4.4 Article

Trauma quality indicators: internationally approved core factors for trauma management quality evaluation

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY SURGERY
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-021-00350-7

Keywords

Performance; Product; Morbidity; Mortality; System; Analysis; Outcome; Data; Planning; World

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a systematic review of literature on quality indicators in trauma associated with an international consensus conference, resulting in an internationally approved core set of 82 trauma quality indicators. These indicators cover six fields: prevention, structure, process, outcome, post-traumatic management, and societal integration effects. Further improvements can be made through the development of international trauma registries for data accrual and outcome evaluation.
Introduction Quality in medical care must be measured in order to be improved. Trauma management is part of health care, and by definition, it must be checked constantly. The only way to measure quality and outcomes is to systematically accrue data and analyze them. Material and methods A systematic revision of the literature about quality indicators in trauma associated to an international consensus conference Results An internationally approved base core set of 82 trauma quality indicators was obtained: Indicators were divided into 6 fields: prevention, structure, process, outcome, post-traumatic management, and society integrational effects. Conclusion Present trauma quality indicator core set represents the result of an international effort aiming to provide a useful tool in quality evaluation and improvement. Further improvement may only be possible through international trauma registry development. This will allow for huge international data accrual permitting to evaluate results and compare outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available