Over view of major traumatic injury in Australia––Implications for trauma system design

Background: Trauma registries are known to drive improvements and optimise trauma systems worldwide. This is the first reported comparison of the epidemiology and outcomes at major centres across Australia. Methods: The Australian Trauma Registry was a collaboration of 26 major trauma centres across Australia at the time of this study and currently collects information on patients admitted to these centres who die after injury and/or sustain major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 12). Data from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 were analysed. Primary endpoints were risk adjusted length of stay and mortality (adjusted for age, cause of injury, arrival Glasgow coma scale (GCS), shock-index grouped in quartiles and ISS). Results: There were 8423 patients from 24 centres included. The median age (IQR) was 48 (28–68) years. Median (IQR) ISS was 17 (14–25). There was a predominance of males (72%) apart from the extremes of age. Transport-related cases accounted for 45% of major trauma, followed by falls (35.1%). Patients took 1.42 (1.03–2.12) h to reach hospital and spent 7.10 (3.64–15.00) days in hospital. Risk adjusted length of stay and mortality did not differ significantly across sites. Primary endpoints across sites were also similar in paediatric and older adult (>65) age groups. Conclusion: Australia has the capability to identify national injury trends to target prevention and reduce the burden of injury. Quality of care following injury can now be benchmarked across Australia and with the planned enhancements to data collection and reporting, this will enable improved management of trauma victims

Over view of major traumatic injury in Australia––implications for trauma system design

Background: Trauma registries are known to drive improvements and optimise trauma systems worldwide. This is the first reported comparison of the epidemiology and outcomes at major centres across Australia. Methods: The Australian Trauma Registry was a collaboration of 26 major trauma centres across Australia at the time of this study and currently collects information on patients admitted to these centres who die after injury and/or sustain major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 12). Data from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 were analysed. Primary endpoints were risk adjusted length of stay and mortality (adjusted for age, cause of injury, arrival Glasgow coma scale (GCS), shock-index grouped in quartiles and ISS). Results: There were 8423 patients from 24 centres included. The median age (IQR) was 48 (28–68) years. Median (IQR) ISS was 17 (14–25). There was a predominance of males (72%) apart from the extremes of age. Transport-related cases accounted for 45% of major trauma, followed by falls (35.1%). Patients took 1.42 (1.03–2.12) h to reach hospital and spent 7.10 (3.64–15.00) days in hospital. Risk adjusted length of stay and mortality did not differ significantly across sites. Primary endpoints across sites were also similar in paediatric and older adult (>65) age groups. Conclusion: Australia has the capability to identify national injury trends to target prevention and reduce the burden of injury. Quality of care following injury can now be benchmarked across Australia and with the planned enhancements to data collection and reporting, this will enable improved management of trauma victims

The Australian Trauma Registry

INTRODUCTION: Injuries are a major cause of disability and lost productivity. The case for a national trauma registry has been recognized by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and at a policy level. BACKGROUND: The need was flagged in 1993 by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Australasian Trauma Society. In 2003, the Centre of National Research and Disability funded the Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium, which produced three consecutive annual reports. The bi-national trauma minimum dataset was also developed during this time. Operations were suspended thereafter. METHOD: In response to sustained lobbying the Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program including the Australian Trauma Registry (ATR) commenced in 2012, with data collection from 26 major trauma centres. An inaugural report was released in late 2014. RESULT: The Federal Government provided funding in December 2016 enabling the work of the ATR to continue. Data are currently being collected for cases that meet inclusion criteria with dates of injury in the 2017-2018 financial year. Since implementation, the number of submitted records has been increased from fewer than 7000 per year to over 8000 as completeness has improved. Four reports have been released and are available to stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The commitment shown by the College, other organizations and individuals to the vision of a national trauma registry has been consistent since 1993. The ATR is now well placed to improve the care of injured people