Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population. RESULTS: 940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078. DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

Potential Avoidable Costs of Low-Value Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care in an Integrated Canadian Provincial Trauma System.

This economic evaluation estimated the direct health care costs associated with 11 low-value clinical practices in acute trauma care in the integrated health care system of Quebec, Canada.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Epidemiology of intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.

PURPOSE: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) may improve survival in people with septic shock. Current utilization patterns of IVIG are unknown. We sought to characterize adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors who received IVIG, describes IVIG regimens, and evaluate determinants of IVIG use in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database study of adult patients with septic shock admitted to US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (from July 2010 to June 2013). We described the proportion of patients with septic shock receiving IVIG, examined IVIG regimens across sites and employed random-effects multivariable regression techniques to identify predictors of IVIG use. RESULTS: Intravenous immune globulin was administered to 0.3% (n = 685) of patients with septic shock; with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 1 [0.5-1.8] g·kg-1 for a median [IQR] of 1 [1-2] day. Receipt of IVIG was less likely for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.72) and patients without private insurance (Medicare OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; Medicaid OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57) and more likely for patients with immunocompromise (OR, 6.83; 95% CI 5.47 to 8.53), necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 9.78; 95% CI 6.97 to 13.72), and toxic shock (OR, 56.9; 95% CI 38.7 to 83.7). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous immune globulin is used infrequently across the US in patients with septic shock. Regimens of IVIG in septic shock may be less intensive than those associated with a survival benefit in meta-analyses. Observed infrequent use supports apparent clinical equipoise, perhaps secondary to limitations of the primary literature. A clinical trial evaluating the role of IVIG in septic shock is needed.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'immunoglobuline intraveineuse (IGIV) peut améliorer la survie chez les personnes atteintes de choc septique. Les pratiques actuelles d'utilisation de l'IGIV sont inconnues. Nous avons cherché à caractériser les patients adultes en état de choc septique et nécessitant des vasopresseurs qui ont reçu de l'IGIV, à décrire les dosages administrés d'IGIV, et à évaluer les causes déterminantes d'une utilisation d'IGIV chez ces patients. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude rétrospective de base de données portant sur des patients adultes atteints de choc septique admis dans des hôpitaux américains et inclus dans la base de données Premier Healthcare (de juillet 2010 à juin 2013). Nous avons décrit la proportion de patients en choc septique recevant de l'IGIV, examiné les posologies utilisées d'IGIV à travers les sites et employé des techniques de régression multivariable à effets aléatoires pour identifier les prédicteurs de l'utilisation d'IGIV. RéSULTATS: L'IGIV a été administrée à 0,3 % (n = 685) des patients présentant un choc septique, avec une dose médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 1 [0,5­1,8] g·kg-1 pour une médiane [ÉIQ] de 1 [1­2] jour. L'administration d'IGIV était moins probable chez les patients noirs (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,54; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,41 à 0,72) et les patients sans assurance privée (RC Medicare, 0,73; IC 95 %, 0,59 à 0,90; RC Medicaid, 0,41; IC 95 %, 0,30 à 0,57) et plus probable chez les patients immunodéprimés (RC, 6,83; IC 95 %, 5,47 à 8,53), atteints de fasciite nécrosante (RC, 9,78; IC 95 %, 6,97 à 13,72), et en choc toxique (RC, 56,9; IC 95 %, 38,7 à 83,7). CONCLUSION: L'IGIV est rarement utilisée aux États-Unis chez les patients en choc septique. Les dosages d'IGIV utilisés en cas de choc septique pourraient être moins intensifs que ceux associés à un effet bénéfique en matière de survie dans les méta-analyses. L'utilisation peu fréquente observée appuie une équivalence clinique apparente, peut-être secondaire aux limites de la littérature princeps. Une étude clinique évaluant le rôle de l'IGIV dans le choc septique est nécessaire.

Development and Validation of a Hospital Indicator of Activity-Based Costs for Injury Admissions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions. METHODS: We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean. RESULTS: We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r2) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r2 of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk.

Economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in injury care: protocol for a 10-year systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. Injuries are second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs but data on the economic impact of clinical practices for injury admissions are lacking. This study aims to summarise evidence on the economic value of intrahospital clinical practices for injury care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to identify research articles in economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in acute injury care. We will search MEDLINE and databases such as Embase, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS and CINAHL for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary. We will consider the following outcomes relative to economic evaluations: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net health benefit, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) and incremental cost-benefit ratio. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies that meet eligibility criteria and extract data from included articles using an electronic data extraction form. All outcomes will be converted into iNMB. We will report iNMB for practices classified by type of practice (hospitalisation, consultation, diagnostic, therapeutic-surgical, therapeutic-drugs, therapeutic-other). Results obtained with a ceiling ratio of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for identified clinical practices will be summarised by charting forest plots. In line with Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, meta-analyses will not be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will summarise existing evidence on the economic value of clinical practices in injury care. Results will be used to advance knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions and will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed article, international scientific meetings and clinical and healthcare quality associations.

Incorporating Dynamic Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness Into Goal-Directed Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness have been developed and investigated in clinical trials of goal-directed therapy. The impact of this approach on clinically relevant outcomes is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether fluid therapy guided by dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness compared with standard care improves clinically relevant outcomes in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to December 2016, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness with standard care for acute volume resuscitation in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted trial-level data including population characteristics, interventions, clinical outcomes, and source of funding. Our primary outcome was mortality at longest duration of follow-up. Our secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and frequency of renal complications. The internal validity of trials was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 13 trials enrolling 1,652 patients. Methods used to assess fluid responsiveness included stroke volume variation (nine trials), pulse pressure variation (one trial), and stroke volume change with passive leg raise/fluid challenge (three trials). In 12 trials reporting mortality, the risk ratio for death associated with dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.83; I = 0%; n = 1,586). The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was -2.9% (95% CI, -5.6% to -0.2%). Dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was associated with reduced duration of ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference, -1.16 d [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.36]; I = 74%; n = 394, six trials) and mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference, -2.98 hr [95% CI, -5.08 to -0.89]; I = 34%; n = 334, five trials). Three trials were adjudicated at unclear risk of bias; the remaining trials were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients admitted to intensive care who required acute volume resuscitation, goal-directed therapy guided by assessment of fluid responsiveness appears to be associated with reduced mortality, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. High-quality clinical trials in both medical and surgical ICU populations are warranted to inform routine care.

Impact of trauma system structure on injury outcomes: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Injury represents one of the greatest public health challenges of our time with over 5 million deaths and 100 million people temporarily or permanently disabled every year worldwide. The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, the organisation of trauma care varies significantly across trauma systems and we know little about which components of trauma systems contribute to their effectiveness. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically significant outcomes including mortality, function and disability, quality of life, and resource utilization. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component (e.g. accreditation by a central agency, interfacility transfer agreements) and at least one injury outcome (e.g. mortality, disability, resource use). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, thesis holdings, key injury organisation websites and conference proceedings for eligible studies. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles. Methodological quality will be evaluated using elements of the ROBINS-I tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized and randomized studies, respectively. Strength of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE tool. DISCUSSION: We expect to advance knowledge on the components of trauma systems that contribute to their effectiveness. This may lead to recommendations on trauma system structure that will help policy-makers make informed decisions as to where resources should be focused. The review may also lead to specific recommendations for future research efforts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28-06-2016. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041336 Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016041336 .

