Pilot Study of a Software Application to Identify Trauma Registry Inconsistencies.

BACKGROUND: Trauma registries are essential to the functioning of modern trauma centers, and high-quality data are necessary to identify patient care issues, develop evidence-based practice, and more. However, institutional experience suggested existing methods to evaluate data quality were insufficient. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare a new software application developed at our trauma center to our existing trauma registry platform on the ability to identify registry inconsistencies (i.e., potential data quality issues). METHODS: We conducted a pilot retrospective cohort study of patients from September 2019 to August 2020 who underwent chart review during a Level I verification visit and had been audited several times for accuracy. Registry records were processed by both validation systems, and registry inconsistencies were recorded. RESULTS: In registry data for 63 patients, the new software found 225 registry inconsistencies, and the registry systems found 153 inconsistencies. The most frequent inconsistencies identified by the new software were missing or unknown procedure start times, with 18/63 (28.6%) patients affected and prehospital supplemental oxygen being blank, with 29/53 (54.7%) patients with prehospital care affected. None of the 10 most common inconsistencies detected with the registry systems were true issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study found the new software application identified 47% more inconsistencies than the standard registry systems, and none of the most frequent inconsistencies detected with the registry systems were true issues pertinent to institutional practice. Centers should consider additional methods to identify registry inconsistencies as existing processes appear insufficient.

Role of Serial Phlebotomy in the Management of Blunt Solid Organ Injury in Adults.

BACKGROUND: The management of blunt spleen and liver trauma has become increasingly nonoperative. There is no consensus on timing or duration of serial hemoglobin and hematocrit monitoring in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the clinical utility of serial hemoglobin and hematocrit monitoring. We hypothesized that most interventions occur early in the hospital course, based on hemodynamic instability or physical examination findings rather than serial monitoring. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult trauma patients with blunt spleen or liver injury from November 2014 through June 2019 at our Level II trauma center. Interventions were classified as no intervention, surgical intervention, angioembolization, or packed red blood cell transfusion. Demographics, length of stay, total blood draws, laboratory values, and clinical triggers preceding intervention were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were studied, of whom 73 (51%) received no intervention, 47 (33%) received an intervention within 4 hr of presentation, and 23 (16%) had interventions beyond 4 hr. Of these 23 patients, 13 received an intervention based on phlebotomy results alone. Most of these patients (n = 12, 92%) received blood transfusion without further intervention. Only one patient underwent operative intervention based on serial hemoglobin results on hospital day 2. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with these injury patterns either require no intervention or declare themselves promptly after arrival. Serial phlebotomy after initial triage and intervention may add little value in the management of blunt solid organ injury.

Reducing Inpatient Falls Through Simulations With Symptom Burden Devices.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital patient falls are a persistent problem in health care, resulting in increased length of stay and nonreimbursable charges. LOCAL PROBLEM: Although fall prevention programs have decreased inpatient fall rates, our hospital averages 30 falls per month. METHODS: This was a quality improvement project, including a simulation and debriefing. We performed a thematic analysis on the debriefing responses and tracked the inpatient fall rates over 8 months. INTERVENTIONS: We developed and implemented a low-cost simulation to allow bedside clinicians to experience the physiological changes experienced by patients, which contribute to inpatient falls. RESULTS: Fifty-one clinicians participated in the simulation; each expressed an increased understanding in the physical limitations of patients and shared at least 1 technique to help prevent falls for their patient population. The fall rate was reduced by 23.17% in the succeeding 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' awareness of patients' physiological changes can be increased by a low-cost, rapid simulation, resulting in fewer falls.

How much green does it take to be orange? Determining the cost associated with trauma center readiness.

BACKGROUND: Readiness costs are real expenses incurred by trauma centers to maintain essential infrastructure to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. Although the components for readiness are well described in the American College of Surgeons' Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient, the cost associated with each component is not well defined. We hypothesized that meeting the requirements of the 2014 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient would result in significant costs for trauma centers. METHODS: The state trauma commission in conjunction with trauma medical directors, program managers, and financial officers of each trauma center standardized definitions for each component of trauma center readiness cost and developed a survey tool for reporting. Readiness costs were grouped into four categories: administrative/program support staff, clinical medical staff, in-house operating room, and education/outreach. To verify consistent cost reporting, a financial auditor analyzed all data. Trauma center outliers were further evaluated to validate variances. All level I/level II trauma centers (n = 16) completed the survey on 2016 data. RESULTS: Average annual readiness cost is US $10,078,506 for a level I trauma center and US $4,925,103 for level IIs. Clinical medical staff was the costliest component representing 55% of costs for level Is and 64% for level IIs. Although education/outreach is mandated, levels I and II trauma centers only spend approximately US $100,000 annually on this category (1%-2%), demonstrating a lack of resources. CONCLUSION: This study defines the cost associated with each component of readiness as defined in the Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient manual. Average readiness cost for a level I trauma center is US $10,078,506 and US $4,925,103 for a level II. The significant cost of trauma center readiness highlights the need for additional trauma center funding to meet the requirements set forth by the American College of Surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and value-based evaluations, level III.

