88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge.

          Methods/Design

          We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality.

          Discussion

          The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.

          Trial registration

          ANZCTR: ACTRN12613001218785, prospectively registered, 5 November 2013

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-Point.

          A novel design for intervention studies is presented, the so called PROBE study (Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded End-point). This design is compared to the classical double-blind design. Among the advantages of the PROBE design are lower cost and greater similarity to standard clinical practice, which should make the results more easily applicable in routine medical care. Since end-points are evaluated by a blinded end-point committee it is obvious that there should be no difference between the two types of trials in this regard.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evidence for quality indicators to evaluate adult trauma care: a systematic review.

            Multiple quality indicators are available to evaluate adult trauma care, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been systematically compared. We sought to systematically review the evidence about the reliability, validity, and implementation of quality indicators for evaluating trauma care. Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 14, 2009; the Gray Literature; select journals by hand; reference lists; and articles recommended by experts in the field. Studies were selected that evaluated the reliability, validity, or the impact of one or more quality indicators on the quality of care delivered to patients ≥ 18 yrs of age with a major traumatic injury. Reviewers with methodologic and content expertise conducted data extraction independently. The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 40 articles were selected for review. Of these, 20 (50%) articles were cohort studies and 13 (33%) articles were case series. Five articles used control groups, including three before and after case series, a case-control study, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 115 quality indicators in adult trauma care was identified, predominantly measures of hospital processes (62%) and outcomes (17%) of care. We did not identify any posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Reliability was described for two quality indicators, content validity for 22 quality indicators, construct validity for eight quality indicators, and criterion validity for 46 quality indicators. A total of 58 quality indicators was implemented and evaluated in three studies. Eight quality indicators had supporting evidence for more than one measurement domain. A single quality indicator, peer review for preventable death, had both reliability and validity evidence. Although many quality indicators are available to measure the quality of trauma care, reliability evidence, validity evidence, and description of outcomes after implementation are limited.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prospective evaluation of early missed injuries and the role of tertiary trauma survey.

              This study prospectively evaluated the prevalence, clinical significance, and contributing factors to early missed injuries and the role of tertiary survey in minimizing frequency of missed injuries in admitted trauma patients. Missed injury, clinically significant missed injury, tertiary survey, and contributing factors were defined. Tertiary survey was conducted within 24 hours. Of 206 patients, 134 patients (65%) had 309 missed injuries composing 39% of all 798 injuries seen. Tertiary trauma survey detected 56% of early missed injuries and 90% of clinically significant missed injuries within 24 hours. Clinically significant missed injuries occurred in 30 patients with complications in 11 patients and death in two patients. Of 224 contributing errors, 123 errors were in clinical assessment, 83 errors were in radiology, 14 errors were patient related, and four errors were technical. The missed injury rate was significantly higher in patients with multiple injuries and in those involved in road crashes. Secondary trauma survey is not a definitive assessment and should be supplemented by tertiary trauma survey.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Gerben.Keijzers@health.qld.gov.au
                cdelmar@bond.edu.au
                l.geeraedts@vumc.nl
                j.byrnes@griffith.edu.au
                ebeller@bond.edu.au
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                13 May 2015
                13 May 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 215
                Affiliations
                [ ]Emergency Physician, Staff Specialist, Emergency Department, Gold Coast Health Service District, Emergency Department, Gold Coast University Hospital, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, 4215 QLD Australia
                [ ]Assistant Professor, School of Medicine, Bond University, University Drive, Robina, Gold Coast, 4226 QLD Australia
                [ ]Associate Professor, School of Medicine, Griffith University, University Drive, Robina, Gold Coast, 4226 QLD Australia
                [ ]Professor of Public Health, School of Medicine, Bond University, University Drive, Robina, Gold Coast, 4226 QLD Australia
                [ ]Trauma Surgeon, Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, 4222 QLD Australia
                [ ]Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, 4131 QLD Australia
                [ ]Statistician, Associate Professor, Centre for Research in Evidence-based practice, Bond University, University Drive, Robina, Gold Coast, 4226 QLD Australia
                Article
                733
                10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y
                4449594
                25968303
                b8a53166-9be5-4a4c-8328-b35074517fbd
                © Keijzers et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 November 2013
                : 24 April 2015
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                missed injury,patient safety,tertiary survey,trauma care
                Medicine
                missed injury, patient safety, tertiary survey, trauma care

                Comments

                Comment on this article