1 / 27

Evaluation of Wisconsin state trauma registry data Laura D. Cassidy, Ms , Phd E. Brooke lerner , Phd Melissa Christe

Evaluation of Wisconsin state trauma registry data Laura D. Cassidy, Ms , Phd E. Brooke lerner , Phd Melissa Christensen August 8, 2012. 2008-2011. Importance of High Quality Trauma Registry Data & Analysis. Reduce the burden of injury Improve the quality of care of injured patients

dena
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Wisconsin state trauma registry data Laura D. Cassidy, Ms , Phd E. Brooke lerner , Phd Melissa Christe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Wisconsin state trauma registry dataLaura D. Cassidy, Ms, PhdE. Brooke lerner, PhdMelissa ChristensenAugust 8, 2012 2008-2011

  2. Importance of High Quality Trauma Registry Data & Analysis • Reduce the burden of injury • Improve the quality of care of injured patients • Resource utilization • Provide state and regional data for maximum effectiveness in dissemination However, if data are not complete and accurate, bias may exist and erroneous conclusions may be drawn

  3. Objective1 Task :1 Evaluate the data currently housed in the state trauma registry for completeness and accuracy with focus on the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) Deliverables: • Reports of frequency distribution and descriptive statistics for the 2008 through 2011 data sets • Results of the comparisons and listings of variables identified as opportunities for improvement in last report

  4. Patient Data: % Complete

  5. Opportunities for Improvement from 2008-2009 Report Injury location (city, county, zip)

  6. Injury Data: % Complete

  7. Opportunities for Improvement from 2008-2009 Report ED: GCS

  8. ED Data: % Complete

  9. Opportunities for Improvement from 2008-2009 Report Primary Diagnosis (ICD9 AIS, ISS)

  10. Diagnosis Data: %Complete

  11. Opportunities for Improvement from 2008-2009 Report • ICU Days and Hospital Days (calculated variables?)

  12. Outcomes: % Complete Autopsy & Organ donation denominator = discharged deceased, 2008=609, 2009 =580, 2010 =421, 2011=369

  13. Summary & Recommendations Data Quality

  14. Standardization • Overall improvements on the areas identified • Data Dictionary and Coding needs to be updated • City fields contain street names • Counties contain numbers and text • Mixing text and numeric fields • Missing values • Some coded unk, 9999 or blank • Makes data analysis more complicated and less reliable

  15. Specific Example • Inconsistency with coding deaths • The discharge destination = morgue more deaths than the variable discharged deceased • Facility disposition did not match the dictionary • 1= morgue in dictionary but appears to be discharged alive in data

  16. Performance Improvement

  17. Performance Improvement • Use of the Statewide database • Develop goals as a group • Standardize performance measurements • Identify state-wide initiatives • Benchmarking

  18. Performance Improvement • Current PI indicators • EMS scene time >20 minutes • Completed prehospital patient record provided or available to the trauma care facility within 48 hours • A Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < or equal to 8 and no definitive (protected) airway for EMS and hospitals • The time at the referring trauma care facility exceeds 3 hours exclusive of the transport time • Use of the regional triage and transport guidelines

  19. Sub-Committee Suggestions • Rate of documenting GCS EMS and ED • Scene time greater than 20 minutes • Evaluate mortality for those over 20 minutes • Rate of prehospital patient record turned in (removing 48 hour criteria) • Time to transfer >3 hours • Evaluate mortality for those with >3 hours • ISS by mortality • Age by mechanism, ISS and mortality

  20. EMS GCS Documentation • Documentation in registry improving • Left blank only 15% in 2011 • Appears data not available from the field in many cases • GCS only known for between 64 and 70% • Severity appears constant with about 6% GCS 8 or less

  21. ED GCS Documentation • Documentation in registry improving • Left blank only 11% in 2011 • Data available to registry improving • GCS known increased from 63% to 76% • Severity appears constant or maybe decreasing from 7% to 5%

  22. EMS scene time >20 minutes • Compared time arrived at scene to time left scene • Removed negative times and >120 min (~20 cases per year) • Improved documentation (73% complete to 81%) • No change to negative change in compliance (31% to 33%)

  23. Survival by Scene Time • Compared survival by scene time • Found no difference • May need to control for severity or other confounders • ISS is likely not sufficient

  24. Run Report • Completed pre-hospital patient record provided • 2008: 84% • 2009: 80% • 2010: 80% • 2011: 86% • Denominator primary EMS transport mode ambulance, helicopter, or water ambulance • No missing data – no may be default

  25. Time at referring facility exceeds 3 hour • 2008: 34% were > 3 hours • 2009: 32% • 2010: 33% • 2011: 32% • Survival difference opposite of expected likely need to control for confounders Survival by time to transfer

  26. ISS by mortality

  27. Discussion

More Related