Hips Can Lie: Impact of Excluding Isolated Hip Fractures on External Benchmarking of Trauma Center Performance

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers (TCs) vary in the inclusion of patients with isolated hip fractures (IHFs) in their registries. This inconsistent case ascertainment may have significant implications on the assessment of TC performance and external benchmarking efforts. METHODS: Data were derived from the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-8.1). We included patients (aged 16 years or older) with Injury Severity Score value ≥ 9 who were admitted to Level I and II TCs. To ensure data quality, we limited the study to TC that routinely reported comorbidities and Abbreviated Injury Scale codes. IHF were defined as patients, aged 65 years or older, injured as a result of falls, with Abbreviated Injury Scale codes for hip fracture and without other significant injuries. TCs were stratified according to their reported inclusion of IHF in their registry. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios were used to rank TC performance first with and then, without the inclusion of patients with IHF. RESULTS: In total, 91,152 patients in 132 TCs were identified; 5% (n = 4,448) were IHF. The proportion of IHF per TC varied significantly, ranging from 0% to 31%. When risk-adjusted mortality was evaluated, excluding patients with IHF had significant effects: 37% (n = 49) of TCs changed their performance rank by ≥ 3 (range, 1-25) and 12% of centers changed their performance quintile. The greatest change in rank performance was evident in centers that routinely include IHF in their registries. CONCLUSIONS: Given the fact that IHFs in the elderly significantly influence risk-adjusted outcomes and are variably reported by TCs, these patients should be excluded from subsequent benchmarking efforts

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale I: spleen, liver, and kidney, validation based on the National Trauma Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: This study attempts to validate the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale (OIS) for spleen, liver, and kidney injuries using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). STUDY DESIGN: All NTDB entries with Abbreviated Injury Scale codes for spleen, liver, and kidney were classified by OIS grade. Injuries were stratified either as an isolated intraabdominal organ injury or in combination with other abdominal injuries. Isolated abdominal solid organ injuries were additionally stratified by presence of severe head injury and survival past 24 hours. The patients in each grading category were analyzed for mortality, operative rate, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and charges incurred. RESULTS: There were 54,148 NTDB entries (2.7%) with Abbreviated Injury Scale-coded injuries to the spleen, liver, or kidney. In 35,897, this was an isolated abdominal solid organ injury. For patients in which the solid organ in question was not the sole abdominal injury, a statistically significant increase (p \u3c or = 0.05) in mortality, organ-specific operative rate, and hospital charges was associated with increasing OIS grade; the exception was grade VI hepatic injuries. Hospital and ICU lengths of stay did not show substantial increase with increasing OIS grade. When isolated organ injuries were examined, there were statistically significant increases (p \u3c or = 0.05) in all outcomes variables corresponding with increasing OIS grade. Severe head injury appears to influence mortality, but none of the other outcomes variables. Patients with other intraabdominal injuries had comparable quantitative outcomes results with the isolated abdominal organ injury groups for all OIS grades. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates and quantifies outcomes reflective of increasing injury severity associated with increasing OIS grades for specific solid organ injuries alone, and in combination with other abdominal injuries

Contribution of age and gender to outcome of blunt splenic injury in adults: multicenter study of the eastern association for the surgery of trauma.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of age and gender to outcome after treatment of blunt splenic injury in adults. METHODS: Through the Multi-Institutional Trials Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), 1488 adult patients from 27 trauma centers who suffered blunt splenic injury in 1997 were examined retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of patients were 55 years of age or older. A similar proportion of patients \u3e or = 55 went directly to the operating room compared with patients \u3c 55 (41% vs. 38%) but the mortality for patients \u3e or = 55 was significantly greater than patients \u3c 55 (43% vs. 23%). Patients \u3e or = 55 failed nonoperative management (NOM) more frequently than patients \u3c 55 (19% vs. 10%) and had increased mortality for both successful NOM (8% vs. 4%, p \u3c 0.05) and failed NOM (29% vs. 12%, p = 0.054). There were no differences in immediate operative treatment, successful NOM, and failed NOM between men and women. However, women \u3e or = 55 failed NOM more frequently than women \u3c 55 (20% vs. 7%) and this was associated with increased mortality (36% vs. 5%) (both p \u3c 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients \u3e or = 55 had a greater mortality for all forms of treatment of their blunt splenic injury and failed NOM more frequently than patients \u3c 55. Women \u3e or = 55 had significantly greater mortality and failure of NOM than women \u3c 55

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality at trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reports hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care as quality indicators. We hypothesized that compliance with CMS quality indicators would correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. METHODS: A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to measure observed-to-expected mortality ratios (O/E with 95% confidence interval) for Level I and II trauma centers using the National Trauma Data Bank data. Adult patients (\u3eor=16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Score \u3eor=3) were included (127,819 patients). Compliance with CMS quality indicators in four domains was obtained from Hospital Compare website: acute myocardial infarction (8 processes), congestive heart failure (4 processes), pneumonia (7 processes), surgical infections (3 processes). For each domain, a single composite score was calculated for each hospital. The relationship between O/E ratios and CMS quality indicators was explored using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: There was no relationship between compliance with CMS quality indicators and risk-adjusted outcomes of trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: CMS quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. Hence, there is a need to develop new trauma-specific process of care quality indicators to evaluate and improve quality of care in trauma centers

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program: pilot study and initial demonstration of feasibility.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma has created a Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) that uses the existing infrastructure of Committee on Trauma programs. As the first step toward full implementation of TQIP, a pilot study was conducted in 23 American College of Surgeons verified or state designated Level I and II trauma centers. This study details the feasibility and acceptance of TQIP among the participating centers. METHODS: Data from the National Trauma Data Bank for patients admitted to pilot study hospitals during 2007 were used (15,801 patients). A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to estimate risk-adjusted mortality in aggregate and on three prespecified subgroups (1: blunt multisystem, 2: penetrating truncal, and 3: blunt single-system injury). Benchmark reports were developed with each center\u27s risk adjusted mortality (expressed as an observed-to-expected [O/E] mortality ratio and 90% confidence interval [CI]) and crude complication rates available for comparison. Reports were deidentified with only the recipient having access to their performance relative to their peers. Feedback from individual centers regarding the utility of the reports was collected by survey. RESULTS: Overall crude mortality was 7.7% and in cohorts 1 to 3 was 16.4%, 12.4%, and 5.1%, respectively. In the aggregate risk-adjusted analysis, three trauma centers were low outliers (O/E and 90% CI1) with the remaining 18 centers demonstrating average mortality. Challenges identified were in benchmarking mortality after penetrating injury due to small sample size and in the limited capture of complications. Ninety-two percent of survey respondents found the report clear and understandable, and 90% thought that the report was useful. Sixty-three percent of respondents will be taking action based on the report. CONCLUSIONS: Using the National Trauma Data Bank infrastructure to provide risk-adjusted benchmarking of trauma center mortality is feasible and perceived as useful. There are differences in O/E ratios across similarly verified or designated centers. Substantial work is required to allow for morbidity benchmarking