Pooled preventable death rates in trauma patients

Purpose

To estimate the pooled PDRs (preventable death rates) with articles being published since 1990, and compare the differences of PDRs over time and according to the evaluation approaches to determine preventable deaths.

Methods

Articles concerning preventable deaths of trauma patients published between 1990 and 2013 were systematically reviewed, and the pooled PDRs with 95 % confidence intervals were estimated using meta-analysis. It was also observed whether the PDRs differed over time and according to the evaluation approaches employed for determining preventable deaths.

Results

Twenty seven articles were identified through bibliographic searches using PUBMED with the keywords of ‘preventable deaths’, ‘the cause of deaths’ and ‘trauma’. Mean ages of the trauma patients in the selected articles ranged from 32.9 to 58 years old and 72 % were male on average. The pooled PDR was estimated as 0.20 with 95 % CI (0.16, 0.25) with a p-value of 0.0001, and the differences of PDRs over time and according to the employed approaches were not statistically significant with p-values of 0.06 and 0.99, respectively. However, PDRs determined by statistical approaches alone showed greater dispersion in comparison with the ‘panel review approach’.

Conclusions

This article provided some insights about the trauma care system by computing the pooled estimate of PDRs over the past 23 years as an indicator. The pooled PDR was estimated as approximately 20 %, with no statistical significance of differences in PDRs over time or by the evaluation methods employed. That left us still room for improvement in trauma care system despite our efforts to reduce PDRs. In addition, when ‘statistical approaches’ are applied alone to estimate PDRs, we recommend that statistical methods should be applied with caution when the characteristics of trauma patients are heterogeneous. The optimal approach might be to combine both statistical and panel review approaches instead of employing a single approach.     

Effect of a voluntary trauma system on preventable death and inappropriate care in a rural state

BACKGROUND: This study compares the preventable death rate and the nature and degree of inappropriate care in a rural state before and after implementation of a voluntary trauma system. METHODS: Deaths attributed to mechanical trauma occurring in the state of Montana between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1998, were retrospectively reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of physicians and nonphysicians representing the hospital and prehospital phases of care. Deaths were judged frankly preventable, possibly preventable, and nonpreventable. Care rendered in all categories was evaluated for appropriateness according to nationally accepted guidelines. Results were then compared with an identical study conducted before implementation of a voluntary trauma system. Measures to ensure comparability of the two studies were taken. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven (49%) of all trauma-related deaths met review criteria. The overall preventable death rate (PDR) was 8%. In those patients surviving to be treated at a hospital, the PDR was 15%. The overall rate of inappropriate care was 36%, 22% prehospital and 54% in-hospital. The majority of inappropriate care in all phases of care revolved around airway and chest injury management. The emergency department (ED) was the phase of care in which the majority of deficiencies were noted. In comparison with the results of the earlier study, PDR decreased (8% vs. 13%, p < 0.02). Adjusted rates of inappropriate care also showed a decrease (prehospital, 22% vs. 37%; ED, 40% vs. 68%; post-ED, 29% vs. 49%); however, the nature of deficiencies was the same. Population characteristics influencing interpanel reliability were similar for the two groups compared. Agreement on test cases presented to both panels was good (kappa statistic, 0.8). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a voluntary trauma system has positive effects on PDR and inappropriate care. The degree and nature of inappropriate care remain a concern. Mandated and funded system policies may further influence care positively.     

Evaluating a pediatric trauma program: effectiveness versus preventable death rate

We compared effectiveness (E), the proportion of severely injured patients who were salvageable and survived, to the preventable death rate (PDR) over three consecutive 1-year periods. Severely injured patients were those with at least one injury with an Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) of greater than or equal to 4. Those with one fatal injury (AIS greater than or equal to 6), a critical head injury (AIS greater than or equal to 5) apart from acute epidural hematoma, or massive multiple injuries (Injury Severity Score greater than 59) were considered nonsalvageable; the remainder were considered salvageable. In the first year, six of 74 salvageable patients died, in the second year five of 76, and in the third year one of 69. The PDR rates were 0.32 (6/19), 0.23 (5/22), and 0.06 (1/17), respectively. There was no significant difference in the E of our trauma program over the 3 years. The apparent improvement in PDR in the second and third years resulted from an increased number of deaths among nonsalvageable patients and fewer deaths among salvageable patients. This finding demonstrates that PDR is sensitive to case mix and not just quality of care, and confirms the superiority of E over PDR for assessing a trauma program.     

