Improved clinical documentation leads to superior reportable outcomes: An accurate representation of patient's clinical status.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation can be an underappreciated. Trauma Centers (TCs) are now routinely evaluated for quality performance. TCs with poor documentation may not accurately reflect actual injury burden or comorbidities and can impact accuracy of mortality measures. Markers exist to adjust crude death rates for injury severity: observed over expected deaths (O/E) adjust for injury; Case Mix Index (CMI) reflects disease burden, and Severity of Illness (SOI) measures organ dysfunction. We aim to evaluate the impact of implementing a Clinical Documentation Improvement Program (CDIP) on reported outcomes. METHODS: Review of 2-years of prospectively collected data for trauma patients, during the implementation of CDIP. A two-group prospective observational study design was used to evaluate the pre-implementation and the post-implementation phase of improved clinical documentation. T-test and Chi-Squared were used with significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: In the pre-implementation period, there were 49 deaths out of 1419 (3.45%), while post-implementation period, had 38 deaths out of 1454 (2.61%), (non-significant). There was however, a significant difference between O/E ratios. In the pre-phase, the O/E was 1.36 and 0.70 in the post-phase (p < 0.001). The two groups also differed on CMI with a pre-group mean of 2.48 and a post-group of 2.87 (p < 0.001), indicating higher injury burden in the post-group. SOI started at 2.12 and significantly increased to 2.91, signifying more organ system dysfunction (p < 0.018). CONCLUSION: Improved clinical documentation results in improved accuracy of measures of mortality, injury severity, and comorbidities and a more accurate reflection in O/E mortality ratios, CMI, and SOI.

Can Residents Be Trained and Safety Maintained?

INTRODUCTION: Teaching hospitals and faculty need to balance the educational mission for training residents with patient safety. There are no data studying the change in trauma patient outcomes before and after implementation of a surgical residency. The objective of this study was to compare trauma center outcomes before and after the advent of a surgical training program. We predicted that patient-centric outcome metrics would not be affected by the integration of surgical residents into trauma patient care. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed using the Crimson Continuum of Care (CCC) dataset and the Trauma Injury Severity Scores (TRISS) for the year before implementation of a surgical residency, compared to the 6 months following initiation of the residency. Severity and risk-adjusted performance measures included mortality, readmissions, complications, and length of stay. Using TRISS, actual, and predicted mortality was compared. RESULTS: There were 1535 trauma admissions to the acute Care Trauma Service the year before starting the residency, and 856 admissions for the 6 months following the implementation of the program. The demographics were similar between the 2 groups. There was no clinically significant difference in observed mortality after the initiation of a surgery residency, based on CCC dataset variables and TRISS datasets. There were also no significant differences in complications and readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that initiating a surgical training program did not affect mortality rates or complications of trauma patients. Training of general surgery residents in a high-performing trauma center can be effectively implemented without compromising patient safety.