Trauma Quality Improvement Program

Last updated

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) was initiated in 2008 by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Its aim is to provide risk-adjusted data for the purpose of reducing variability in adult trauma outcomes and offering best practice guidelines to improve trauma care. TQIP makes use of national data to allows hospitals to objectively evaluate their trauma centers' performance relative to other hospitals. TQIP's administrative costs are less than those of other programs, making it an accessible tool for assessing performance and enhancing quality of trauma care.

Contents

Background

Morbidity and mortality rates are variable across United States trauma centers. Institutional variations can be attributed to differences in both patient population and quality of care at each institution. [1] The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report To Err is Human: Building A Safer Health System emphasized the importance of recognizing variability and inefficiencies in the United States healthcare system. [2] [3] To address these discrepancies, John Fildes, MD, FACS created an ad hoc work group to create and implement an outcomes-based, validated, risk-adjusted trauma quality improvement system. The goal was to utilize existing trauma infrastructures to measure and continually improve the quality of trauma care. This was done by accessing each hospital's registry database using the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), resulting in the creation of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) by the American College of Surgeons (ACS). [1]

TQIP was preceded by surgical indicators that included the Optimal Resources for the Care of the Injured reference document, published by the ACS Committee on Trauma in 1979. The document created a framework for the trauma center verification review process with a systems approach to trauma care. [4] The Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) of 1982–1989 subsequently established the national standards for trauma care. The MTOS database also facilitated the creation of a methodology to estimate an individual trauma patient's survival probability, also known as the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS). [1] Other studies, such as the 2006 National Study of the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma (NSCOT), aimed to identify differences in expenditures and outcomes at various hospitals. [5]

Pilot study

Design

A pilot study was initiated in June 2008 to refine the methodology and assess the feasibility of applying TQIP for quality improvement at different trauma centers. Twenty-three Level I and II trauma centers volunteered and were selected to participate in the study with ACS verification. Most Level I centers are university-based trauma centers with comprehensive services. Level II centers were included to increase geographic and patient diversity, as well as the statistical power of any analyses. Each participating center received a registrar training course that included information about TQIP objectives and infrastructures, critical data collection fields, and NTDS data definitions. Webinars with conference calls and test case data abstraction were used for follow-up training. [4]

Using NTDB data from patients admitted to trauma centers between January 1 and December 1, 2007, three cohorts were created. The first cohort included patients with blunt multisystem or blunt mechanism traumas with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 3 in two or more regions including the head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen, spine, and extremities. The second cohort was composed of trauma patients with penetrating truncal injuries with an AIS score ≥ 3 in at least one region including the neck, thorax, and abdomen. Patients in the third cohort had a blunt single-system injury with an AIS score ≥ 3 in only one AIS body region, with the remaining regions having a maximum AIS score of 2. The outcomes of interest were death during hospitalization as evidenced by an emergency department (ED) discharge disposition of “death” or hospital discharge disposition of “expired,” as well as the prevalence of inpatient complications. [4]

Results

Data reports were created and distributed to each participating trauma center in June 2009. Results were consistent with the previous year's baseline findings. Cohorts of similar verified trauma centers had differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates with a large amount of variance between low-outlier and high-outlier trauma centers. The aggregate group had a relative risk-mortality of 3.3, while the single-system trauma cohort had a mortality 5.9 times higher for high-outlier facilities. [4]

The TQIP pilot results gave each trauma center feedback regarding their trauma outcomes relative to other hospitals. The results also shed light on appropriate actions to undertake in order to improve quality, such as by illuminating local or regional collaborative efforts that could implemented. Overall, the pilot study demonstrated that TQIP's anonymous measures of relative performance could successfully allow trauma centers to identify shortcomings and facilitate quality improvement using existing resources and systems at local, regional, and national levels. [4]

Methodology

TQIP utilizes a retrospective cohort of trauma patients in designated and ACS-verified Level I and II hospitals in the United States and Canada. There is no minimum sample size requirement for a trauma center to participate in the program. As of 2014, over 200 participating Level I and II trauma centers that vary in type (public, private teaching university, teaching community, etc.) and region participate in TQIP. [2]

Inclusion criteria

To participate in the program, patients must meet the following inclusion criteria: be an adult greater than sixteen years of age with at least one valid ICD 9 CM diagnosis code, history of blunt or penetrating mechanisms of injury, or have an AIS score ≥ 3. Eligible patients also must have emergency department or hospital dispositions available. [2]