Evaluation of the Georgia trauma system using the American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems tool.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool was developed to help determine the optimal regional distribution of designated trauma centers (DTC). The objectives of our current study were to compare the current distribution of DTCs in Georgia with the recommended allocation as calculated by the NBATS tool and to see if the NBATS tool identified similar areas of need as defined by our previous analysis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Injury Severity Score (ICISS). METHODS: Population counts were acquired from US Census publications. Transportation times were estimated using digitized roadmaps and patient zip codes. The number of severely injured patients was obtained from the Georgia Discharge Data System for 2010 to 2014. Severely injured patients were identified using two measures: ICISS<0.85 and Injury Severity Score >15. RESULTS: The Georgia trauma system includes 19 level I, II, or III adult DTCs. The NBATS guidelines recommend 21; however, the distribution differs from what exists in the state. The existing DTCs exactly matched the NBATS recommended number of level I, II, or III DTCs in 2 of 10 trauma service areas (TSAs), exceeded the number recommended in 3 of 10 TSAs, and was below the number recommended in 5 of 10 TSAs. Densely populated, or urban, areas tend to be associated with a higher number of existing centers compared with the NBATS recommendation. Other less densely populated TSAs are characterized by large rural expanses with a single urban core where a DTC is located. The identified areas of need were similar to the ones identified in the previous gap analysis of the state using the ICISS methodology. DISCUSSION: The tool appears to underestimate the number of centers needed in extensive and densely populated areas, but recommends additional centers in geographically expansive rural areas. The tool signifies a preliminary step in assessing the need for state-wide inpatient trauma center services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level IV.

Successful Incorporation of Performance Based Payments for Trauma Center Readiness Costs into the Georgia Trauma System.

As quality and outcomes have moved to the fore front of medicine in this era of healthcare reform, a state trauma system Performance Based Payments (PBP) program has been incorporated into trauma center readiness funding. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a PBP on trauma center revenue. From 2010 to 2016, a percentage of readiness costs funding to trauma centers was placed in a PBP and withheld until the PBP criteria were completed. To introduce the concept, only three performance criteria and 10 per cent of readiness costs funding were tied to PBP in 2010. The PBP has evolved over the last several years to now include specific criteria by level of designation with an increase to 50 per cent of readiness costs funding being tied to PBP criteria. Final PBP distribution to trauma centers was based on the number of performance criteria completed. During 2016, the PBP criteria for Level I and II trauma centers included participation in official state meetings/conference calls, required attendance to American College of Surgeons state chapter meetings, Trauma Quality Improvement Program, registry reports, and surgeon participation in Peer Review Committee and trauma alert response times. Over the seven-year study period, $36,261,469 was available for readiness funds with $11,534,512 eligible for the PBP. Only $636,383 (6%) was withheld from trauma centers. A performance-based program was successfully incorporated into trauma center readiness funding, supporting state performance measures without adversely affecting the trauma center revenue. Future PBP criteria may be aligned to designation standards and clinical quality performance metrics.

What Are the Costs of Trauma Center Readiness? Defining and Standardizing Readiness Costs for Trauma Centers Statewide.

Trauma center readiness costs are incurred to maintain essential infrastructure and capacity to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. These costs are not captured by traditional hospital cost accounting, and no national consensus exists on appropriate definitions for each cost. Therefore, in 2010, stakeholders from all Level I and II trauma centers developed a survey tool standardizing and defining trauma center readiness costs. The survey tool underwent minor revisions to provide further clarity, and the survey was repeated in 2013. The purpose of this study was to provide a follow-up analysis of readiness costs for Georgia's Level I and Level II trauma centers. Using the American College of Surgeons Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient guidelines, four readiness cost categories were identified: Administrative, Clinical Medical Staff, Operating Room, and Education/Outreach. Through conference calls, webinars and face-to-face meetings with financial officers, trauma medical directors, and program managers from all trauma centers, standardized definitions for reporting readiness costs within each category were developed. This resulted in a survey tool for centers to report their individual readiness costs for one year. The total readiness cost for all Level I trauma centers was $34,105,318 (avg $6,821,064) and all Level II trauma centers was $20,998,019 (avg $2,333,113). Methodology to standardize and define readiness costs for all trauma centers within the state was developed. Average costs for Level I and Level II trauma centers were identified. This model may be used to help other states define and standardize their trauma readiness costs.

Transitioning the complex trauma patient from the ICU: acute care nurses' perceptions of readiness.

Trauma centers improve patient outcomes through the provision of expert care by trauma surgeons and nurses. While the American College of Surgeons stipulates that trauma centers must have qualified nurses, there is no clear definition of qualified, nor is there a recommendation for trauma nurse readiness beyond the emergency department or intensive care. In a newly designated level II trauma center, it was recognized that nurses were unprepared to provide care to complex trauma patients. This study explored nurses' perceptions of their knowledge, skills and confidence in complex trauma care utilizing a novel transitional care model.