American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program: Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews

F. L. Mitchell, E. R. Thal, C. C. Wolferth, A. M. Ledgerwood, M. J. Shapiro, R. J. Mullins, J. Hammond, G. O. Strauch, A. B. Eastman, C. J. Carrico

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was designed to document the reasons hospitals have been unsuccessfully peer reviewed as potential trauma centers. Method: 120 trauma center reviews were performed by a peer review program between September 1987 and December 1992 using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) criteria. Fifty-four hospitals had criteria deficiencies. These reviews were studied for criteria deficiencies for each hospital with documentation of frequency and relationship to re-review outcome. Results: There are 108 ACS criteria. The 54 hospitals had various combinations of 28 different criteria deficiencies. Deficiencies ranged from 1 to 15 per hospital. Thirty-one hospitals underwent a second review. Twenty-five hospitals had corrected the deficiencies and were verified. No hospital with over 8 deficiencies was subsequently verified. The Quality Improvement program was the most common deficiency (74%) and was correctable (50%). Other frequent deficiencies were no trauma service (46%), no surgeons in ED (41%), inadequate neurosurgeon response (35%), no trauma coordinator (31%), no trauma registry (28%), lack of surgical commitment (26%), and lack of 24 hour OR availability (24%). The lack of surgeon or hospital commitment accounted for most of the 28 criteria deficiencies. Subsequent verification was notably poorer for hospitals seeking verification for the purpose of designation versus verification only (29% versus 75%). Only 1 hospital with a prior ACS consultation visit failed the first verification review. Conclusions: A limited but critical set of criteria enable a hospital to function as a trauma center. Trauma quality improvement is a poorly understood but a correctable issue. Surgical and hospital commitment are essential for verification. Prior consultation may be of benefit.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)557-564
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Trauma
Volume37
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

Referral and Consultation
Trauma Centers
Wounds and Injuries
Quality Improvement
Peer Review
Documentation
Registries
Surgeons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Mitchell, F. L., Thal, E. R., Wolferth, C. C., Ledgerwood, A. M., Shapiro, M. J., Mullins, R. J., ... Carrico, C. J. (1994). American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program: Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews. Journal of Trauma, 37(4), 557-564.

American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program : Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews. / Mitchell, F. L.; Thal, E. R.; Wolferth, C. C.; Ledgerwood, A. M.; Shapiro, M. J.; Mullins, R. J.; Hammond, J.; Strauch, G. O.; Eastman, A. B.; Carrico, C. J.

In: Journal of Trauma, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1994, p. 557-564.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mitchell, FL, Thal, ER, Wolferth, CC, Ledgerwood, AM, Shapiro, MJ, Mullins, RJ, Hammond, J, Strauch, GO, Eastman, AB & Carrico, CJ 1994, 'American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program: Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews', Journal of Trauma, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 557-564.
Mitchell FL, Thal ER, Wolferth CC, Ledgerwood AM, Shapiro MJ, Mullins RJ et al. American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program: Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews. Journal of Trauma. 1994;37(4):557-564.
Mitchell, F. L. ; Thal, E. R. ; Wolferth, C. C. ; Ledgerwood, A. M. ; Shapiro, M. J. ; Mullins, R. J. ; Hammond, J. ; Strauch, G. O. ; Eastman, A. B. ; Carrico, C. J. / American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program : Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews. In: Journal of Trauma. 1994 ; Vol. 37, No. 4. pp. 557-564.
@article{1dda89aedf034a7badb5ce55c93dce83,
title = "American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program: Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews",
abstract = "This study was designed to document the reasons hospitals have been unsuccessfully peer reviewed as potential trauma centers. Method: 120 trauma center reviews were performed by a peer review program between September 1987 and December 1992 using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) criteria. Fifty-four hospitals had criteria deficiencies. These reviews were studied for criteria deficiencies for each hospital with documentation of frequency and relationship to re-review outcome. Results: There are 108 ACS criteria. The 54 hospitals had various combinations of 28 different criteria deficiencies. Deficiencies ranged from 1 to 15 per hospital. Thirty-one hospitals underwent a second review. Twenty-five hospitals had corrected the deficiencies and were verified. No hospital with over 8 deficiencies was subsequently verified. The Quality Improvement program was the most common deficiency (74{\%}) and was correctable (50{\%}). Other frequent deficiencies were no trauma service (46{\%}), no surgeons in ED (41{\%}), inadequate neurosurgeon response (35{\%}), no trauma coordinator (31{\%}), no trauma registry (28{\%}), lack of surgical commitment (26{\%}), and lack of 24 hour OR availability (24{\%}). The lack of surgeon or hospital commitment accounted for most of the 28 criteria deficiencies. Subsequent verification was notably poorer for hospitals seeking verification for the purpose of designation versus verification only (29{\%} versus 75{\%}). Only 1 hospital with a prior ACS consultation visit failed the first verification review. Conclusions: A limited but critical set of criteria enable a hospital to function as a trauma center. Trauma quality improvement is a poorly understood but a correctable issue. Surgical and hospital commitment are essential for verification. Prior consultation may be of benefit.",
author = "Mitchell, {F. L.} and Thal, {E. R.} and Wolferth, {C. C.} and Ledgerwood, {A. M.} and Shapiro, {M. J.} and Mullins, {R. J.} and J. Hammond and Strauch, {G. O.} and Eastman, {A. B.} and Carrico, {C. J.}",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "557--564",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - American College of Surgeons verification/consultation program