Classifying errors in preventable and potentially preventable trauma deaths: a 9-year review using the Joint Commission's standardized methodology

Background

Benchmarking and classification of avoidable errors in trauma care are difficult as most reports classify errors using variable locally derived schemes. We sought to classify errors in a large trauma population using standardized Joint Commission taxonomy.

Methods

All preventable/potentially preventable deaths identified at an urban, level-1 trauma center (January 2002 to December 2010) were abstracted from the trauma registry. Errors deemed avoidable were classified within the 5-node (impact, type, domain, cause, and prevention) Joint Commission taxonomy.

Results

Of the 377 deaths in 11,100 trauma contacts, 106 (7.7%) were preventable/potentially preventable deaths related to 142 avoidable errors. Most common error types were in clinical performance (inaccurate diagnosis). Error domain involved primarily the emergency department (therapeutic interventions), caused mostly by knowledge deficits. Communication improvement was the most common mitigation strategy.

Conclusion

Standardized classification of errors in preventable trauma deaths most often involve clinical performance in the early phases of care and can be mitigated with universal strategies.     

An analysis of errors causing morbidity and mortality in a trauma system: a guide for quality improvement.

The purpose of auditing trauma care is to maintain quality assurance and to guide quality improvement. This study was conducted to identify the incidence, type, and setting of errors leading to morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. Determinations of the Medical Audit Committee of San Diego County were reviewed and classified by the authors for identification of preventable errors leading to morbidity or mortality. Errors were classified by type and categorized by phase of care. Errors were identified in the cases of 4% of all patients admitted for trauma care over a 4-year period. Of all trauma patient deaths, 5.9% were considered preventable or potentially preventable. The most common single error across all phases of care was failure to appropriately evaluate the abdomen. Although errors in the resuscitative and operative phases were more common, critical care errors had the greatest impact on preventable death. The detected error rate of 4% may represent the baseline error rate in a trauma system. While regionalized trauma care has dramatically reduced the incidence of preventable death after injury, efforts to further reduce preventable morbidity and mortality may be guided by an identification of common errors in a trauma system and their relationship to outcome.     

Medication errors in anaesthesia and critical care

There is an increasing recognition that medication errors are causing a substantial global public health problem, as many result in harm to patients and increased costs to health providers. However, study of medication error is hampered by difficulty with definitions, research methods and study populations. Few doctors are as involved in the process of prescribing, selecting, preparing and giving drugs as anaesthetists, whether their practice is based in the operating theatre, critical care or pain management. Anaesthesia is now safe and routine, yet anaesthetists are not immune from making medication errors and the consequences of their mistakes may be more serious than those of doctors in other specialties. Steps are being taken to determine the extent of the problem of medication error in anaesthesia. New technology, theories of human error and lessons learnt from the nuclear, petrochemical and aviation industries are being used to tackle the problem.     

Advanced technologies in trauma critical care management

Care of critically injured patients has evolved over the 50 years since Shoemaker established one of the first trauma units at Cook County Hospital in 1962. Modern trauma intensive care units offer a high nurse-to-patient ratio, physicians and midlevel providers who manage the patients, and technologically advanced monitors and therapeutic devices designed to optimize the care of patients. This article describes advances that have transformed trauma critical care, including bedside ultrasonography, novel patient monitoring techniques, extracorporeal support, and negative pressure dressings. It also discusses how to evaluate the safety and efficacy of future advances in trauma critical care.     