Hospital length of stay following admission for traumatic brain injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of disability in children and young adults and costs CAD$3 billion annually in Canada. Stakeholders have expressed the urgent need to obtain information on resource use for TBI to improve the quality and efficiency of acute care in this patient population. We aimed to assess the components and determinants of hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on 11,199 adults admitted for TBI between 2007 and 2012 in an inclusive Canadian trauma system. Our primary outcome measure was index hospital LOS (admission to the hospital with the highest designation level). Index LOS was compared to total LOS (all consecutive admissions related to the injury). Expected LOS was calculated by matching TBI admissions to all-diagnosis hospital admissions by age, gender, and year of admission. LOS determinants were identified using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Geometric mean total LOS was 1day longer than geometric mean index LOS (12.6 versus 11.7 days). Observed index and ICU LOS were respectively 4.2days and 2.5days longer than that expected according to all-diagnosis admissions. The six most important determinants of LOS were discharge destination, severity of concomitant injuries, extracranial complications, GCS, TBI severity, and mechanical ventilation, accounting for 80% of explained variation. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multicenter retrospective cohort study suggest that hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions are 56% and 119% longer than expected according to all-diagnosis admissions, respectively. In addition, hospital LOS is underestimated when only the index visit is considered and is largely influenced by discharge destination and extracranial complications, suggesting that improvements could be achieved with better discharge planning and interventions targeting prevention of in-hospital complications. This study highlights the importance of considering TBI patients as a distinct population when allocating resources or planning quality improvement interventions.

Impact of socio-economic status on hospital length of stay following injury: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Injury is second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs in North America. One key to improving injury care efficiency is to generate knowledge on the determinants of resource use. Socio-economic status (SES) is a documented risk factor for injury severity and mortality but its impact on length of stay (LOS) for injury admissions is unknown. This study aimed to examine the relationship between SES and LOS following injury. This multicenter retrospective cohort study was based on adults discharged alive from any trauma center (2007-2012; 57 hospitals; 65,486 patients) in a Canadian integrated provincial trauma system. SES was determined using ecological indices of material and social deprivation. Mean differences in LOS adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities, and injury severity were generated using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: Mean LOS was 13.5 days. Patients in the highest quintile of material/social deprivation had a mean LOS 0.5 days (95 % CI 0.1-0.9)/1.4 days (1.1-1.8) longer than those in the lowest quintile. Patients in the highest quintiles of both social and material deprivation had a mean LOS 2.6 days (1.8-3.5) longer than those in the lowest quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients admitted for traumatic injury who suffer from high social and/or material deprivation have longer acute care LOS in a universal-access health care system. The reasons behind observed differences need to be further explored but may indicate that discharge planning should take patient SES into consideration.

Nonbeneficial treatment Canada: definitions, causes, and potential solutions from the perspective of healthcare practitioners*.

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment. DESIGN: National, bilingual, cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of nursing and medical staff who provide direct patient care in acute medical wards or ICUs in Canada. MAIN RESULTS: We received 688 responses (response rate 61%) from 11 sites. Seventy-four percent of respondents were nurses. Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate. The most acceptable definitions of nonbeneficial treatment were "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that would almost certainly result in a quality of life that the patient has previously stated that he/she would not want" (88% agreement) and "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that are not consistent with the goals of care (as indicated by the patient)" (83% agreement). Respondents most commonly believed that nonbeneficial treatment was caused by substitute decision makers who do not understand the limitations of treatment, or who cannot accept a poor prognosis (90% agreement for each cause), and 52% believed that nonbeneficial treatment was "often" or "always" continued until the patient died or was discharged from hospital. Respondents believed that nonbeneficial treatment was a common problem with a negative impact on all stakeholders (> 80%) and perceived that improved advance care planning and communication training would be the most effective (92% and 88%, respectively) and morally acceptable (95% and 92%, respectively) means to resolve the problem of nonbeneficial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian nurses and physicians perceive that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate, and that we need to adopt new techniques of resolving nonbeneficial treatment. The most promising strategies to reduce nonbeneficial treatment are felt to be improved advance care planning and communication training for healthcare professionals.

