Post-acute care referral and inpatient rehabilitation admission criteria for persons with brain injury across two Canadian provinces.

PURPOSE: Investigate health care providers' perceptions of referral and admission criteria to brain injury inpatient rehabilitation in two Canadian provinces. METHODS: Health care providers (n = 345) from brain injury programs (13 acute care and 16 rehabilitation facilities) participated in a cross-sectional web-based survey. The participants rated the likelihood of patients (traumatic brain injury and cerebral hypoxia) to be referred/admitted to rehabilitation and the influence of 19 additional factors (e.g., tracheostomy). The participants reported the perceived usefulness of referral/admission policies and assessment tools used. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent acute care and 98% rehabilitation participants reported the person with traumatic brain injury would likely or very likely be referred/admitted to rehabilitation compared to respectively 43% and 53% for the patient with hypoxia. Two additional factors significantly decreased the likelihood of referral/admission: older age and the combined presence of minimal learning ability, memory impairment and physical aggression. Some significant inter-provincial variations in the perceived referral/admission procedure were observed. Most participants reported policies were helpful. Similar assessment tools were used in acute care and rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers appear to consider various factors when making decisions regarding referral and admission to rehabilitation. Variations in the perceived likelihood of referral/admission suggest a need for standardized referral/admission practices. Implications for Rehabilitation Various patient characteristics influence clinicians' decisions when selecting appropriate candidates for inpatient rehabilitation. In this study, acute care clinicians were less likely to refer patients that their rehabilitation counter parts would likely have admitted and a patient with hypoxic brain injury was less likely to be referred or admitted in rehabilitation than a patient with a traumatic brain injury. Such discrepancies suggest that policy-makers, managers and clinicians should work together to develop and implement more standardized referral practices and more specific admission criteria in order to ensure equitable access to brain injury rehabilitation services.

Prognostication in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury: the TBI-Prognosis multicentre feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Severe traumatic brain injury is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in young adults. Assessing long-term neurological outcome after such injury is difficult and often characterised by uncertainty. The objective of this feasibility study was to establish the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre prospective study to develop a prognostic model of long-term neurological outcome in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: 9 Canadian intensive care units enrolled patients suffering from acute severe traumatic brain injury. Clinical, biological, radiological and electrophysiological data were systematically collected during the first week in the intensive care unit. Mortality and functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale extended) were assessed on hospital discharge, and then 3, 6 and 12 months following injury. OUTCOMES: The compliance to protocolised test procedures was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were enrolment rate and compliance to follow-up. RESULTS: We successfully enrolled 50 patients over a 12-month period. Most patients were male (80%), with a median age of 45 years (IQR 29.0-60.0), a median Injury Severity Score of 38 (IQR 25-50) and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 6 (IQR 3-7). Mortality was 38% (19/50) and most deaths occurred following a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies (18/19). The main reasons for non-enrolment were the time window for inclusion being after regular working hours (35%, n=23) and oversight (24%, n=16). Compliance with protocolised test procedures ranged from 92% to 100% and enrolment rate was 43%. No patients were lost to follow-up at 6 months and 2 were at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre prospective feasibility study, we achieved feasibility objectives pertaining to compliance to test, enrolment and follow-up. We conclude that the TBI-Prognosis prospective multicentre study in severe traumatic brain injury patients in Canada is feasible.

