Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care & Emergency Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

“Data Gap”: Desafío Para Las Estrategias de Mejora de la Calidad en Trauma

Joaquín Baliña, Santiago Donikian, Marilina Santero, Betina Lartigue, Laura Bosque, Ezequiel Monteverde, Jorge Neira

Keywords : Data quality, Decision-making, Hospital care, Quality improvement, Quality Programs, Prehospital care, Trauma, Trauma centers, Trauma registry, Wounds and injuries

Citation Information : Baliña J, Donikian S, Santero M, Lartigue B, Bosque L, Monteverde E, Neira J. “Data Gap”: Desafío Para Las Estrategias de Mejora de la Calidad en Trauma. Panam J Trauma Crit Care Emerg Surg 2020; 9 (1):67-73.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1260

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction and goal: The implementation of trauma quality improvement programs requires high-quality data to identify opportunities for improvement. The aim of this research is to evaluate the quality of data considered basic to identify opportunities for improvement in the care processes registered in the hospitals that are part of the Province of Buenos Aires Trauma Network, during the year 2018. Materials and methods: Retrospective observational study analyzing the quality of 48 fields pertaining to 4,489 cases with trauma medical history entered in the trauma registry (TR) of fundación trauma (FT) in 13 hospitals during 2018. The data were distributed and analyzed in 6 categories: trauma event; prehospital care; patient\'s data; hospital admission and care process; vital signs, comorbidities and injuries; and trauma indexes and scores. Results: When analyzing the 48 fields, an average of completeness of 64% was found. Of the 13 analyzed hospitals, the one with the best data quality had a completeness average of 92%; and the one with the lowest quality had an average of 58%. Considering the average of completeness, the categories are distributed in the following order: (1) patient\'s data, 97.5%; (2) indexes and scores, 71.2%; (3) trauma event, 68.6%; (4) vital signs, comorbidities and injuries, 66.5%; (5) hospital admission and care process, 60%; and (6) prehospital care, 38.6%. Conclusion: The distribution of complete data presents a wide variation between the analyzed categories, having at one end the patient\'s data and the injuries; and on the other hand, the procedures and complications. In general terms, we can say that, even though there is information available to work on the implementation and monitoring of quality improvement strategies, the quality of the information for the development of scores and improvement strategies presents as a challenge itself. In this sense, it is necessary to have specific strategies aimed at improving the quality of information in medical records.


PDF Share
  1. Moore L, Clark DE. The value of trauma registries. Injury 2008;39(6):686–695. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.02.023.
  2. World Health Organization WHO, Guidelines for trauma quality improvement programmes; 2009.
  3. Pollock DA, McClain PW. Trauma registries: current status and future prospects. JAMA 1989;262(16):2280–2283. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430160102039.
  4. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon Jr W, et al. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974;14(3):187–196. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001.
  5. Mock C, Nguyen S, Quansah R, et al. Evaluation of trauma care capabilities in four countries using the WHO-IATSIC Guidelines for Essential Trauma Care. World J Surg 2006;30(6):946–956. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-0768-4.
  6. Osler T, Baker SP, Long W. A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma 1997;43(6):922–926. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-199712000- 00009.
  7. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, et al. A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma 1989;29(5):623–629. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017.
  8. Hollis S, Yates DW, Woodford M, et al. Standardized comparison of performance indicators in trauma: a new approach to case-mix variation. J Trauma 1995;38(5):763–766. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-199505000-00015.
  9. Dente CJ, Ashley DW, Dunne JR, et al. Heterogeneity in trauma registry data quality: implications for regional and national performance improvement in trauma. J Am Coll Surg 2016;222(3):288–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.11.035.
  10. Heinänen M, Brinck T, Lefering R, et al. How to validate data quality in a trauma registry? The Helsinki Trauma Registry Internal Audit. Scand J Surg 2019; 1457496919883961. DOI: 10.1177/1457496919883961.
  11. Prin M, Li G. Complications and in-hospital mortality in trauma patients treated in intensive care units in the United States, 2013. Inj Epidemiol 2016;3(1):18. DOI: 10.1186/s40621-016-0084-5.
  12. Mondello S, Cantrell A, Italiano D, et al. Complications of trauma patients admitted to the ICU in level I academic trauma centers in the United States. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:473419. DOI: 10.1155/2014/473419.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.