INTRODUCTION: The treatment of polytraumatized patients in the acute period is an exemplary model of multidisciplinary cooperation in a very critical timeframe. Implementing standards formulated in the clinical guidelines of the German Association of Traumatology requires a detailed description of "how to do it." METHODS: Based on the guidelines and validated quality indictors, the optimal standard of care as the goal was defined. A clinical algorithm was developed and personal responsibilities and time limits were clearly assigned to each decision step and action. Checklists, documentation charts, and a full text supplement the algorithm. The complete pathway was adopted by representatives of all occupational groups involved in early trauma care in a consensus process. RESULTS: Improvement potentials were identified in those areas for which the guidelines did not provide explicit recommendations. These represent the key elements of the algorithm. Pathway-specific review criteria (quality indicators) were defined for scheduled reevaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing clinical guidelines at the local level requires a problem-oriented and management-oriented elaboration towards a clinical pathway as the basis for a quantitative process and cost analysis.
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of polytraumatized patients in the acute period is an exemplary model of multidisciplinary cooperation in a very critical timeframe. Implementing standards formulated in the clinical guidelines of the German Association of Traumatology requires a detailed description of "how to do it." METHODS: Based on the guidelines and validated quality indictors, the optimal standard of care as the goal was defined. A clinical algorithm was developed and personal responsibilities and time limits were clearly assigned to each decision step and action. Checklists, documentation charts, and a full text supplement the algorithm. The complete pathway was adopted by representatives of all occupational groups involved in early trauma care in a consensus process. RESULTS: Improvement potentials were identified in those areas for which the guidelines did not provide explicit recommendations. These represent the key elements of the algorithm. Pathway-specific review criteria (quality indicators) were defined for scheduled reevaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing clinical guidelines at the local level requires a problem-oriented and management-oriented elaboration towards a clinical pathway as the basis for a quantitative process and cost analysis.
Authors: W F Dick; P J Baskett; C Grande; H Delooz; W Kloeck; C Lackner; M Lipp; W Mauritz; M Nerlich; J Nicholl; J Nolan; P Oakley; M Parr; A Seekamp; E Soreide; P A Steen; L van Camp; B Wolcke; D Yates Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Belg Date: 2000
Authors: S Ruchholtz; B Zintl; D Nast-Kolb; C Waydhas; U Lewan; K G Kanz; D Schwender; K J Pfeifer; L Schweiberer Journal: Injury Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: M B Harris; S C Kronlage; P A Carboni; K Q Robert; B Menmuir; J E Ricciardi; N B Chutkan Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Michael Koller; Antonio Ernstberger; Florian Zeman; Julika Loss; Michael Nerlich Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Antonio Ernstberger; Michael Koller; Florian Zeman; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Franz Hilber; Eva Diepold; Julika Loss; Tanja Herbst; Michael Nerlich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240