Impact of socio-economic status on unplanned readmission following injury: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned readmissions cost the US economy approximately $17 billion in 2009 with a 30-day incidence of 19.6%. Despite the recognised impact of socio-economic status (SES) on readmission in diagnostic populations such as cardiovascular patients, its impact in trauma patients is unclear. We examined the effect of SES on unplanned readmission following injury in a setting with universal health insurance. We also evaluated whether additional adjustment for SES influenced risk-adjusted readmission rates, used as a quality indicator (QI). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter cohort study in an integrated Canadian trauma system involving 56 adult trauma centres using trauma registry and hospital discharge data collected between 2005 and 2010. The main outcome was unplanned 30-day readmission; all cause, due to complications of injury and due to subsequent injury. SES was determined using ecological indices of material and social deprivation. Odds ratios of readmission and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for covariates were generated using multivariable logistic regression with a correction for hospital clusters. We then compared a readmission QI validated previously (original QI) to a QI with additional adjustment for SES (SES-adjusted QI) using the mean absolute difference. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 52,122 trauma admissions of which 6.5% were rehospitalised within 30 days of discharge. Compared to patients in the lowest quintile of social deprivation, those in the highest quintile had a 20% increase in the odds of all-cause unplanned readmission (95% CI=1.06-1.36) and a 27% increase in the odds of readmission due to complications of injury (95% CI=1.04-1.54). No association was observed for material deprivation or for readmissions due to subsequent injuries. We observed a strong agreement between the original and SES-adjusted readmission (mean absolute difference= 0.04%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted for traumatic injury who suffer from social deprivation have an increased risk of unplanned rehospitalisation due to complications of injury in the 30 days following discharge. Better discharge planning or follow up for such patients may improve patient outcome and resource use for trauma admissions. Despite observed associations, results suggest that the trauma QI based on unplanned readmission does not require additional adjustment for SES.

Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model: Validation in an integrated trauma system.

BACKGROUND: According to Donabedian's health care quality model, improvements in the structure of care should lead to improvements in clinical processes that should in turn improve patient outcome. This model has been widely adopted by the trauma community but has not yet been validated in a trauma system. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of an integrated trauma system in terms of structure, process, and outcome and evaluate the correlation between quality domains. METHODS: Quality of care was evaluated for patients treated in a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 centers, n = 63,971) using quality indicators (QIs) developed and validated previously. Structural performance was measured by transposing on-site accreditation visit reports onto an evaluation grid according to American College of Surgeons criteria. The composite process QI was calculated as the average sum of proportions of conformity to 15 process QIs derived from literature review and expert opinion. Outcome performance was measured using risk-adjusted rates of mortality, complications, and readmission as well as hospital length of stay (LOS). Correlation was assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations were observed between structure and process QIs (r = 0.33), and process and outcome QIs (r = -0.33 for readmission, r = -0.27 for LOS). Significant positive correlations were also observed between outcome QIs (r = 0.37 for mortality-readmission; r = 0.39 for mortality-LOS and readmission-LOS; r = 0.45 for mortality-complications; r = 0.34 for readmission-complications; 0.63 for complications-LOS). CONCLUSION: Significant correlations between quality domains observed in this study suggest that Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model is a valid model for evaluating trauma care. Trauma centers that perform well in terms of structure also tend to perform well in terms of clinical processes, which in turn has a favorable influence on patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Influence of access to an integrated trauma system on in-hospital mortality and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on population-based access to specialised trauma care and its influence on patient outcomes in an integrated trauma system. We aimed to evaluate the influence of access to an integrate trauma system on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: All adults admitted to acute care hospitals for major trauma [International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score (ICISS<0.85)] in a Canadian province with an integrated trauma system between 2006 and 2011 were included using an administrative hospital discharge database. The influence of access to an integrated trauma system on in-hospital mortality and LOS was assessed globally and for critically injured patients (ICISS<0.75), according to the type of injury [traumatic brain injury (TBI), abdominal/thoracic, spine, orthopaedic] using logistic and linear multivariable regression models. RESULTS: We identified 22,749 injury admissions. In-hospital mortality was 7% and median LOS was 9 days for all injuries. Overall, 92% of patients were treated within the trauma system. Globally, patients who did not have access had similar mortality and LOS compared to patients who had access. However, we observed a 62% reduction in mortality for critical abdominal/thoracic injuries (odds ratio=0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.92) and an 8% increase in LOS for TBI patients (geometric mean ratio=1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14) treated within the trauma system. CONCLUSIONS: Results provides evidence that in a health system with an integrated mature trauma system, access to specialised trauma care is high and the small proportion of patients treated outside the system, have similar mortality and LOS compared to patients treated within the system. This study suggests that the Québec trauma system performs well in its mandate to offer appropriate treatment to victims of injury that require specialised care.

