Literature DB >> 8810954

Continuous use of standard process audit filters has limited value in an established trauma system.

H G Cryer1, J R Hiatt, A W Fleming, J P Gruen, J Sterling.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of five quality assurance/ quality improvement audit filters to identify opportunities for improvement in patient care in a mature trauma system.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total patient population at risk and audit filter fallouts were evaluated for the following audit filters: patients with (1) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 14 who did not receive a CT scan within 2 hours of admission; (2) subdural/ epidural hematomas who did not undergo craniotomy within 4 hours; (3) open tibial fractures who did not undergo debridement within 8 hours; (4) abdominal gunshot wounds who did not undergo laparotomy within 4 hours; and (5) all deaths where a quality assurance action was taken. The filters were used for 1 year. Mortality was compared between fallouts and nonfallouts in each category and the frequency of corrective actions for each category were determined.
RESULTS: Corrective actions were taken in 97 of the 418 fallouts from 3,787 patients at risk. The majority (77%) of these actions were for patients in the death audit filter group. There were 343 nondeath fallouts, representing 13% of the 2,719 nondeath patients at risk. Of these, 22 corrective actions were taken, representing 6.4% of the fallouts and less than 1% of the patients at risk.
CONCLUSION: The non-death process based audit filters that we evaluated in our trauma system documented adherence to care process standards but found few opportunities for quality improvement, suggesting that audit filters should be periodically evaluated and changed when their goals have been accomplished.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8810954     DOI: 10.1097/00005373-199609000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Trauma        ISSN: 0022-5282


  6 in total

1.  Key performance indicators in British military trauma.

Authors:  Adam Stannard; Nigel R Tai; Douglas M Bowley; Mark Midwinter; Tim J Hodgetts
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Audit filters for improving processes of care and clinical outcomes in trauma systems.

Authors:  Christopher Evans; Daniel Howes; William Pickett; Luigi Dagnone
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-10-07

Review 3.  Injury in China: a systematic review of injury surveillance studies conducted in Chinese hospital emergency departments.

Authors:  Michael Fitzharris; James Yu; Naomi Hammond; Colman Taylor; Yangfeng Wu; Simon Finfer; John Myburgh
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2011-10-26

4.  Health care professionals' beliefs about using wiki-based reminders to promote best practices in trauma care.

Authors:  Patrick Michel Archambault; Andrea Bilodeau; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Karine Aubin; André Lavoie; Jean Lapointe; Julien Poitras; Sylvain Croteau; Martin Pham-Dinh; France Légaré
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Developing a patient and family-centred approach for measuring the quality of injury care: a study protocol.

Authors:  Henry T Stelfox; Jamie M Boyd; Sharon E Straus; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-01-27       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Evaluating trauma center process performance in an integrated trauma system with registry data.

Authors:  Lynne Moore; André Lavoie; Marie-Josée Sirois; Rachid Amini; Amina Belcaïd; John S Sampalis
Journal:  J Emerg Trauma Shock       Date:  2013-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.