Highlights
- •Perspectives of trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand about the use of the trauma registry data are presented.
- •The key priorities in the trauma quality improvement are identified through an exploratory survey of trauma professionals.
- •Trauma registry data are under-utilised in Australia and New Zealand.
- •Using trauma registry data is fundamental to drive clinical improvement and system/process improvement in Australia and New Zealand.
- •The findings will support the strategic activities of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Subcommittee and contribute to the strategies of key organisations that are responsible for improving trauma care in Australia and New Zealand.
Abstract
Introduction
The Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry enables the collection and analysis of standardised
data about trauma patients and their care for quality improvement, injury prevention
and benchmarking. Little is known, however, about the needs of providers and clinicians
in relation to these data, or their views on trauma quality improvement priorities.
As clinical experts, trauma clinicians should have input to these as ultimately their
practice may be influenced by report findings. This paper presents the perspectives
of multidisciplinary trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand about
the use of the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry data and trauma quality improvement
priorities.
Methods
An exploratory survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand
professional organisations was conducted using the Snowballing Method between September
2018 and February 2019. Participants were recruited via a non-random sampling technique
to complete an online survey. Descriptive statistical and content analyses were conducted.
Results
The data use priorities identified by 102 trauma professionals from a range of locations
participated were clinical improvement and system/process improvement (86.3%). Participants reported that access to trauma data should primarily be for
clinicians (93.1%) and researchers (87.3%). Having a standardised approach to review
trauma cases across hospitals was a priority in trauma quality improvement.
Conclusion
Trauma registry data are under-utilised and their use to drive clinical improvement and system/process improvement is fundamental to trauma quality improvement in Australia and New Zealand.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to InjuryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Are Australian and New Zealand trauma service resources reflective of the Australasian trauma verification model resource criteria?.ANZ J Surg. 2014; 84: 523-527https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12381
- Trauma verification kangaroo point.Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Queensland2018 ([cited 2018 11 July]. Available from)
- The Australian trauma registry.ANZ J Surg. 2018; 89 (Epub 2018/12/15PubMed PMID:30548382): 286-290https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14940
- The New Zealand major trauma registry: the foundation for a data-driven approach in a contemporary trauma system.N Zea Med J. 2017; 130: 19-27
- Standardising trauma monitoring: the development of a minimum dataset for trauma registries in Australia and New Zealand.Injury. 2012; 44: 834-841https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.11.022
- Indicators of the quality of trauma care and the performance of trauma systems.Br J Surg. 2012; 99: 97-104
Australian Trauma Quality Improvement (AusTQIP) Collaboration. Australian trauma registry, Management of the Severely Injured in Australia, 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. Melbourne, Victoria: 2018.
- New Zealand major trauma registry & national clinical network.2018 (New Zealand)
- Trauma center volume and quality improvement programs.J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 72 (Epub 2012/04/12PubMed PMID:22491612): 962-967https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31824a7bd8
- Trauma patient outcome evaluation.NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation, Sydney2016
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. About RACS [cited 2019 16 April]. Available from: https://www.surgeons.org/about/.
Australasian Trauma Society. About the Australasian trauma society [cited 2019 16 april]. Available from: https://www.traumasociety.com.au/about-us/.
- Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research.SDMEJ. 2017; 14: e67670
- Snowball sampling.BMJ. 2013; 347: f7511
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Trauma subcommittees terms of reference. Trauma Quality Improvement Sub-committee. Ref. No. FES-FEL-019.
- Stata statistical software: release 14.StataCorp LP, College Station, TX2015
- Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288
- Clinical-quality registries: their role in quality improvement.Med. J. Aust. 2010; 192 (Epub 2010/03/06. PubMed PMID20201755): 244-245
- Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries.ACSQHC, Sydney2016
ANZHFR. Bi-National Annual Report of Hip Fracture Care 2018 Contract No.: ISBN-13: 978-0-7334-3824-0.
- Guidelines for trauma quality improvement programmes.2009 (Geneva)
- Adverse events in medicine: easy to count, complicated to understand, and complex to prevent.J Biomed Inform. 2011; 44 (Epub 2009/07/21PubMed PMID19615466): 390-394https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.06.004
- Long-term health status and trajectories of seriously injured patients: a population-based longitudinal study.PLoS Med. 2017; 14 (Epub 2017/07/06PubMed PMID28678814PubMed Central PMCIDPMCPMC5497942)e1002322https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002322
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 25, 2019
Accepted:
September 24,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
