Peer review audit of trauma deaths in a developing country.
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.
- SourceAvailable from: Hasnain Zafar[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To report trauma outcome from a developing country based on the Trauma and Injury Severity Scoring (TRISS) method and compare the outcome with the registry data from Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS). Registry based audit of all trauma patients over two years. Emergency room of a teaching university hospital. 279 injured patients meeting trauma team activation criteria including all deaths in the emergency room. TRISS methodology to compare expected and observed outcome. W, M, and Z statistics and comparison with MTOS data. 279 patients meeting the trauma triage criteria presented to the emergency room, 235 (84.2%) were men and 44 (15.8%) women. Blunt injury accounted for 204 (73.1%) and penetrating for 75 (26.9%) patients. Seventy two patients had injury severity score of more than 15. Only 18 (6.4%) patients were transported in an ambulance. A total of 142 (50.9%) patients were transferred from other hospitals with a mean prehospital delay of 7.1 hours. M statistic of our study subset was 0.97, indicating a good match between our patients and MTOS cohort. There were 18 deaths with only one unexpected survivor. The expected number of deaths based on MTOS dataset should have been 12. Present injury severity instruments using MTOS coefficients do not accurately correlate with observed survival rates in a developing country.Emergency Medicine Journal 10/2002; 19(5):391-4. · 1.65 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the status of trauma system development and key structural and operational characteristics of these systems. National survey of trauma systems with enabling state statute, regulation, or executive orders and for which designated trauma centers were present. Trauma system administrators and directors of 37 state and regional organizations that had legal authority to administer trauma systems, which represented a response rate of 90.2%. Trauma system components that had been implemented or were under development. From 1988 to 1993, the number of states meeting one set of criteria for a complete trauma system criteria increased from two to five. The most common deficiency in establishing trauma systems was failure to limit the number of designated trauma centers based on community need. Although most existing trauma systems have developed formal processes for designating trauma centers, prehospital triage protocols to allow hospital bypass, and centralized trauma registries, several systems lack standardized policies for interhospital transfer and systemwide evaluation. State and regional organizations have accomplished a great deal but still have substantial work ahead in developing comprehensive trauma systems. Research is needed to better understand the relationship between trauma volume and outcomes of care as well as the impact of trauma system structure and operational characteristics on care delivery. Improved measures of patient outcome are also needed so that effective system evaluation can take place.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 03/1995; 273(5):395-401. · 29.98 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The published evaluation of methods for identifying preventable trauma deaths contains many unstudied confounding factors. To investigate the reliability of methods for identifying such preventable deaths, we compared three consensus systems using separate five-member general review panels assessing 20 non-central nervous system fatalities: panel A, independent judgments; panel B, discussion of all cases preceding individual judgments; and panel C, independent judgments followed by discussion and equivocal case reassignment. The Kappa concordance index was low for all methods (method A, 0.20; methods B and C, 0.40). Of the 11 deaths judged preventable by at least one panel, only one death was judged preventable by all three panels. Consensus agreement (four of five assessors) was 20% for panel A, 45% for panel B, and 10% for panel C (difference between panels B and C, p less than 0.03). In panel C, discussion affected the rate of equivocal case designation from 30% to 5%. Thus different consensus methods yielded different results. We conclude that individual case review can be severely flawed and therefore should not be used to measure institutional quality of patient care. We recommend that assessment of institutional performance should be based on objective evaluation methods, which require the study of patient population outcomes, rather than on subjective methods in which individual cases are reviewed.The Journal of trauma 02/1992; 32(1):45-51. · 2.35 Impact Factor