Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes

Shahid Shafi, Avery B. Nathens, Jennifer Parks, Henry M. Cryer, John J. Fildes, Larry M. Gentilello

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1). RESULTS: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)599-604
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume64
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2008

Fingerprint

Trauma Centers
Quality Improvement
Wounds and Injuries
Quality of Health Care
Survival Analysis
Logistic Models
Databases
Confidence Intervals
Survival

Keywords

  • Benchmark
  • Risk adjustment
  • Trauma quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Shafi, S., Nathens, A. B., Parks, J., Cryer, H. M., Fildes, J. J., & Gentilello, L. M. (2008). Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 64(3), 599-604. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31816533f9

Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes. / Shafi, Shahid; Nathens, Avery B.; Parks, Jennifer; Cryer, Henry M.; Fildes, John J.; Gentilello, Larry M.

In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 64, No. 3, 03.2008, p. 599-604.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shafi, S, Nathens, AB, Parks, J, Cryer, HM, Fildes, JJ & Gentilello, LM 2008, 'Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes', Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 599-604. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31816533f9
Shafi, Shahid ; Nathens, Avery B. ; Parks, Jennifer ; Cryer, Henry M. ; Fildes, John J. ; Gentilello, Larry M. / Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes. In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 2008 ; Vol. 64, No. 3. pp. 599-604.
@article{e99bc690589140c69bdd6277c79c2910,
title = "Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95{\%} confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1). RESULTS: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.",
keywords = "Benchmark, Risk adjustment, Trauma quality improvement",
author = "Shahid Shafi and Nathens, {Avery B.} and Jennifer Parks and Cryer, {Henry M.} and Fildes, {John J.} and Gentilello, {Larry M.}",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/TA.0b013e31816533f9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "599--604",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes

AU - Shafi, Shahid

AU - Nathens, Avery B.

AU - Parks, Jennifer

AU - Cryer, Henry M.

AU - Fildes, John J.

AU - Gentilello, Larry M.

PY - 2008/3

Y1 - 2008/3

N2 - PURPOSE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1). RESULTS: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.

AB - PURPOSE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1). RESULTS: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.

KW - Benchmark

KW - Risk adjustment

KW - Trauma quality improvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40549105060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40549105060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/TA.0b013e31816533f9

DO - 10.1097/TA.0b013e31816533f9

M3 - Article

C2 - 18332798

AN - SCOPUS:40549105060

VL - 64

SP - 599

EP - 604

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 3

ER -