Search

Background: Emergency general surgery conditions are common, costly, and highly morbid. The proportion of excess morbidity due to variation in health systems and processes of care is poorly understood. We constructed a collaborative quality initiative for emergency general surgery to investigate the emergency general surgery care provided and guide process improvements., Methods: We collected data at 10 hospitals from July 2019 to December 2022. Five cohorts were defined: acute appendicitis, acute gallbladder disease, small bowel obstruction, emergency laparotomy, and overall aggregate. Processes and inpatient outcomes investigated included operative versus nonoperative management, mortality, morbidity (mortality and/or complication), readmissions, and length of stay. Multivariable risk adjustment accounted for variations in demographic, comorbid, anatomic, and disease traits., Results: Of the 19,956 emergency general surgery patients, 56.8% were female and 82.8% were White, and the mean (SD) age was 53.3 (20.8) years. After accounting for patient and disease factors, the adjusted aggregate mortality rate was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2-3.7), morbidity rate was 27.6% (95% CI, 27.0-28.3), and the readmission rate was 15.1% (95% CI, 14.6-15.6). Operative management varied between hospitals from 70.9% to 96.9% for acute appendicitis and 19.8% to 79.4% for small bowel obstruction. Significant differences in outcomes between hospitals were observed with high- and low-outlier performers identified after risk adjustment in the overall cohort for mortality, morbidity, and readmissions. The use of a Gastrografin challenge in patients with a small bowel obstruction ranged from 10.7% to 61.4% of patients. In patients who underwent initial nonoperative management of acute cholecystitis, 51.5% had a cholecystostomy tube placed. The cholecystostomy tube placement rate ranged from 23.5% to 62.1% across hospitals., Conclusion: A multihospital emergency general surgery collaborative reveals high morbidity with substantial variability in processes and outcomes among hospitals. A targeted collaborative quality improvement effort can identify outliers in emergency general surgery care and may provide a mechanism to optimize outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Background: Despite the growing awareness of the negative financial impact of traumatic injury on patients' lives, the association between financial toxicity and long-term health-related quality of life (hrQoL) among trauma survivors remains poorly understood., Methods: Patients from nine trauma centers participating in a statewide trauma quality collaborative had responses from longitudinal survey data linked to inpatient trauma registry data. Financial toxicity was defined based on patient-reported survey responses regarding medical debt, work or income loss, nonmedical financial strain, and forgone care due to costs. A financial toxicity score ranging from 0 to 4 was calculated. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol 5 Domain tool. Multivariable regression models evaluated the association between financial toxicity and hrQoL outcomes while adjusting for patient demographics, injury severity and inpatient treatment intensity, and health systems variables., Results: Among the 403 patients providing 510 completed surveys, rates of individual financial toxicity elements ranged from 21% to 46%, with 65% of patients experiencing at least one element of financial toxicity. Patients with any financial toxicity had worse summary measures of hrQoL and higher rates of problems in all five EuroQol 5 Domain domains ( p < 0.05 for all). Younger age, lower household income, lack of insurance, more comorbidities, discharge to a facility, and air ambulance transportation were independently associated with higher odds of financial toxicity ( p < 0.05 for all). Injury traits and inpatient treatment intensity were not independently associated with financial toxicity., Conclusion: A majority of trauma survivors in this study experienced some level of financial toxicity, which was independently associated with worse risk-adjusted health outcomes across all hrQoL measures. Risk factors for financial toxicity are not related to injury severity or treatment intensity but rather to sociodemographic variables and measures of prehospital and posthospital health care resource utilization. Targeted interventions and policies are needed to address financial toxicity and ensure optimal recovery for trauma survivors., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Background: Meaningful reporting of quality metrics relies on detecting a statistical difference when a true difference in performance exists. Larger cohorts and longer time frames can produce higher rates of statistical differences. However, older data are less relevant when attempting to enact change in the clinical setting. The selection of time frames must reflect a balance between being too small (type II errors) and too long (stale data). We explored the use of power analysis to optimize time frame selection for trauma quality reporting., Methods: Using data from 22 Level III trauma centers, we tested for differences in 4 outcomes