Access to a Canadian provincial integrated trauma system: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Access to specialised trauma care is an important measure of trauma system efficiency. However, few data are available on access to integrated trauma systems. We aimed to describe access to trauma centres (TCs) in an integrated Canadian trauma system and identify its determinants. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study including all injured adults admitted to acute care hospitals in the province of Québec between 2006 and 2011. Proportions of injured patients transported directly or transferred to TCs were assessed. Determinants of access were identified through a modified Poisson regression model and a relative importance analysis was used to determine the contribution of each independent variable to predicting access. RESULTS: Of the 135,653 injury admissions selected, 75% were treated within the trauma system. Among 25,522 patients with major injuries [International Classification of diseases Injury Severity Score (ICISS<0.85)], 90% had access to TCs. Access was higher for patients aged under 65, men and among patients living in more remote areas (p-value <0.001). The region of residence followed by injury mechanism, number of trauma diagnoses, injury severity and age were the most important determinants of access to trauma care. CONCLUSIONS: In an integrated, mature trauma system, we observed high access to TCs. However, problems in access were observed for the elderly, women and in urban areas where there are many non-designated hospitals. Access to trauma care should be monitored as part of quality of care improvement activities and pre-hospital guidelines for trauma patients should be applied uniformly throughout the province.

Derivation and validation of a quality indicator for 30-day unplanned hospital readmission to evaluate trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned readmissions represent 20% of all admissions and cost $12 billion annually in the United States. Despite the burden of injuries for the health care system, no quality indicator (QI) based on readmissions is available to evaluate trauma care. The objective of this study was to derive and internally validate a QI for a 30-day unplanned hospital readmission to evaluate trauma care. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in a Canadian integrated provincial trauma system. We included adults admitted to any of the 57 provincial trauma centers between 2005 and 2010 (n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and linked to the hospital discharge database. The primary outcome was unplanned readmission to an acute care hospital within 30 days of discharge. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for derivation of the risk adjustment model using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. RESULTS: The risk adjustment model includes patient age, sex, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), region of the most severe injury, and 11 comorbid conditions. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation, 0.02) and is correlated with QIs that measure hospital performance in terms of clinical processes (r = -0.38), risk-adjusted mortality (r = 0.32), and complication rates (r = 0.38). In addition, performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.59). CONCLUSION: We have developed a QI based on risk-adjusted 30-day rates of unplanned readmission, which can be used to evaluate trauma care with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a comprehensive risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This research represents an essential step toward reducing unplanned readmission rates to improve resource use and patient outcomes following injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Derivation and validation of a quality indicator of acute care length of stay to evaluate trauma care.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and internally validate a quality indicator (QI) for acute care length of stay (LOS) after admission for injury. BACKGROUND: Unnecessary hospital days represent an estimated 20% of total LOS implying an important waste of resources as well as increased patient exposure to hospital-acquired infections and functional decline. METHODS: This study is based on a multicenter, retrospective cohort from a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 trauma centers; n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and the hospital discharge database. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for model derivation using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. RESULTS: The risk adjustment model explains 37% of the variation in LOS. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.011-0.028) and is correlated with the QI on processes of care (r = -0.32), complications (r = 0.66), unplanned readmissions (r = 0.38), and mortality (r = 0.35). Performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a QI on the basis of risk-adjusted LOS to evaluate trauma care that can be implemented with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a robust risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity, and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This QI can be used to target interventions to reduce LOS, which will lead to more efficient resource use and may improve patient outcomes after injury.

