Article

Peer review audit of trauma deaths in a developing country.

Department of Surgery, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Asian Journal of Surgery (Impact Factor: 0.54). 02/2004; 27(1):58-64. DOI: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60247-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Peer review of trauma deaths can be used to evaluate the efficacy of trauma systems. The objective of this study was to estimate teh proportion of preventable trauma deaths and the factors contributing to poor outcome using peer review in a tertiary care hospital in a developing country.
All trauma deaths during a 2-year period (1 January 1998 to 30 December 1998) were identified and registered in a computerized trauma registry, and the probability of survival was calculated for all patients. Summary data, including registry information and details of prehospital, emergency room, and definitive care, were provided to all members of the peer review committee 1 week before the committee meeting. The committee then reviewed all cases and classified each death as preventable, potentially preventable, or non-preventable.
A total fo 279 patients were registered in the trauma registry during the study period, including 18 trauma deaths. Peer review judged that six were preventable, seven were potentially preventable, and four were non-preventable. One patient was excluded because the record was not available for review. The proportion of preventable and potentially preventable deaths was significantly higher in our study than from developed countries. Of the multiple contributing factors identified, the most important were inadequate prehospital transfer, limited hospital resources, and an absence of integrated and organized trauma care. This study summarizes the challenges faced in trauma care in a developing country.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
104 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The three pillars of a good trauma system are the prehospital care, definitive care, and rehabilitative services. The prehospital care is a critical component of the efforts to lower trauma mortality. To study the prehospital profile of patients who died due to trauma, compute the time taken to reach our facility, find the cause of delay, and make feasible recommendations. A hospital-based study was performed at a trauma center in Puducherry from June 2009 to August 2010. Puducherry is a union territory of India in the geographical terrain of the state of Tamil Nadu. A total of 241deaths due to trauma were included. Apart from the demographic and injury characteristics, a detailed prehospital log was constructed regarding the time of incident, the referral patterns, care given in the prehospital phase, the distance travelled, and the total time taken to reach our center. The majority (59%) of patients were referred, with stopovers at two consecutive referral centers (30%), needing at least two vehicles to transport to definitive care (70%), clocking unnecessary distances (67%), and delayed due to non therapeutic intervention (87%). The majority of deaths (66%) were due to head injury. Only 2.96% of referred cases reached us within the first hour. Few of the patients coming directly to us had vehicle change due to local availability and lack of knowledge of predestined definitive care facility. Overall, 94.6% of direct cases arrived within 4 h whereas 93.3% of referred cases required up to 7 h to arrive at definitive care. Seriously injured patients lose valuable prehospital time because there is no direction regarding destination and interfacility transfer, a lack of seamless transport, and no concept of initial trauma care. The lack of direction is compounded in geographical areas that are situated at the border of political jurisdictions.
    Journal of Emergencies Trauma and Shock 07/2013; 6(3):164-70.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The burden of injury is greatest in developing countries. Trauma systems have reduced mortality in developed countries and trauma registries are known to be integral to monitoring and improving trauma care. There are relatively few trauma registries in developing countries and no reviews describing the experience of each registry. The aim of this study was to examine the collective published experience of trauma registries in developing countries. METHODS: A structured review of the literature was performed. Relevant abstracts were identified by searching databases for all articles regarding a trauma registry in a developing country. A tool was used to abstract trauma registry details, including processes of data collection and analysis. RESULTS: There were 84 articles, 76 of which were sourced from 47 registries. The remaining eight articles were perspectives. Most were from Iran, followed by China, Jamaica, South Africa and Uganda. Only two registries used the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to define inclusion criteria. Most registries collected data on variables from all five variable groups (demographics, injury event, process of care, injury severity and outcome). Several registries collected data for less than a total of 20 variables. Only three registries measured disability using a score. The most commonly used scores of injury severity were the ISS, followed by Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS). CONCLUSION: Amongst the small number of trauma registries in developing countries, there is a large variation in processes. The implementation of trauma systems with trauma registries is feasible in under-resourced environments where they are desperately needed.
    Injury 03/2013; · 2.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objectives were to determine the proportion of preventable trauma deaths at a large trauma hospital in Kumasi, Ghana, and to identify opportunities for the improvement of trauma care. A multidisciplinary panel of experts evaluated pre-hospital, hospital, and postmortem data of consecutive trauma patients who died over a 5-month period in 2006-2007 at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital. The panel judged the preventability of each death. For preventable and potentially preventable deaths, deficiencies in care that contributed to their deaths were identified. The panel reviewed 231 trauma deaths. Of these, 84 charts had sufficient information to review preventable factors. The panel determined that 23 % of trauma deaths were definitely preventable, 37 % were potentially preventable, and 40 % were not preventable. One main deficiency in care was identified for each of the 50 definitely preventable and potentially preventable deaths. The most common deficiencies were pre-hospital delays (44 % of the 50 deficiencies), delay in treatment (32 %), and inadequate fluid resuscitation (22 %). Among the 19 definitely preventable deaths, the most common cause of death was hemorrhage (47 %), and the most common deficiencies were inadequate fluid resuscitation (37 % of deficiencies in this group) and pre-hospital delay (37 %). A high proportion of trauma fatalities might have been preventable by decreasing pre-hospital delays, adequate resuscitation in hospital, and earlier initiation of care, including definitive surgical management. The study also showed that preventable death panel reviews are a feasible and useful quality improvement method in the study setting.
    World Journal of Surgery 01/2014; · 2.23 Impact Factor