Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28241880›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017

Development of the major trauma case review tool.

Kate Curtis, Rebecca Mitchell, Amy McCarthy, Kellie Wilson, Connie Van, Belinda Kennedy, Gary Tall, Andrew Holland, Kim Foster, Stuart Dickinson and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kate CurtisSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, 88 Mallet Street, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Rebecca MitchellAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Amy McCarthySydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, 88 Mallet Street, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Kellie WilsonNSW Institute of Trauma and Injury Management, Level 4, Sage Building, 67 Albert Avenue, Chatswood, NSW, Australia.
Connie VanSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, 88 Mallet Street, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. connie.van@sydney.edu.au.
Belinda KennedySydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, 88 Mallet Street, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Gary TallNSW Ambulance, Level 2, Sydney Ambulance Centre, Garden St Eveleigh, NSW, 2015, Australia.
Andrew HollandSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney and The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kim FosterSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, 88 Mallet Street, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Stuart DickinsonHuman Risk Solutions, Victoria, Australia.
Henry T StelfoxDepartments of Critical Care Medicine, Medicine and Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs many as half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive the recommended care, with variance in preventable mortality reported across the globe. This variance highlights the need for a comprehensive process for monitoring and reviewing patient care, central to which is a consistent peer-review process that includes trauma system safety and human factors. There is no published, evidence-informed standardised tool that considers these factors for use in adult or paediatric trauma case peer-review. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a trauma case review tool to facilitate clinical review of paediatric trauma patient care in extracting information to facilitate monitoring, inform change and enable loop closure.

methodsDevelopment of the trauma case review tool was multi-faceted, beginning with a review of the trauma audit tool literature. Data were extracted from the literature to inform iterative tool development using a consensus approach. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for both the pilot and finalised versions of the tool.

resultsThe final trauma case review tool contained ten sections, including patient factors (such as pre-existing conditions), presenting problem, a timeline of events, factors contributing to the care delivery problem (including equipment, work environment, staff action, organizational factors), positive aspects of care and the outcome of panel discussion. After refinement, the inter-rater reliability of the human factors and outcome components of the tool improved with an average 86% agreement between raters. DISCUSSION: This research developed an evidence-informed tool for use in paediatric trauma case review that considers both system safety and human factors to facilitate clinical review of trauma patient care.

conclusionsThis tool can be used to identify opportunities for improvement in trauma care and guide quality assurance activities. Validation is required in the adult population.

Indexed as

Wounds and InjuriesConsensusHumansMedical AuditPatient SafetyPeer ReviewQuality of Health CareAdverse eventEmergencyHuman factorsInjuryMorbidityMortalityOrganizational factorsPeer reviewQualitySafety

Identifiers

PMID28241880
PMCPMC5330157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.