Search

Introduction: The Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry enables the collection and analysis of standardised data about trauma patients and their care for quality improvement, injury prevention and benchmarking. Little is known, however, about the needs of providers and clinicians in relation to these data, or their views on trauma quality improvement priorities. As clinical experts, trauma clinicians should have input to these as ultimately their practice may be influenced by report findings. This paper presents the perspectives of multidisciplinary trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand about the use of the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry data and trauma quality improvement priorities.Methods: An exploratory survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand professional organisations was conducted using the Snowballing Method between September 2018 and February 2019. Participants were recruited via a non-random sampling technique to complete an online survey. Descriptive statistical and content analyses were conducted.Results: The data use priorities identified by 102 trauma professionals from a range of locations participated were clinical improvement and system/process improvement (86.3%). Participants reported that access to trauma data should primarily be for clinicians (93.1%) and researchers (87.3%). Having a standardised approach to review trauma cases across hospitals was a priority in trauma quality improvement.Conclusion: Trauma registry data are under-utilised and their use to drive clinical improvement and system/process improvement is fundamental to trauma quality improvement in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disasters result in a range of impacts that significantly disrupt the health and wellbeing of those affected. After disasters, a hierarchy of affectedness may be explicitly or implicitly developed, where those affected are compared to each other, and to people affected by disasters in other locations. When an individual's sense of place is so significantly disrupted, these hierarchies are critical to improving the understanding of recovery trajectories, including mental health and well-being outcomes. These hierarchies have practical implications that influence the health outcomes of those affected, including eligibility for disaster aid, support services, and the way that people affected by disasters relate to others in their community. This paper expands the 'hierarchy of affectedness' concept coined by Andersen (2013) using findings from a qualitative study in Australia and New Zealand. Using a letter writing research method, twenty people who had been impacted by a range of disasters in different locations described what they considered helpful and unhelpful in the recovery. One emergent finding in this study was that hierarchies of affectedness are negotiated between impacted individuals, others affected in the same community, and outsiders. These hierarchies served as a helpful sense-making tool for some people impacted by disasters, while causing considerable secondary stress for others. Based on these findings, we offer an expansion to Andersen's existing model of hierarchies of affectedness in post-disaster settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]