Exclusion criteria

Patients are excluded from the program if they have a pre-existing advance directive to withhold life-sustaining measures or are older than 65 years of age and have an isolated hip fracture. [2]

Patient categorization

The program categorizes patients into different cohorts in order to evaluate different aspects of trauma care. [2] The cohorts are as follows:

  1. Blunt multisystem injury with an AIS > 3 in a least two regions of the body
  2. Penetrating truncal injury with an AIS > 3 in the regions of the neck, chest, or abdomen
  3. Shock patients with a systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg
  4. Patients with isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI)
  5. Elderly patients (over 65 years of age) without isolated hip fractures

Outcomes

This program focuses on mortality, complications, and resource use. Mortality is further subdivided into on arrival, in the emergency department, and in-hospital. Complications are further subdivided into urinary tract infections, deep venous thrombosis, ventilator-associated pneumonia, central line-related bacteremia, renal failure, and surgical site infections. Resource use is measured via length of stay in the hospital, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and number of days that a patient is on a ventilator. [2]

Data quality

TQIP addresses quality issues by explicitly addressing certain care metrics, including monitoring intracranial pressure in patients with traumatic brain injuries, measuring time to operations, measuring the placement and timing of tracheostomies, measuring the time to hemorrhage control, and documenting the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. [2]

TQIP helps ensure the quality of data by providing training for trauma registrars and data abstractors. TQIP administrators hold monthly activities, such as webinars and quizzes, to educate registrars on the importance of data quality. Administrators assess outlier values, perform internal and external validation, and perform data logic checks. [2]

Statistical analyses

TQIP measures multiple variables in its risk-adjustment models. These variables include factors such as age, race, gender, initial pulse rate in the emergency department, the mechanism of injury, etc. An 18 variable multivariable logistic regression model is used to estimate risk-adjusted mortality for trauma patients. Results provide observed-to-expected ratios and a 90% confidence interval of a trauma center's data compared to other de-identified trauma centers in order to gauge relative variability. [2]

Applications

TQIP is designed to give each hospital an objective measure of its trauma center's performance compared to that of other trauma centers. It is meant as a self-reflective tool to be used in determining how to improve outcomes and decrease costs by understanding the reasons for variability and identifying best practices. Results are not intended to be used for marketing purposes or bestowing competitive advantages. [1] TQIP reports allow hospitals to focus on outcomes and workflows, including care coordination, in-hospital processes, and resource allocation. [6]

Deliverables

TQIP's external benchmarking utilizes NTDB data collection and NTDS with specific enhancements. Deliverables comprise risk adjusted hospital comparisons in the form of one annual benchmark report as well as two separate annual reports related to a topic of interest and the TQIP online analysis tool. Education and training are delivered via the annual meeting, online training, monthly educational experiences for abstractors, and monthly open forum calls for registry staff. Data are submitted quarterly and quality is monitored through a data validation site visit, a TQIP validator, and data quality reporting. Feedback to participating trauma centers about their relative performance encourages the sharing of practices during the annual meeting with emphasis on high performers and web conferences. [4]

The TQIP annual fee is $9,000 and includes the deliverables above. Additional costs include the salary of the registrar and trauma registry software. As the compilation and maintenance of the trauma registry are required for verification, the additional cost to a currently verified trauma center is for participation. [4]

Debate

Data

TQIP's outcome estimates are heavily dependent on data quality and sample size for each participating trauma center. Despite the development of sophisticated statistical models which attempt to mitigate errors in precision, the small sample sizes of highly specific trauma patient populations will inevitably skew results. Similarly, centers reporting data need to be hyper-aware of their reporting for data fields for certain patient populations susceptible to biased or missing data (e.g., high prevalence of low Injury Severity Scores for patients with early death who did not receive complete diagnostic testing or autopsies). [2]

Racial/ethnic minority trauma outcomes

As of 2013, TQIP has not incorporated measures related to racial disparities in trauma outcomes. However, there is evidence to suggest that differences in trauma outcomes are due to the overall quality of hospitals serving higher proportions of minority patients, rather than being due to discriminatory delivery of care; that is, these hospitals are less likely to provide recommended care to patients. [7] In fact, almost 80% of trauma centers serving primarily minority patients are classified as high mortality trauma centers due to their ratios of observed-to-expected survival rates. Patients from all racial and ethnic backgrounds appear to be 40% more likely to survive when treated at low mortality trauma centers when compared with patients of the same race and ethnicity with the same injuries being treated at high mortality trauma centers. [8] Differences between groups are relatively small compared to overall discrepancies between recommended and observed care. [9] Still, high mortality status is not universal among institutions treating predominantly minority patients, and TQIP has not addressed this inequity. [8]