Trauma centre outcome performance: a comparison of young adults and geriatric patients in an inclusive trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients represent a unique clientele requiring specialised care but they rarely benefit from standardised care strategies within trauma systems. We aimed to evaluate whether trauma centres with lower/higher than expected mortality amongst patients <65 years of age have similar results for geriatric patients. A secondary objective was to compare transfer to level I/II trauma centres across age groups. METHODS: The study was based on data from a Canadian provincial trauma registry (1999-2006). Outcome performance was evaluated with estimates of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality generated for each of the system's 57 adult trauma centres. Agreement in performance results was evaluated with correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 55,283 young adults (3.5% mortality) and 30,960 geriatric patients (8.2% mortality). The two age groups only had one out of six outliers in common. Hospital ranks amongst young adults were not correlated to those assigned amongst geriatric patients (r = 0.01, 95%CI -0.25;0.27). Correlation was also low for patients with major trauma (r = 0.20, 95%CI -0.06;0.44). Amongst patients with severe head injuries initially received in a level III/IV centre, 81% of young adults versus 71% of geriatric patients were transferred to a level I/II centre (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centres that have low risk-adjusted mortality for young adults do not necessarily do so for geriatric patients. In addition, geriatric patients with severe head injuries are less likely to be treated in neurosurgical trauma centres. Further research is needed to identify determinants of inter-hospital variation in outcome for geriatric trauma patients.

Influence of socioeconomic status on trauma center performance evaluations in a Canadian trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Trauma center performance evaluations generally include adjustment for injury severity, age, and comorbidity. However, disparities across trauma centers may be due to other differences in source populations that are not accounted for, such as socioeconomic status (SES). We aimed to evaluate whether SES influences trauma center performance evaluations in an inclusive trauma system with universal access to health care. STUDY DESIGN: The study was based on data collected between 1999 and 2006 in a Canadian trauma system. Patient SES was quantified using an ecologic index of social and material deprivation. Performance evaluations were based on mortality adjusted using the Trauma Risk Adjustment Model. Agreement between performance results with and without additional adjustment for SES was evaluated with correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The study sample comprised a total of 71,784 patients from 48 trauma centers, including 3,828 deaths within 30 days (4.5%) and 5,549 deaths within 6 months (7.7%). The proportion of patients in the highest quintile of social and material deprivation varied from 3% to 43% and from 11% to 90% across hospitals, respectively. The correlation between performance results with or without adjustment for SES was almost perfect (r = 0.997; 95% CI 0.995-0.998) and the same hospital outliers were identified. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an important variation in SES across trauma centers but no change in risk-adjusted mortality estimates when SES was added to adjustment models. Results suggest that after adjustment for injury severity, age, comorbidity, and transfer status, disparities in SES across trauma center source populations do not influence trauma center performance evaluations in a system offering universal health coverage.

Evaluation of the long-term trend in mortality from injury in a mature inclusive trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Organized trauma systems are designed to improve the quality and efficiency of trauma care. Several studies have reported mortality reductions during or immediately after implementation of a trauma system but little data are available on long-term trends. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term trend in risk-adjusted mortality in a mature inclusive trauma system. METHODS: The trauma system of the province of Quebec, Canada, was implemented in 1992 and completed in 1996. Data were drawn from the Quebec Trauma Registry with mandatory participation of all 59 centres, uniform inclusion criteria, and standardized data collection and validation procedures. Temporal trends from 1999 to 2006 were evaluated using adjusted estimates of hospital mortality generated with a random-intercept hierarchical logistic regression model. Estimates were adjusted using the Trauma Risk Adjustment Model (TRAM) score. RESULTS: The study population comprised 88,235 patients, including 4731 hospital deaths (5.4%). Crude mortality risk varied between 5.2% in 1999 and 4.6% in 2006. Adjusted mortality risk remained stable between 1999 and 2002, but a statistically significant decrease of 4.6% per year (95% CI = 0.9-8.5) was observed between 2002 and 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hospital mortality in the Quebec trauma system decreased by 24% between 2002 and 2006. Results suggest that as inclusive and regionalized trauma systems mature, they may provide better care to trauma victims. Further research should attempt to identify determinants of the observed decrease within the system and evaluate quality of life among survivors.