (90%) reported having a trauma registry and seventy (88%) respondents reported use of audit filters. Seventy (88%) respondents reported conducting regular M&M conferences, and 45 (56%) respondents reported the presence of preventable death panels. Thirty-eight (48%) respondents reported presence of all four elements of WHO TQIPs. The most commonly reported barriers to implementing TQIPs were lack of interest (55; 68%) and lack of time (39; 48%)to implement TQIPs. Audit filters were reported by only 25 (31%) of respondents and optimization of audit filters was the most frequently identified next-step in further development of TQIP. CONCLUSIONS: Just under half of responding Thai public trauma centers reported implementation of all four elements of the WHO recommended TQIPs. Priority strategies to facilitate TQIP maturation in Thailand should address staff motivation, provision of staff time for TQIP development, and optimization of audit filter use to monitor quality of care.

Trauma quality improvement in low and middle income countries of the Asia-Pacific region: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Quality Improvement (QI) programs have been shown to be a valuable tool to strengthen care of severely injured patients, but little is known about them in low and middle income countries (LMIC). We sought to explore opportunities to improve trauma QI activities in LMIC, focusing on the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods research study using both inductive thematic analysis of a meeting convened at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-22, 2010 and a pre-meeting survey to explore experiences with trauma QI activities in LMIC. Purposive sampling was employed to invite participants with demonstrated leadership in trauma care to provide diverse representation of organizations and countries within Asia-Pacific. RESULTS: A total of 22 experts participated in the meeting and reported that trauma QI activities varied between countries and organizations: morbidity and mortality conferences (56 %), monitoring complications (31 %), preventable death studies (25 %), audit filters (19 %), and statistical methods for analyzing morbidity and mortality (6 %). Participants identified QI gaps to include paucity of reliable/valid injury data, lack of integrated trauma QI activities, absence of standards of care, lack of training in QI methods, and varying cultures of quality and safety. The group highlighted barriers to QI: limited engagement of leaders, organizational diversity, limited resources, heavy clinical workload, and medico-legal concerns. Participants proposed establishing the Asia-Pacific Trauma Quality Improvement Network (APTQIN) as a tool to facilitate training and dissemination of QI methods, injury data management, development of pilot QI projects, and advocacy for quality trauma care. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the first description of trauma QI practices, gaps in existing practices, and barriers to QI in LMIC of the Asia-Pacific region. In this study we identified opportunities for addressing these challenges, and that work will be supported by APTQIN.

Modification of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method provides better survival prediction in Asian blunt trauma victims.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to identify logistic regression models with better survival prediction than the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method in assessing blunt trauma (BT) victims in Japan and Thailand. An additional aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of probability of survival (Ps) estimation without respiratory rate (RR) on admission, which is often missing or unreliable in Asian countries. METHODS: We used BT patient data (n = 15,524) registered in the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB, 2005-2008). We also extracted data on BT patients injured in the Khon Kaen District between January 2005 and December 2008 (n = 6,411) from the Khon Kaen Hospital Trauma Registry. For logistic regression analyses, we chose the Injury Severity Score (ISS), age year (AY), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, systolic blood pressure (SBP), RR, and their coded values (c) as explanatory variables, as well as the Revised Trauma Score (RTS). We estimated parameters by the method of maximum likelihood estimation, and utilized Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC), and accuracy for model comparison. A model having the lower AIC is considered to be the better model. RESULTS: The AIC of the model using AY was lower than that of the model using the coded value for AY (cAY) (used by the TRISS method). The model using ISS, AY and cGCS, cSBP, and cRR instead of the RTS demonstrated the lowest AIC in both data groups. The same trend could be observed in the AUROCCs and the accuracies. In the Khon Kaen data, we found no additional reduction of the AIC in the model using the cRR variable compared to the model without cRR. CONCLUSIONS: For better prediction of Ps, the actual number of the AY should be used as an explanatory variable instead of the coded value (used by the TRISS method). The logistic regression model using the ISS, AY, and coded values of SBP, GCS, and RR estimates the best prediction. Information about RR seems to be unimportant for survival prediction in BT victims in Asian countries.

What World Health Assembly Resolution 60.22 means to those who care for the injured.

On May 23, 2007, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted WHA Resolution 60.22, "Health Systems: Emergency Care Systems," which called on the World Health Organization (WHO) and governments to adopt a variety of measures to strengthen trauma and emergency care services worldwide. This resolution constituted some of the highest level attention ever devoted to trauma care worldwide. This article reviews the background of this resolution and discusses how it can be of use to surgeons, emergency physicians, and others who care for the injured, especially in low- and middle-income countries.