Exclusions

TQIP excludes from statistical analyses all dead on arrival (DOA) patients and those who expire in the emergency department. This is done out of concern regarding varying patient transit times among trauma centers located in more urban vs. rural environments as well as the severity of injuries more likely to be present at certain trauma centers. However, this practice has the potential to remove a sizable number of patients from a trauma center's mortality index (for example, if a trauma center that is exceptionally skillful at the resuscitation phase of care may receive no credit), thus impeding analysis of a vital component of trauma care. Similarly, there can be great variation in how trauma centers classify DOA patients, leading to differences in treatment (e.g., resuscitation attempts or other invasive procedures). While independent researchers have found that inclusion of ED deaths in statistical analyses yields only small, insignificant changes in TQIP outcomes, doing so eliminates bias that might otherwise be introduced. [10]

Current status

As of 2014, over 200 Level I or Level II trauma centers are participating in TQIP, which is facilitating the identification of high performers. Enrollment is done on a rolling basis that allows hospitals to join at any time. Additionally, a pediatric TQIP pilot with thirty-eight participating centers is currently underway and external data validation has been implemented. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trauma center</span> Type of hospital

A trauma center is a hospital equipped and staffed to provide care for patients suffering from major traumatic injuries such as falls, motor vehicle collisions, or gunshot wounds. A trauma center may also refer to an emergency department without the presence of specialized services to care for victims of major trauma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Major trauma</span> Injury that could cause prolonged disability or death

Major trauma is any injury that has the potential to cause prolonged disability or death. There are many causes of major trauma, blunt and penetrating, including falls, motor vehicle collisions, stabbing wounds, and gunshot wounds. Depending on the severity of injury, quickness of management, and transportation to an appropriate medical facility may be necessary to prevent loss of life or limb. The initial assessment is critical, and involves a physical evaluation and also may include the use of imaging tools to determine the types of injuries accurately and to formulate a course of treatment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spinal cord injury</span> Injury to the main nerve bundle in the back of humans

A spinal cord injury (SCI) is damage to the spinal cord that causes temporary or permanent changes in its function. Symptoms may include loss of muscle function, sensation, or autonomic function in the parts of the body served by the spinal cord below the level of the injury. Injury can occur at any level of the spinal cord and can be complete, with a total loss of sensation and muscle function at lower sacral segments, or incomplete, meaning some nervous signals are able to travel past the injured area of the cord up to the Sacral S4-5 spinal cord segments. Depending on the location and severity of damage, the symptoms vary, from numbness to paralysis, including bowel or bladder incontinence. Long term outcomes also range widely, from full recovery to permanent tetraplegia or paraplegia. Complications can include muscle atrophy, loss of voluntary motor control, spasticity, pressure sores, infections, and breathing problems.

The pneumonia severity index (PSI) or PORT Score is a clinical prediction rule that medical practitioners can use to calculate the probability of morbidity and mortality among patients with community acquired pneumonia.

In the healthcare industry, pay for performance (P4P), also known as "value-based purchasing", is a payment model that offers financial incentives to physicians, hospitals, medical groups, and other healthcare providers for meeting certain performance measures. Clinical outcomes, such as longer survival, are difficult to measure, so pay for performance systems usually evaluate process quality and efficiency, such as measuring blood pressure, lowering blood pressure, or counseling patients to stop smoking. This model also penalizes health care providers for poor outcomes, medical errors, or increased costs. Integrated delivery systems where insurers and providers share in the cost are intended to help align incentives for value-based care.

Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a recently implemented and controversial process of physician certification maintenance through one of the 24 approved medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the 18 approved medical specialty boards of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). The MOC process is controversial within the medical community, with proponents claiming that it is a voluntary program that improves physician knowledge and demonstrates a commitment to lifelong learning. Critics claim that MOC is an expensive, burdensome, involuntary and clinically irrelevant process that has been created primarily as a money-making scheme for the ABMS and the AOA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lincoln Hospital (Bronx)</span> Hospital in New York, United States

Lincoln Hospital is a full service medical center and teaching hospital affiliated with Weill Cornell Medical College, in the Mott Haven neighborhood of the Bronx, New York City, New York. The medical center is municipally owned by NYC Health + Hospitals.

