TY - JOUR
T1 - Indicators of the quality of trauma care and the performance of trauma systems
AU - Gruen, R. L.
AU - Gabbe, B. J.
AU - Stelfox, H. T.
AU - Cameron, P. A.
PY - 2012/1
Y1 - 2012/1
N2 - Background: Valid and reliable measures of trauma system performance are needed to guide improvement activities, benchmarking and public reporting, future investment and research. Traditional measures of in-hospital mortality fail to take into account prehospital and posthospital care, recovery after discharge, and the nature and costs of long-term disability. Methods: Drawing on recent systematic reviews, an overview was conducted of existing and emerging trauma care performance indicators. Changes in the nature and purpose of indicators were assessed. Results: Among a large number of existing, mostly locally developed performance indicators, only peer review of deaths has evidence of validity or reliability. The usefulness of the traditional performance measure of in-hospital mortality has been challenged. There is an emerging shift in focus from mortality to non-mortality outcomes, from hospital-based to long-term community-based outcome assessment, and from single measures of trauma centre performance to measures better suited to monitoring the performance of systems of care spanning the entire patient journey. As a result, a new generation of indicators is emerging that are both feasible and potentially more useful for commissioners and payers of population-based services. Conclusion: A global endeavour is now under way to agree on a set of standardized performance indicators that are meaningful to patients, carers, clinicians, managers and service funders, are likely to contribute to desired outcomes, and are valid, reliable and have a strong evidence base.
AB - Background: Valid and reliable measures of trauma system performance are needed to guide improvement activities, benchmarking and public reporting, future investment and research. Traditional measures of in-hospital mortality fail to take into account prehospital and posthospital care, recovery after discharge, and the nature and costs of long-term disability. Methods: Drawing on recent systematic reviews, an overview was conducted of existing and emerging trauma care performance indicators. Changes in the nature and purpose of indicators were assessed. Results: Among a large number of existing, mostly locally developed performance indicators, only peer review of deaths has evidence of validity or reliability. The usefulness of the traditional performance measure of in-hospital mortality has been challenged. There is an emerging shift in focus from mortality to non-mortality outcomes, from hospital-based to long-term community-based outcome assessment, and from single measures of trauma centre performance to measures better suited to monitoring the performance of systems of care spanning the entire patient journey. As a result, a new generation of indicators is emerging that are both feasible and potentially more useful for commissioners and payers of population-based services. Conclusion: A global endeavour is now under way to agree on a set of standardized performance indicators that are meaningful to patients, carers, clinicians, managers and service funders, are likely to contribute to desired outcomes, and are valid, reliable and have a strong evidence base.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84555188967&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/bjs.7754
DO - 10.1002/bjs.7754
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22441862
AN - SCOPUS:84555188967
SN - 0007-1323
VL - 99
SP - 97
EP - 104
JO - British Journal of Surgery
JF - British Journal of Surgery
IS - SUPPL. 1
ER -