F Debus1, C Mand2, M Geraedts3, C A Kühne2, M Frink2, H Siebert4, S Ruchholtz2. 1. Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Deutschland. debusfl@med.uni-marburg.de. 2. Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Deutschland. 3. Fakultät für Gesundheit, Institut für Gesundheitssystemforschung, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Deutschland. 4. Chirurgische Klinik II, Diakonie-Krankenhaus, Schwäbisch Hall, Deutschland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following the establishment of the first trauma networks in 2009 an almost nationwide certification could be achieved. Despite the impressive number of 46 certified networks, little is known about the actual improvements and the satisfaction of the participating hospitals. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to give a first representative overview of the expectations and actual achievements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey with a total of 36 questions was conducted in 884 hospitals. The questionnaire could be filled out online, sent by post or fax to the AKUT- Office. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: With 326 responses, a response rate of 48.9% of all active hospitals was achieved. Of the participating hospitals 64.1% (209) were certified and had taken part in the project for an average of 3.9 years. The average score for satisfaction was 2.3, 72.4% (236) felt that there was a need for improvement in the care of severely injured patients and 46.6% (152) in the transfer of patients. In 47.2% (142) no improvement in cooperation with the ambulance service could be determined, 25.2% (82) documented an increase in the number of severely injured patients since participating in the trauma network (TNW-DGU) and 93.9% (306) of all hospitals wanted to participate in the trauma network in the future. DISCUSSION: It could be shown that important goals, such as simplification of patient transfer or general improvement in cooperation have been achieved. Overall there was a high level of satisfaction among the participating hospitals; however, the survey has identified some points which need to be improved by further intensive work.
INTRODUCTION: Following the establishment of the first trauma networks in 2009 an almost nationwide certification could be achieved. Despite the impressive number of 46 certified networks, little is known about the actual improvements and the satisfaction of the participating hospitals. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to give a first representative overview of the expectations and actual achievements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey with a total of 36 questions was conducted in 884 hospitals. The questionnaire could be filled out online, sent by post or fax to the AKUT- Office. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: With 326 responses, a response rate of 48.9% of all active hospitals was achieved. Of the participating hospitals 64.1% (209) were certified and had taken part in the project for an average of 3.9 years. The average score for satisfaction was 2.3, 72.4% (236) felt that there was a need for improvement in the care of severely injured patients and 46.6% (152) in the transfer of patients. In 47.2% (142) no improvement in cooperation with the ambulance service could be determined, 25.2% (82) documented an increase in the number of severely injured patients since participating in the trauma network (TNW-DGU) and 93.9% (306) of all hospitals wanted to participate in the trauma network in the future. DISCUSSION: It could be shown that important goals, such as simplification of patient transfer or general improvement in cooperation have been achieved. Overall there was a high level of satisfaction among the participating hospitals; however, the survey has identified some points which need to be improved by further intensive work.
Entities:
Keywords:
Care of multiple injured patients; Cooperation; Patient transfer; Quality management; Trauma center