within 4 cohorts of patients. With bootstrapping, we calculated the power for rejecting the null hypothesis that no difference exists amongst the centers for different time frames. From the entire sample for each site, we simulated randomly generated datasets. Each simulated dataset was tested for whether a difference was observed from the average. Power was calculated as the percentage of simulated datasets where a difference was observed. This process was repeated for each outcome., Results: The power calculations for the 4 cohorts revealed that the optimal time frame for Level III trauma centers to assess whether a single site's outcomes are different from the overall average was 2 years based on an 80% cutoff., Conclusion: Power analysis with simulated datasets allows testing of different time frames to assess outcome differences. This type of analysis allows selection of an optimal time frame for benchmarking of Level III trauma center data., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Open long-bone fractures represent a complex injury within the trauma system. Guidelines recommend antibiotics be given within 60 minutes of patient arrival to the emergency department. We sought to measure and improve the timeliness of antibiotic administration at the patient, hospital, and population level within a collaborative quality initiative., Methods: Trauma collaborative quality initiative data (January 2017 to December 2020) were analyzed from 34 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verified level 1 and level 2 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (≥16 years), injury severity score ≥5, and open tibia or femur fracture. After the baseline year, hospitals were scored annually on a pay-for-performance metric based on patients receiving antibiotics within 120 minutes of emergency department arrival. Univariate tests examined the differences between baseline and subsequent year(s) performance. A multivariable logistic regression assessed the factors associated with meeting this target time., Results: There were 2,624 patients with an open long-bone fracture. In the baseline year (2017), 76.9% of patients received antibiotics in ≤120 minutes, with a mean time of 57.9 ± 63.3 minutes. After implementing collaborative quality initiative-wide targets, performance significantly improved in subsequent years (2018, 2019, 2020). The collaborative quality initiative achieved their goal of ≥85% of patients receiving antibiotics in ≤120 minutes in 2019 (87.9%) and 2020 (88.5%), with a mean time of 43.3 ± 54.8 minutes (P < .05 vs 2017)., Conclusion: A pay-for-performance process measure within a statewide trauma collaborative quality initiative improved the timely administration of antibiotics to patients with open fractures. Work remains to align compliance with the guideline target of <60 minutes and to identify factors involved in the delay of administration., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate and reliable data are pivotal to credible risk-adjusted modeling and hospital benchmarking. Evidence assessing the reliability and accuracy of data elements considered as variables in risk-adjustment modeling and measurement of outcomes is lacking. This deficiency holds the potential to compromise benchmarking integrity. We detail the findings of a longitudinal program to evaluate the impact of external data validation on data validity and reliability for variables utilized in benchmarking of trauma centers., Methods: A collaborative quality initiative-based study was conducted of 29 trauma centers from March 2010 through December 2018. Case selection criteria were applied to identify high-yield cases that were likely to challenge data abstractors. There were 127,238 total variables validated (i.e., reabstracted, compared, and reported to trauma centers). Study endpoints included data accuracy (agreement between registry data and contemporaneous documentation) and reliability (consistency of accuracy within and between hospitals). Data accuracy was assessed by mean error rate and type (under capture, inaccurate capture, or over capture). Cohen's kappa estimates were calculated to evaluate reliability., Results: There were 185,120 patients that met the collaborative inclusion criteria. There were 1,243 submissions reabstracted. The initial validation visit demonstrated the highest mean error rate at 6.2% ± 4.7%, and subsequent validation visits demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in error rate compared with the first visit (p < 0.05). The mean hospital error rate within the collaborative steadily improved over time (2010, 8.0%; 2018, 3.2%) compared with the first year (p < 0.05). Reliability of substantial or higher (kappa ≥0.61) was demonstrated in 90% of the 20 comorbid conditions considered in the benchmark risk-adjustment modeling, 39% of these variables exhibited a statistically significant (p < 0.05) interval decrease in error rate from the initial visit., Conclusion: Implementation of an external data validation program is correlated with increased data accuracy and reliability. Improved data reliability both within and between trauma centers improved risk-adjustment model validity and quality improvement program feedback.