The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) was founded in 1986 to develop research on traumatic brain injury (TBI). Since its formation the foundation's mission has expanded to improving the outcome of TBI patients nationwide through working to implement evidence-based guidelines for prehospital and in-hospital care, quality-improvement programs, and coordinating educational programs for medical professionals.

Surgical Outcomes Analysis & Research, SOAR, is a research laboratory of the Department of Surgery at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center with expertise in outcomes research. SOAR investigates surgical diseases and perioperative outcomes. The group focuses on pancreatic cancer, other gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary malignancies, vascular disease, and transplant surgery. SOAR's goal is to examine quality, delivery, and financing of care in order to have an immediate impact on patient care and system improvements. The group members utilize national health services and administrative databases, as well as institutional databases, to investigate and to address factors contributing to disease outcomes and healthcare disparities.

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was started in the American Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In the mid-1980s the VHA was criticized for their high operative mortality. To that end, Congress passed Public Law 99-166 in December 1985 which mandated the VHA to report their outcomes in comparison to national averages and the information must be risk-adjusted to account for the severity of illness of the VHA surgical patient population. In 1991 the National VA Surgical Risk Study (NVASRS) began in 44 Veteran's Administration Medical Centers. By 31 December 1993, there was information for 500,000 non-cardiac surgical procedures. In 1994 NVASRS was expanded to all 128 HVA hospitals that performed the surgery. The name was then changed to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

An exploratory laparotomy is a general surgical operation where the abdomen is opened and the abdominal organs are examined for injury or disease. It is the standard of care in various blunt and penetrating trauma situations in which there may be life-threatening internal injuries. It is also used in certain diagnostic situations, in which the operation is undertaken in search of a unifying cause for multiple signs and symptoms of disease, and in the staging of some cancers.

The July effect, sometimes referred to as the July phenomenon, is a perceived but scientifically unfounded increase in the risk of medical errors and surgical complications that occurs in association with the time of year in which United States medical school graduates begin residencies. A similar period in the United Kingdom is known as the killing season or, more specifically, Black Wednesday, referring to the first Wednesday in August when postgraduate trainees commence their rotations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trauma in children</span> Medical condition

Trauma in children, also known as pediatric trauma, refers to a traumatic injury that happens to an infant, child or adolescent. Because of anatomical and physiological differences between children and adults the care and management of this population differs.

Permissive hypotension or hypotensive resuscitation is the use of restrictive fluid therapy, specifically in the trauma patient, that increases systemic blood pressure without reaching normotension. The goal blood pressure for these patients is a mean arterial pressure of 40-50 mmHg or a systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 80. This goes along with certain clinical criteria. Following traumatic injury some patients experience hypotension that is usually due to blood loss (hemorrhage) but can be due to other causes as well. In the past, physicians were very aggressive with fluid resuscitation to try to bring the blood pressure to normal values. Recent studies have found that there is some benefit to allowing specific patients to experience some degree of hypotension in certain settings. This concept does not exclude therapy by means of i.v. fluid, inotropes or vasopressors, the only restriction is to avoid completely normalizing blood pressure in a context where blood loss may be enhanced. When a person starts to bleed the body starts a natural coagulation process that eventually stops the bleed. Issues with fluid resuscitation without control of bleeding is thought to be secondary to dislodgement of the thrombus that is helping to control further bleeding. Thrombus dislodgement was found to occur at a systolic pressure greater than 80mm Hg. In addition, fluid resuscitation will dilute coagulation factors that help form and stabilize a clot, hence making it harder for the body to use its natural mechanisms to stop the bleeding. These factors are aggravated by hypothermia.

The Baux score is a system used to predict the chance of mortality due to burns. The score is an index which takes into account the correlative and causal relationship between mortality and factors including advancing age, burn size, the presence of inhalational injury. Studies have shown that the Baux score is highly correlative with length of stay in hospital due to burns and final outcome.