Hospital length of stay after admission for traumatic injury in Canada: a multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe acute care length of stay (LOS) over all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury and according to level of care [intensive care unit (ICU), intermediate care, general ward], compare observed and expected LOS, and identify predictors of LOS. BACKGROUND: Prolonged LOS has important consequences in terms of costs and outcome, yet detailed information on LOS after trauma is lacking. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was based on adults discharged alive from a Canadian trauma system (1999-2010; n = 126,513). Registry data were used to calculate index LOS (LOS in trauma center with highest designation level) and were linked to hospital discharge data to calculate total LOS (all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury). Expected LOS was obtained by matching general provincial discharge statistics to study data by year, age, and sex. Potential predictors of LOS were evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Mean index and total LOS were 8.6 and 9.4 days, respectively. ICU, intermediate care unit, and general ward care constituted 8.9%, 2.5%, and 88.6% of total hospital days. Observed mean index and ICU LOS in our trauma patients were 2.9 and 1.3 days longer than expected LOS (P < 0.0001). The strongest determinants of index LOS were discharge destination, age, transfer status, and injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that acute care LOS after injury is underestimated when only information on the index hospitalization is used and that ICU or intermediate care constitute an important part of LOS. This information should be used to inform the development of an informative and actionable quality indicator.

Cohort study on the prevalence and risk factors for delayed pulmonary complications in adults following minor blunt thoracic trauma.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time to onset of delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax in adults who experienced a minor blunt thoracic trauma. METHOD: A prospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients was recruited. Eligible patients had to be over 16 years of age, consulted within 72 hours for a trauma, and available for outpatient follow-up at 2, 7, and 14 days posttrauma. The clinical outcome investigated was the presence of delayed pneumothorax or hemothorax on the follow-up chest x-ray. OUTCOMES: Delayed hemothorax occurred in 11.8% (95% CI 8.8-14.8), and delayed pneumothorax occurred in 0.9% (95% CI 0.2-2.3) of participants. During the 14-day follow-up period, 87.0% of these delayed complications developed in the first week. In the multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for delayed complications was the location of fractures on the x-ray of the hemithorax. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.52 (95% CI 0.62-3.73) for the lower ribs (tenth to twelfth rib), 3.11 (95% CI 1.60-6.08) for the midline ribs (sixth to ninth rib), and 5.05 (95% CI 1.80-14.19) for the upper ribs (third to fifth rib) versus patients with no fractures. CONCLUSION: The presence of at least one rib fracture between the third and ninth rib on the x-ray of the hemithorax is a significant risk factor for delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax.

[Cohort study on the prevalence and risk factors of late pulmonary complications in adults following a closed minor chest trauma]. / Étude de cohorte sur la prévalence et les facteurs de risque de complications pulmonaires tardives chez les adultes à la suite d'un traumatisme thoracique mineur fermé.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time to onset of delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax in adults who experienced a minor blunt thoracic trauma. METHOD: A prospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients was recruited. Eligible patients had to be over 16 years of age, consulted within 72 hours for a trauma, and available for outpatient follow-up at 2, 7, and 14 days posttrauma. The clinical outcome investigated was the presence of delayed pneumothorax or hemothorax on the follow-up chest x-ray. OUTCOMES: Delayed hemothorax occurred in 11.8% (95% CI 8.8-14.8), and delayed pneumothorax occurred in 0.9% (95% CI 0.2-2.3) of participants. During the 14-day follow-up period, 87.0% of these delayed complications developed in the first week. In the multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for delayed complications was the location of fractures on the x-ray of the hemithorax. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.52 (95% CI 0.62-3.73) for the lower ribs (tenth to twelfth rib), 3.11 (95% CI 1.60-6.08) for the midline ribs (sixth to ninth rib), and 5.05 (95% CI 1.80-14.19) for the upper ribs (third to fifth rib) versus patients with no fractures. CONCLUSION: The presence of at least one rib fracture between the third and ninth rib on the x-ray of the hemithorax is a significant risk factor for delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax.