Current trauma care system and trauma care training in China

Trauma is a life-threatening “modern disease”. The outcomes could only be optimized by cost-efficient and prompt trauma care, which embarks on the improvement of essential capacities and conceptual revolution in addition to the disruptive innovation of the trauma care system. According to experiences from the developed countries, systematic trauma care training is the cornerstone of the generalization and the improvement on the trauma care, such as the Advance Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Currently, the pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) has been one of the essential elements of infrastructure of health services in China, which is also fundamental to the trauma care system. Hereby, the China Trauma Care Training (CTCT) with independent intellectual property rights has been initiated and launched by the Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association to extend the up-to-date concepts and techniques in the field of trauma care as well to reinforce the generally well-accepted standardized protocols in the practices. This article reviews the current status of the trauma care system as well as the trauma care training.     

Time for a change in injury and trauma care delivery: a trauma death review analysis

Safety and error reduction in medical care is crucial to the future of medicine. This study evaluates trauma patients dying at a level 1 trauma centre to determine the adequacy of care. All trauma deaths at a level 1 trauma centre between 1996 and 2003 were reviewed by an eight-member multidisciplinary death review panel. Errors in care were classified according to their location, nature, impact, outcome and whether the deaths were avoidable or non-avoidable. Avoidable deaths were categorized as potentially, probably and definitely avoidable. Between 1996 and 2003, there were 17 157 trauma admissions, including 307 trauma deaths. The mean patient age was 47.7 years +/- 24.8 years, mean injury severity score 38.1 +/- 19.6. Of all deaths, 69 (22.5%) were deemed avoidable. Of the avoidable deaths, 61 (88%) were potentially avoidable, 7 (10%) probably avoidable and 1 (1.4%) definitely avoidable. Avoidable deaths were associated with patients with increased age, lower injury severity score, admissions to intensive care unit, longer hospital stay and treatment by a non-trauma surgeon (P < 0.05). Of the 307 trauma deaths, 271 (89.3%) patients experienced a total of 1063 errors, an overall error rate of 3.5 per patient. The error rate in the non-avoidable group was 2.9 per patient and 5.3 per patient in the avoidable group (P < 0.0001). Most errors occurred in the resuscitation area. Age, severity of injury, hospital length of stay and care by a non-trauma surgeon are factors associated with avoidable deaths. A new approach to trauma and injury care is required.     

Antibiotic management guidelines in trauma and critical care

Many patients with severe illness or conditions like multiple trauma and severe burns are vulnerable to infection due to their depressed immune function. In addition, most patients in the intensive care unit are at increased risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia and catheter-related sepsis. A basic concept of antibiotic use in these guidelines is to diagnose infection and identify the pathogenic microorganism as soon as possible. We should not start inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy in cases of undetermined infection focus or pathogen because it may increase the risk of development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and opportunistic infections. Antibiotic use should be planned deliberately from the time of admission in patients hospitalized long time. Prophylactic antibiotic use should be restricted to a specific diagnosis or an exceptional condition. The antibiotic choice should be determined based on data on antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ward of a trauma center.     

The effect of a rotating night-float coverage scheme on preventable and potentially preventable morbidity at a level 1 trauma center

BACKGROUND: The effect of resident work-hour restriction on patient outcome remains controversial. METHODS: Demographic data, mechanism of injury, length of hospital stay length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ventilator days, mortality, and complication data were prospectively collected for 11 months before and 11 months after institution of a rotating night-float system. Seven attending surgeons reviewed all complications and categorized each as preventable, potentially preventable, or nonpreventable. RESULTS: Both study periods were comparable with respect to demographic data, mean Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and admissions. Limitation of resident work hours had no effect on length of hospital or ICU stay, ventilator days, or mortality. Work-hour restrictions did not increase or decrease the total number of complications nor did it alter the distribution of those determined to be preventable or potentially preventable. CONCLUSIONS: Resident work-hour restrictions were not associated with significant improvement or deterioration in patient outcome.