• D Nayduch, J Moylan, B L Snyder, L Andrews, R Rutledge, and P Cunningham.
• Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.
• J Trauma. 1994 Oct 1;37(4):565-73; discussion 573-5.

AbstractQuality assurance/quality improvement (QA-QI) is a priority for maintaining the highest standards of care in trauma systems. To be an effective tool for system review, the QA-QI indicators should identify patients with higher rates of morbidity and mortality from injury. While the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Operations have identified certain audit filters within the trauma system, there are few data to substantiate the value of these audit filters for trauma care. The purpose of this study was to analyze the ability of the ACS trauma indicators to predict adverse patient outcome following injury requiring review. The study population consisted of 44,019 patients from the North Carolina State Trauma Registry from 1987 to 1992. Of the 22 audit filters nine were available for analysis. Mortality rate, length of stay, and total charges were used as measures of outcome. The hypotheses tested were that patients who met the indicator criteria would have higher mortality rates and worse outcomes than the non-indicator group. Student's t test and Chi-square analysis were used to test the differences between the group which met the criteria for the indicator and those without. Of the nine audit filters tested, only three were found to have significantly worse outcomes than their non-indicator comparison group: gunshot wound to the abdomen with non-surgical management, femur fracture without fixation, and complications from pulmonary embolism-deep vein thrombosis-decubitus ulcer (p < 0.05). Contrary to expectations, four of the audit filters, coma without intubation, laparotomy > 2 hours, transfer > 6 hours, and admission to non-surgical service, actually had significantly better outcomes than their non-indicator counterpart. Scene time > 20 minutes, laparotomy > 2 hours after arrival, and craniotomy > 4 hours after arrival may be indicators of patients at risk for morbidity. This study demonstrates that several ACS clinical indicators, as currently written, are not useful in identifying patients at higher risk for poor outcome. The indicators need further definition to be of value in the quality review process. Specifically, the study suggests that audit filters should be data driven and based upon analyses of large populations of injured patients and their outcomes to be valid QA-QI tools.

14 keywords...

hide…