Evaluating trauma center process performance in an integrated trauma system with registry data.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of trauma center performance implies the use of indicators that evaluate clinical processes. Despite the availability of routinely collected clinical data in most trauma systems, quality improvement efforts are often limited to hospital-based audit of adverse patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate a series of process performance indicators (PPI) that can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PPI were identified using a review of published literature, trauma system documentation, and expert consensus. Data from the 59 trauma centers of the Quebec trauma system (1999, 2006; N = 99,444) were used to calculate estimates of conformity to each PPI for each trauma center. Outliers were identified by comparing each center to the global mean. PPI were evaluated in terms of discrimination (between-center variance), construct validity (correlation with designation level and patient volume), and forecasting (correlation over time). RESULTS: Fifteen PPI were retained. Global proportions of conformity ranged between 6% for reduction of a major dislocation within 1 h and 97% for therapeutic laparotomy. Between-center variance was statistically significant for 13 PPI. Five PPI were significantly associated with designation level, 7 were associated with volume, and 11 were correlated over time. CONCLUSION: In our trauma system, results suggest that a series of 15 PPI supported by literature review or expert opinion can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. We have provided evidence of their discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting properties. The between-center variance observed in this study highlights the importance of evaluating process performance in integrated trauma systems.

A comparison of methods to obtain a composite performance indicator for evaluating clinical processes in trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Process performance indicators that evaluate trauma centers in clinical case management provide information essential to the improvement of trauma care. However, multiple indicators are needed to adequately evaluate process performance, which renders comparisons cumbersome. Several methods are available for generating composite indicators that measure global performance. The goal of this study was to compare three composite methods that are widely used in other health care domains to identify the most appropriate for trauma care process performance evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, 15 process performance indicators were implemented using data from a Canadian provincial trauma registry (19,853 patients; 59 centers) on patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15. Composite scores were derived using three methods as follows: the indicator average, the opportunity model, and a latent variable model. Composite scores were evaluated in terms of discrimination, construct validity (association with an indicator of trauma center structural performance), criterion predictive validity (association with clinical outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). RESULTS: All composite scores discriminated well between trauma centers. Only the average indicator score was correlated with improved structure (r = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.53), lower risk-adjusted mortality (r = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.04), and lower risk-adjusted complication rate (r = -0.48; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.25). Composite scores calculated with 1999 to 2002 data all correlated with those calculated with 2003 to 2006 data (r = 0.49, 0.87, and 0.84 for the indicator average, the opportunity model, and the latent variable model, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that of the three composite scores evaluated, only the indicator average demonstrates content and predictive criterion validity, discriminates between centers, and has good forecasting properties. In addition, this score is simple and intuitive and not subject to variation in weights over trauma systems and time. The observed association between higher indicator average scores and lower risk-adjusted mortality and complication rates suggests that improving process performance may improve patient outcome.

Evaluating trauma center structural performance: The experience of a Canadian provincial trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Indicators of structure, process, and outcome are required to evaluate the performance of trauma centers to improve the quality and efficiency of care. While periodic external accreditation visits are part of most trauma systems, a quantitative indicator of structural performance has yet to be proposed. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a trauma center structural performance indicator using accreditation report data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses were based on accreditation reports completed during on-site visits in the Quebec trauma system (1994-2005). Qualitative report data was retrospectively transposed onto an evaluation grid and the weighted average of grid items was used to quantify performance. The indicator of structural performance was evaluated in terms of test-retest reliability (kappa statistic), discrimination between centers (coefficient of variation), content validity (correlation with accreditation decision, designation level, and patient volume) and forecasting (correlation between visits performed in 1994-1999 and 1998-2005). RESULTS: Kappa statistics were >0.8 for 66 of the 73 (90%) grid items. Mean structural performance score over 59 trauma centers was 47.4 (95% CI: 43.6-51.1). Two centers were flagged as outliers and the coefficient of variation was 31.2% (95% CI: 25.5% to 37.6%), showing good discrimination. Correlation coefficients of associations with accreditation decision, designation level, and volume were all statistically significant (r = 0.61, -0.40, and 0.24, respectively). No correlation was observed over time (r = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of quantifying trauma center structural performance using accreditation reports. The proposed performance indicator shows good test-retest reliability, between-center discrimination, and construct validity. The observed variability in structural performance across centers and over-time underlines the importance of evaluating structural performance in trauma systems at regular intervals to drive quality improvement efforts.

