Moving beyond personnel and process: A case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process

Shahid Shafi, Randall Friese, Larry M. Gentilello

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hypothesis: Similarly designated trauma centers do not achieve similar outcomes. Design: Outcomes study. Setting: Academic research. Participants: Forty-seven American College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma centers that contributed more than 1000 patients to the National Trauma Data Bank (from January 1999 to December 2003) were identified. Main Outcome Measures: Patients were classified into the following 3 injury severity groups using a combination of anatomical and physiological measures: mild (Injury Severity Score [ISS] of <25 with systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≥90 mm Hg [n = 184 650]), moderate (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of ≥90 mm Hg or ISS of <25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 22 586]), and severe (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 4243]). The mean survival for each group was calculated. Individual centers were considered outliers if their patient survival was statistically significantly different from the mean survival for each severity group. Results: The mean survival of patients with mild, moderate, and severe injuries was 99%, 75%, and 35%, respectively. For mild injuries, survival at 5 centers (11%) was significantly worse than that at their counterpart centers. With increasing injury severity, the percentages of outcome disparities increased (15% of centers for moderate injuries and 21% of centers for severe injuries) and persisted in subgroups of patients with head injuries, patients sustaining penetrating injuries, and older (>55 years) individuals. Conclusions: When treating patients with similar injury severity, similarly designated level I trauma centers may not achieve similar outcomes, suggesting the existence of a quality chasm in trauma care. Trauma center verification may require the use of outcome measures when determining trauma center status.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)115-119
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume143
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2008

Fingerprint

Trauma Centers
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Wounds and Injuries
Injury Severity Score
Databases
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Moving beyond personnel and process : A case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process. / Shafi, Shahid; Friese, Randall; Gentilello, Larry M.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 143, No. 2, 02.2008, p. 115-119.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shafi, Shahid ; Friese, Randall ; Gentilello, Larry M. / Moving beyond personnel and process : A case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process. In: Archives of Surgery. 2008 ; Vol. 143, No. 2. pp. 115-119.
@article{bb754b5b189a41a1bdb53a9c09f06d44,
title = "Moving beyond personnel and process: A case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process",
abstract = "Hypothesis: Similarly designated trauma centers do not achieve similar outcomes. Design: Outcomes study. Setting: Academic research. Participants: Forty-seven American College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma centers that contributed more than 1000 patients to the National Trauma Data Bank (from January 1999 to December 2003) were identified. Main Outcome Measures: Patients were classified into the following 3 injury severity groups using a combination of anatomical and physiological measures: mild (Injury Severity Score [ISS] of <25 with systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≥90 mm Hg [n = 184 650]), moderate (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of ≥90 mm Hg or ISS of <25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 22 586]), and severe (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 4243]). The mean survival for each group was calculated. Individual centers were considered outliers if their patient survival was statistically significantly different from the mean survival for each severity group. Results: The mean survival of patients with mild, moderate, and severe injuries was 99{\%}, 75{\%}, and 35{\%}, respectively. For mild injuries, survival at 5 centers (11{\%}) was significantly worse than that at their counterpart centers. With increasing injury severity, the percentages of outcome disparities increased (15{\%} of centers for moderate injuries and 21{\%} of centers for severe injuries) and persisted in subgroups of patients with head injuries, patients sustaining penetrating injuries, and older (>55 years) individuals. Conclusions: When treating patients with similar injury severity, similarly designated level I trauma centers may not achieve similar outcomes, suggesting the existence of a quality chasm in trauma care. Trauma center verification may require the use of outcome measures when determining trauma center status.",
author = "Shahid Shafi and Randall Friese and Gentilello, {Larry M.}",
year = "2008",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1001/archsurg.2007.29",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "143",
pages = "115--119",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moving beyond personnel and process

T2 - A case for incorporating outcome measures in the trauma center designation process

AU - Shafi, Shahid

AU - Friese, Randall

AU - Gentilello, Larry M.

PY - 2008/2

Y1 - 2008/2

N2 - Hypothesis: Similarly designated trauma centers do not achieve similar outcomes. Design: Outcomes study. Setting: Academic research. Participants: Forty-seven American College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma centers that contributed more than 1000 patients to the National Trauma Data Bank (from January 1999 to December 2003) were identified. Main Outcome Measures: Patients were classified into the following 3 injury severity groups using a combination of anatomical and physiological measures: mild (Injury Severity Score [ISS] of <25 with systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≥90 mm Hg [n = 184 650]), moderate (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of ≥90 mm Hg or ISS of <25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 22 586]), and severe (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 4243]). The mean survival for each group was calculated. Individual centers were considered outliers if their patient survival was statistically significantly different from the mean survival for each severity group. Results: The mean survival of patients with mild, moderate, and severe injuries was 99%, 75%, and 35%, respectively. For mild injuries, survival at 5 centers (11%) was significantly worse than that at their counterpart centers. With increasing injury severity, the percentages of outcome disparities increased (15% of centers for moderate injuries and 21% of centers for severe injuries) and persisted in subgroups of patients with head injuries, patients sustaining penetrating injuries, and older (>55 years) individuals. Conclusions: When treating patients with similar injury severity, similarly designated level I trauma centers may not achieve similar outcomes, suggesting the existence of a quality chasm in trauma care. Trauma center verification may require the use of outcome measures when determining trauma center status.

AB - Hypothesis: Similarly designated trauma centers do not achieve similar outcomes. Design: Outcomes study. Setting: Academic research. Participants: Forty-seven American College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma centers that contributed more than 1000 patients to the National Trauma Data Bank (from January 1999 to December 2003) were identified. Main Outcome Measures: Patients were classified into the following 3 injury severity groups using a combination of anatomical and physiological measures: mild (Injury Severity Score [ISS] of <25 with systolic blood pressure [SBP] of ≥90 mm Hg [n = 184 650]), moderate (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of ≥90 mm Hg or ISS of <25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 22 586]), and severe (ISS of ≥25 with SBP of <90 mm Hg [n = 4243]). The mean survival for each group was calculated. Individual centers were considered outliers if their patient survival was statistically significantly different from the mean survival for each severity group. Results: The mean survival of patients with mild, moderate, and severe injuries was 99%, 75%, and 35%, respectively. For mild injuries, survival at 5 centers (11%) was significantly worse than that at their counterpart centers. With increasing injury severity, the percentages of outcome disparities increased (15% of centers for moderate injuries and 21% of centers for severe injuries) and persisted in subgroups of patients with head injuries, patients sustaining penetrating injuries, and older (>55 years) individuals. Conclusions: When treating patients with similar injury severity, similarly designated level I trauma centers may not achieve similar outcomes, suggesting the existence of a quality chasm in trauma care. Trauma center verification may require the use of outcome measures when determining trauma center status.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=39549110206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=39549110206&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archsurg.2007.29

DO - 10.1001/archsurg.2007.29

M3 - Article

C2 - 18283135

AN - SCOPUS:39549110206

VL - 143

SP - 115

EP - 119

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 2

ER -