TY - JOUR
T1 - A qualitative study to identify opportunities for improving trauma quality improvement
AU - Santana, Maria Jose
AU - Straus, Sharon
AU - Gruen, Russell
AU - Stelfox, Henry T.
PY - 2012/12
Y1 - 2012/12
N2 - Background: Quality improvement (QI) is a central tenant of trauma center accreditation in most countries, but its effectiveness is largely unknown. We sought to explore opportunities for improving trauma QI. Methods: We performed a qualitative research study using grounded theory analyses of interviews with medical directors and program managers from 75 verified trauma centers sampled from the United States (n = 51), Canada (n = 14), and Australasia (Australia and New Zealand [n = 10]) to explore experiences with trauma QI activities and identify opportunities for improvement. Results: Most trauma centers indicated that they perceived trauma QI to be important and devoted personnel for QI (data entry, data analyst, educator, nurse practitioner). Programs identified 5 principal opportunities to improve trauma QI: (1) ensure resource adequacy (human resources, registry maintenance, financial support, institutional support), (2) encourage stakeholder participation (engagement, communication, coordination), (3) ensure clinical relevance, (4) incorporate evidence-based tools, and (5) require provider and QI program accountability. Conclusions: Quality improvement programs exist as accreditation requirements in most centers. However, trauma QI practices depend on a range of local and regional factors, and concrete opportunities for improvement that address impact and sustainability exist.
AB - Background: Quality improvement (QI) is a central tenant of trauma center accreditation in most countries, but its effectiveness is largely unknown. We sought to explore opportunities for improving trauma QI. Methods: We performed a qualitative research study using grounded theory analyses of interviews with medical directors and program managers from 75 verified trauma centers sampled from the United States (n = 51), Canada (n = 14), and Australasia (Australia and New Zealand [n = 10]) to explore experiences with trauma QI activities and identify opportunities for improvement. Results: Most trauma centers indicated that they perceived trauma QI to be important and devoted personnel for QI (data entry, data analyst, educator, nurse practitioner). Programs identified 5 principal opportunities to improve trauma QI: (1) ensure resource adequacy (human resources, registry maintenance, financial support, institutional support), (2) encourage stakeholder participation (engagement, communication, coordination), (3) ensure clinical relevance, (4) incorporate evidence-based tools, and (5) require provider and QI program accountability. Conclusions: Quality improvement programs exist as accreditation requirements in most centers. However, trauma QI practices depend on a range of local and regional factors, and concrete opportunities for improvement that address impact and sustainability exist.
KW - Injury
KW - Quality improvement activities
KW - Trauma care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870715553&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 22999480
AN - SCOPUS:84870715553
SN - 0883-9441
VL - 27
SP - 738.e1-738.e7
JO - Journal of Critical Care
JF - Journal of Critical Care
IS - 6
ER -