Comparing regression-adjusted mortality to standardized mortality ratios for trauma center profiling.

BACKGROUND: Trauma center profiling is commonly performed with Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs). However, comparison of SMRs across trauma centers with different case mix can induce confounding leading to biased trauma center ranks. We hypothesized that Regression-Adjusted Mortality (RAM) estimates would provide a more valid measure of trauma center performance than SMRs. OBJECTIVE: Compare trauma center ranks generated by RAM estimates to those generated by SMRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was based on data from a provincial Trauma Registry (1999-2006; n = 88,235). SMRs were derived as the ratio of observed to expected deaths using: (1) the study population as an internal standard, (2) the US National Trauma Data Bank as an external standard. The expected death count was calculated as the sum of mortality probabilities for all patients treated in a hospital conditional on the injury severity score, the revised trauma score, and age. RAM estimates were obtained directly from a hierarchical logistic regression model. RESULTS: Crude mortality was 5.4% and varied between 1.3% and 13.5% across the 59 trauma centers. When trauma center ranks from internal SMRs and RAM were compared, 49 out of 59 centers changed rank and six centers changed by more than five ranks. When trauma center ranks from external SMRs and RAM were compared, 55 centers changed rank and 17 changed by more than five ranks. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the use of SMRs to rank trauma centers in terms of mortality may be misleading. RAM estimates represent a potentially more valid method of trauma center profiling.

Health care professionals' beliefs about using wiki-based reminders to promote best practices in trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Wikis are knowledge translation tools that could help health professionals implement best practices in acute care. Little is known about the factors influencing professionals' use of wikis. OBJECTIVES: To identify and compare the beliefs of emergency physicians (EPs) and allied health professionals (AHPs) about using a wiki-based reminder that promotes evidence-based care for traumatic brain injuries. METHODS: Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, we conducted semistructured interviews to elicit EPs' and AHPs' beliefs about using a wiki-based reminder. Previous studies suggested a sample of 25 EPs and 25 AHPs. We purposefully selected participants from three trauma centers in Quebec, Canada, to obtain a representative sample. Using univariate analyses, we assessed whether our participants' gender, age, and level of experience were similar to those of all eligible individuals. Participants viewed a video showing a clinician using a wiki-based reminder, and we interviewed participants about their behavioral, control, and normative beliefs-that is, what they saw as advantages, disadvantages, barriers, and facilitators to their use of a reminder, and how they felt important referents would perceive their use of a reminder. Two reviewers independently analyzed the content of the interview transcripts. We considered the 75% most frequently mentioned beliefs as salient. We retained some less frequently mentioned beliefs as well. RESULTS: Of 66 eligible EPs and 444 eligible AHPs, we invited 55 EPs and 39 AHPs to participate, and 25 EPs and 25 AHPs (15 nurses, 7 respiratory therapists, and 3 pharmacists) accepted. Participating AHPs had more experience than eligible AHPs (mean 14 vs 11 years; P = .04). We noted no other significant differences. Among EPs, the most frequently reported advantage of using a wiki-based reminder was that it refreshes the memory (n = 14); among AHPs, it was that it provides rapid access to protocols (n = 16). Only 2 EPs mentioned a disadvantage (the wiki added stress). The most frequently reported favorable referent was nurses for EPs (n = 16) and EPs for AHPs (n = 19). The most frequently reported unfavorable referents were people resistant to standardized care for EPs (n = 8) and people less comfortable with computers for AHPs (n = 11). The most frequent facilitator for EPs was ease of use (n = 19); for AHPs, it was having a bedside computer (n = 20). EPs' most frequently reported barrier was irregularly updated wiki-based reminders (n = 18); AHPs' was undetermined legal responsibility (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: We identified EPs' and AHPs' salient beliefs about using a wiki-based reminder. We will draw on these beliefs to construct a questionnaire to measure the importance of these determinants to EPs' and AHPs' intention to use a wiki-based reminder promoting evidence-based care for traumatic brain injuries.

Emergency department triage: do experienced nurses agree on triage scores?