T2 - Analysis of unsuccessful verification reviews

AU - Mitchell, F. L.

AU - Thal, E. R.

AU - Wolferth, C. C.

AU - Ledgerwood, A. M.

AU - Shapiro, M. J.

AU - Mullins, R. J.

AU - Hammond, J.

AU - Strauch, G. O.

AU - Eastman, A. B.

AU - Carrico, C. J.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - This study was designed to document the reasons hospitals have been unsuccessfully peer reviewed as potential trauma centers. Method: 120 trauma center reviews were performed by a peer review program between September 1987 and December 1992 using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) criteria. Fifty-four hospitals had criteria deficiencies. These reviews were studied for criteria deficiencies for each hospital with documentation of frequency and relationship to re-review outcome. Results: There are 108 ACS criteria. The 54 hospitals had various combinations of 28 different criteria deficiencies. Deficiencies ranged from 1 to 15 per hospital. Thirty-one hospitals underwent a second review. Twenty-five hospitals had corrected the deficiencies and were verified. No hospital with over 8 deficiencies was subsequently verified. The Quality Improvement program was the most common deficiency (74%) and was correctable (50%). Other frequent deficiencies were no trauma service (46%), no surgeons in ED (41%), inadequate neurosurgeon response (35%), no trauma coordinator (31%), no trauma registry (28%), lack of surgical commitment (26%), and lack of 24 hour OR availability (24%). The lack of surgeon or hospital commitment accounted for most of the 28 criteria deficiencies. Subsequent verification was notably poorer for hospitals seeking verification for the purpose of designation versus verification only (29% versus 75%). Only 1 hospital with a prior ACS consultation visit failed the first verification review. Conclusions: A limited but critical set of criteria enable a hospital to function as a trauma center. Trauma quality improvement is a poorly understood but a correctable issue. Surgical and hospital commitment are essential for verification. Prior consultation may be of benefit.

AB - This study was designed to document the reasons hospitals have been unsuccessfully peer reviewed as potential trauma centers. Method: 120 trauma center reviews were performed by a peer review program between September 1987 and December 1992 using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) criteria. Fifty-four hospitals had criteria deficiencies. These reviews were studied for criteria deficiencies for each hospital with documentation of frequency and relationship to re-review outcome. Results: There are 108 ACS criteria. The 54 hospitals had various combinations of 28 different criteria deficiencies. Deficiencies ranged from 1 to 15 per hospital. Thirty-one hospitals underwent a second review. Twenty-five hospitals had corrected the deficiencies and were verified. No hospital with over 8 deficiencies was subsequently verified. The Quality Improvement program was the most common deficiency (74%) and was correctable (50%). Other frequent deficiencies were no trauma service (46%), no surgeons in ED (41%), inadequate neurosurgeon response (35%), no trauma coordinator (31%), no trauma registry (28%), lack of surgical commitment (26%), and lack of 24 hour OR availability (24%). The lack of surgeon or hospital commitment accounted for most of the 28 criteria deficiencies. Subsequent verification was notably poorer for hospitals seeking verification for the purpose of designation versus verification only (29% versus 75%). Only 1 hospital with a prior ACS consultation visit failed the first verification review. Conclusions: A limited but critical set of criteria enable a hospital to function as a trauma center. Trauma quality improvement is a poorly understood but a correctable issue. Surgical and hospital commitment are essential for verification. Prior consultation may be of benefit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028143383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028143383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7932885

AN - SCOPUS:0028143383

VL - 37

SP - 557

EP - 564

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 4

ER -