ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock2013
Evaluating trauma center process performance in an integrated trauma system with registry data.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship between systolic blood pressure and mortality in older vs younger trauma patients - a retrospective multicentre observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Observational
- Epidemiology, injury pattern and outcome of older trauma patients: A 15-year study of level-I trauma centers.PloS one · 2023Article
- Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.JAMA surgery · 2022Article
- Designing and conducting initial application of a performance assessment model for in-hospital trauma care.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Identifying indicators and evaluation steps with suggestions for improving trauma care in Iran: experts' perspective.Journal of injury & violence research · 2021Article
- Resource use for older people hospitalised due to injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.Age and ageing · 2019Article
- Canadian benchmarks for acute injury care.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2017Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Wiki Involving Multiple Stakeholders Including Patients in the Promotion of Best Practices in Trauma Care: The WikiTrauma Interrupted Time Series Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2015Article
- A Systematic Literature Review of Trauma Systems: An Operations Management Perspective.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of trauma center performance implies the use of indicators that evaluate clinical processes. Despite the availability of routinely collected clinical data in most trauma systems, quality improvement efforts are often limited to hospital-based audit of adverse patient outcomes.
objectiveTo identify and evaluate a series of process performance indicators (PPI) that can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. MATERIALS AND
methodsPPI were identified using a review of published literature, trauma system documentation, and expert consensus. Data from the 59 trauma centers of the Quebec trauma system (1999, 2006; N = 99,444) were used to calculate estimates of conformity to each PPI for each trauma center. Outliers were identified by comparing each center to the global mean. PPI were evaluated in terms of discrimination (between-center variance), construct validity (correlation with designation level and patient volume), and forecasting (correlation over time).
resultsFifteen PPI were retained. Global proportions of conformity ranged between 6% for reduction of a major dislocation within 1 h and 97% for therapeutic laparotomy. Between-center variance was statistically significant for 13 PPI. Five PPI were significantly associated with designation level, 7 were associated with volume, and 11 were correlated over time.
conclusionIn our trauma system, results suggest that a series of 15 PPI supported by literature review or expert opinion can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. We have provided evidence of their discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting properties. The between-center variance observed in this study highlights the importance of evaluating process performance in integrated trauma systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.