• Mark R Hemmila, Avery B Nathens, Shahid Shafi, J Forrest Calland, David E Clark, H Gill Cryer, Sandra Goble, Christopher J Hoeft, J Wayne Meredith, Melanie L Neal, Michael D Pasquale, Michelle D Pomphrey, and John J Fildes.
• Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-5033, USA. mhemmila@umich.edu
• J Trauma. 2010 Feb 1; 68 (2): 253-62.

ObjectiveThe American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma has created a "Trauma Quality Improvement Program" (TQIP) that uses the existing infrastructure of Committee on Trauma programs. As the first step toward full implementation of TQIP, a pilot study was conducted in 23 American College of Surgeons verified or state designated Level I and II trauma centers. This study details the feasibility and acceptance of TQIP among the participating centers.MethodsData from the National Trauma Data Bank for patients admitted to pilot study hospitals during 2007 were used (15,801 patients). A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to estimate risk-adjusted mortality in aggregate and on three prespecified subgroups (1: blunt multisystem, 2: penetrating truncal, and 3: blunt single-system injury). Benchmark reports were developed with each center's risk adjusted mortality (expressed as an observed-to-expected [O/E] mortality ratio and 90% confidence interval [CI]) and crude complication rates available for comparison. Reports were deidentified with only the recipient having access to their performance relative to their peers. Feedback from individual centers regarding the utility of the reports was collected by survey.ResultsOverall crude mortality was 7.7% and in cohorts 1 to 3 was 16.4%, 12.4%, and 5.1%, respectively. In the aggregate risk-adjusted analysis, three trauma centers were low outliers (O/E and 90% CI <1) and two centers were high outliers (O/E and 90% CI >1) with the remaining 18 centers demonstrating average mortality. Challenges identified were in benchmarking mortality after penetrating injury due to small sample size and in the limited capture of complications. Ninety-two percent of survey respondents found the report clear and understandable, and 90% thought that the report was useful. Sixty-three percent of respondents will be taking action based on the report.ConclusionsUsing the National Trauma Data Bank infrastructure to provide risk-adjusted benchmarking of trauma center mortality is feasible and perceived as useful. There are differences in O/E ratios across similarly verified or designated centers. Substantial work is required to allow for morbidity benchmarking.

23 keywords...

hide…