BACKGROUND: The reproducibility of the Canadian Triage & Acuity Scale (CTAS), designed and introduced in the late 1990s in all Canadian emergency departments (EDs), has been studied mostly using measures of interrater agreement. However, each of these studies shares a common limitation: the nurses had received fresh CTAS training, which is likely to have led to an overestimation of the reproducibility of CTAS. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the interrater reliability of the CTAS in current clinical practice, that is, as used by experienced ED nurses without recent certification or recertification. METHODS: A prospective sample of 100 patients arriving by ambulance was identified and yielded a set of 100 written scenarios. Five experienced ED nurses reviewed and blindly assigned a CTAS score to each scenario. The agreement among nurses was measured using the Kappa statistic calculated with quadratic weights. Kappa values were generated for each pair of nurses and a global Kappa coefficient was calculated to measure overall agreement. RESULTS: Overall interrater agreement was moderate, with a global Kappa of 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.40-0.48). However, pairwise, Kappa values were heterogeneous (0.30 to 0.61, p=0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: The moderate interrater agreement observed in this study is disappointingly low and suggests that CTAS reliability may be lower than expected, and this warrants further research. Intra-observer reliability of CTAS should be ascertained more extensively among experienced nurses, and a future evaluation should involve several institutions.

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.

Definition of mortality for trauma center performance evaluation: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: Mortality is widely used as a performance indicator to evaluate the quality of trauma care, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate definition. Our objective was to evaluate the influence of the definition of mortality in terms of the place (in-hospital or postdischarge) and time (30 days and 3, 6, and 12 months) of death on the results of trauma center performance evaluations according to the patients' ages. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system. PATIENTS: Adults admitted between 1999 and 2006 with a maximum abbreviated injury severity score≥3 (n=47,261). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Trauma registry data were linked to vital statistics data to obtain mortality up to 12 months postadmission. Observed mortality was compared to that expected according to provincial population mortality rates. Trauma center performance was evaluated with risk-adjusted mortality estimates. Agreement between performance results based on different definitions of mortality was evaluated with correlation coefficients; >.9 was considered acceptable. Analyses were stratified by predefined age categories (16-64, 65-84, and ≥85 yrs). A total of 3,338 patients (7%) died in-hospital, and 1,794 patients (4%) died postdischarge. Among patients 16-64 yrs old, 30-day hospital mortality represented 83% of all deaths and correlation coefficients across all definitions of mortality were >.9. In patients 65-84 yrs old, 30-day hospital mortality represented 52% of all deaths, observed mortality reached expected rates at around 6 months, and agreement across mortality definitions was low. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an important variation in performance evaluation results across definitions of mortality, specifically in patients aged≥65 yrs. Half of the deaths among elders occurred later than 30 days following admission, including a significant number postdischarge. Results suggest that if performance evaluations include elderly patients, data on postdischarge mortality up to 6 months following admission are required.

Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the network form of organization of traumatic brain injury service delivery systems.

UNLABELLED: Networks are an increasingly popular way to deal with the lack of integration of traumatic brain injury (TBI) care. Knowledge of the stakes of the network form of organization is critical in deciding whether or not to implement a TBI network to improve the continuity of TBI care. GOALS OF THE STUDY: To report the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of a TBI network and to consider these elements in a discussion about whether networks are a suitable solution to fragmented TBI care. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 12 representatives of network organization members. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed using the EGIPSS model of performance. RESULTS: The majority of elements reported were related to the network's adaptation to its environment and more precisely to its capacity to acquire resources. The issue of value maintenance also received considerable attention from participants. DISCUSSION: The network form of organization seems particularly sensitive to environmental issues, such as resource acquisition and legitimacy. The authors suggest that the network form of organization is a suitable way to increase the continuity of TBI care if the following criteria are met: (1) expectations toward network effectiveness to increase continuity of care are moderate and realistic; (2) sufficient resources are devoted to the design, implementation, and maintenance of the network; (3) a network's existence and actions are deemed legitimate by community and organization member partners; and (4) there is a good collaborative climate between the organizations.