Health care quality is a level of value provided by any health care resource, as determined by some measurement. As with quality in other fields, it is an assessment of whether something is good enough and whether it is suitable for its purpose. The goal of health care is to provide medical resources of high quality to all who need them; that is, to ensure good quality of life, cure illnesses when possible, to extend life expectancy, and so on. Researchers use a variety of quality measures to attempt to determine health care quality, including counts of a therapy's reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, a decrease in the number of risk factors which people have following preventive care, or a survey of health indicators in a population who are accessing certain kinds of care.

In healthcare, the weekend effect is the finding of a difference in mortality rate for patients admitted to hospital for treatment at the weekend compared to those admitted on a weekday. The effects of the weekend on patient outcomes has been a concern since the late 1970s, and a 'weekend effect' is now well documented. Although this is a controversial area, the balance of opinion is that the weekend have a deleterious effect on patient care —based on the larger studies that have been carried out. Variations in the outcomes for patients treated for many acute and chronic conditions have been studied.

The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a clinician-led, performance benchmarking and quality improvement (QI) registry for surgical and interventional procedures.

Joseph V. Sakran is an American trauma surgeon, public health researcher, gun violence prevention advocate and activist. His career in medicine and trauma surgery was sparked after nearly being killed at the age of 17 when he was shot in the throat. He is currently an assistant professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University, Director of Emergency General Surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He also serves as the Associate Chief for the Division of Acute Care Surgery.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Shafi S.; Nathens A. B.; Cryer H. G.; Hemmila M. R.; Pasquale M. D.; Clark D. E.; Fildes J. J. (2009). "The Trauma Quality Improvement Program of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma". J Am Coll Surg. 209 (4): 521–530. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.07.001. PMID   19801325.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newgard C. D.; Fildes J. J.; Wu L.; Hemmila M. R.; Burd R. S.; Neal M.; Nathens A. B. (2013). "Methodology and analytic rationale for the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program". J Am Coll Surg. 216 (1): 147–157. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.08.017. PMID   23062519.
  3. ↑ Bates D. W.; Orav E. J.; Palmisani P.; Scurlock C.; Stelfox H. T. (2006). "The "To Err is Human" report and the patient safety literature". Quality and Safety in Health Care. 15 (3): 174–178. doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.017947. PMC   2464859 . PMID   16751466.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hemmila M. R.; Nathens A. B.; Shafi S.; Calland J. F.; Clark D. E.; Cryer H. G.; Fildes J. J. (2010). "The Trauma Quality Improvement Program: pilot study and initial demonstration of feasibility". J Trauma. 68 (2): 253–262. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181cfc8e6. PMID   20154535.
  5. ↑ MacKenzie E. J.; Rivara F. P.; Jurkovich G. J.; Nathens A. B.; Frey K. P.; Egleston B. L.; Scharfstein D. O. (2006). "A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality". New England Journal of Medicine. 354 (4): 366–378. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa052049 . PMID   16436768.
  6. ↑ Lissauer M. E.; Diaz J. J.; Narayan M.; Shah P. K.; Hanna N. N. (2013). "Surgical Intensive Care Unit Admission Variables Predict Subsequent Readmission". The American Surgeon. 79 (6): 583–588. doi:10.1177/000313481307900618. PMID   23711267. S2CID   20743223.
  7. ↑ Dick A.W., Glance L.G., Li Y., Meredith J.W., Mukamel D.B., Osler T.M. (2013). "Trends in racial disparities for injured patients admitted to trauma centers". Journal of Health Services Research. 48 (5): 1684–703. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12064. PMC   3796108 . PMID   23662602.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. 1 2 Cooper; et al. (2013). "Minority trauma patients tend to cluster at trauma centers with worse-than-expected mortality: Can this phenomenon help explain racial disparities in trauma outcomes?". Annals of Surgery. 258 (4): 572–581. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a50148. PMC   5995334 . PMID   23979271.
  9. ↑ Rayan N., Barnes S., Fleming N., Kudyakov R., Ballard D., Gentilello L. M., Shafi S. (2012). "Barriers to compliance with evidence-based care in trauma". The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 72 (3): 585–593. doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e318243da4d. PMID   22491540. S2CID   32830475.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ↑ Calland J. F., Nathens A. B., Young J. S., Neal M. L., Goble S., Abelson J., Hemmila M. R. (2012). "The effect of dead-on-arrival and emergency department death classification on risk-adjusted performance in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program". J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 73 (5): 1086–1091. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31826fc7a0. PMID   23117375. S2CID   35366355.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ "Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP)".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.