Importance: The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) provides feedback to hospitals on risk-adjusted outcomes. The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program (MTQIP) goes beyond the provision of feedback alone, focusing on collaborative quality improvement. It is unknown whether the addition of a collaborative approach to benchmark reporting improves outcomes., Objective: To evaluate the association of hospital participation in the ACS TQIP (benchmark reporting) or the MTQIP (benchmark reporting and collaborative quality improvement) with outcomes compared with control hospitals that did not participate in either program., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2015 were used. A total of 2 373 130 trauma patients 16 years or older with an Injury Severity Score of 5 or more were identified from 98 ACS TQIP hospitals, 23 MTQIP hospitals, and 429 nonparticipating hospitals, based on program participation status in 2011. A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to evaluate whether hospital participation in the ACS TQIP or the MTQIP was associated with improved outcomes compared with nonparticipation in a quality improvement program., Exposures: Hospital participation in MTQIP, a quality improvement collaborative, compared with ACS TQIP participation and nonparticipating hospitals., Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality, mortality or hospice, major complications, and venous thromboembolism events were assessed., Results: Of the 2 373 130 included trauma patients, 64.2% were men and 73.0% were white, and the mean (SD) age was 50.7 (21.9) years. After accounting for patient factors and preexisting time trends toward improved outcomes, there was a statistically significant improvement in major complications after (vs before) hospital enrollment in the MTQIP collaborative compared with nonparticipating hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95) or ACS TQIP hospitals (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94). A similar result was observed for venous thromboembolism (MTQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; MTQIP vs ACS TQIP: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), for which MTQIP targeted specific performance improvement efforts. Hospital participation in both ACS TQIP and MTQIP was associated with improvement in mortality or hospice (ACS TQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93; MTQIP vs nonparticipating: OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). Hospitals participating in MTQIP achieved the lowest overall risk-adjusted mortality in the postenrollment period (4.2%; 95% CI, 4.1-4.3)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates that hospital participation in a regional collaborative quality improvement program is associated with improved patient outcomes beyond benchmark reporting alone while promoting compliance with processes of care.

Background: Patients who sustain blunt liver trauma and are treated at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma-verified Level I trauma center have an overall lower risk of mortality compared with patients admitted to a level II trauma center. However, elements contributing to these differences are unknown. We hypothesize that practice variation exists between trauma centers in management of blunt liver injury. Our objective is to identify practice variations and their effect on clinical outcomes., Methods: Data from a statewide collaborative quality initiative for trauma were used. The data set contains information from 29 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verified Levels I and II trauma centers from 2011 to 2016. Propensity score matching was used to create cohorts of patients treated at Levels I or II trauma centers. The 1:1 matched cohorts were used to compare in-hospital mortality, management strategy, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and failure to rescue., Results: Four hundred fifty-four patients with grade 3 or higher blunt liver injury were included. Patients treated at level II trauma centers had higher in-hospital mortality than those treated at Level I trauma centers (15.4% vs 8.8%, p = 0.03). Level II trauma centers used angiography less compared with Level I centers (p = 0.007) and admitted significantly fewer patients to the ICU (p = 0.002). The ICU status was associated with reduced mortality (7.2% vs 23.9%, p < 0.001). Despite a lower rate of overall complications, Level II trauma centers were more likely to fail in rescuing their patients (p = 0.045)., Conclusion: Admission with a high-grade liver injury to a Level II trauma center is associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Level II trauma centers were less likely to use angiography or admit high-grade liver injuries to the ICU. This variation in practice may lead to the inability to rescue critically ill patients. Future research should investigate contributors to underutilization of resources for patients with high-grade liver injuries., Level of Evidence: Care management, level IV.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in trauma patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is utilized in trauma patients to reduce their risk of a VTE event. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines recommend use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as the preferred agent in these patients. However, there is literature suggesting that unfractionated heparin (UFH) is an acceptable, and less costly, alternative VTE prophylaxis agent with equivalent efficacy in trauma patients. We examined data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program to perform a comparative effectiveness study of UFH versus LMWH on outcomes for trauma patients., Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program data from January 2012 to December 2014. The data set contains information on date, time, and drug type of the first dose of VTE prophylaxis. Thirty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-eight patients from 23 hospitals were present with an Injury Severity Score of 5 or greater and hospitalization for more than 24 hours. Patients were excluded if they died within 24 hours or received no pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis or agents other than UFH or LMWH while admitted to the hospital. We compared patients receiving LMWH to those receiving UFH. Outcomes assessed were VTE event, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality during hospitalization. We used a generalized estimating equation approach to fit population-averaged logistic regression models with the type of first dose of VTE prophylaxis as the independent variable. Unfractionated heparin was considered the reference value. Timing of the first dose of VTE prophylaxis was entered into the model in addition to standard covariates. Odds ratios were generated for each of the dependent variables of interest., Results: The analysis cohort consisted of 18,010 patients. Patients administered LMWH had a decreased risk of mortality (odds ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.49-0.83), VTE (odds ratio, 0.67; confidence interval, 0.53-0.84), pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval, 0.35-0.79), and deep vein thrombosis (odds ratio, 0.73; confidence interval, 0.57-0.95) when compared with UFH following risk adjustment and accounting for hospital effect. The reduced risk of a VTE event for patients receiving LMWH was most pronounced for patients in the lower injury-severity categories., Conclusions: In our examination of VTE prophylaxis drug effectiveness, LMWH was found to be superior to UFH in reducing the incidence of mortality and VTE events among trauma patients. Therefore, LMWH should be the preferred VTE prophylaxis agent for use in hospitalized trauma patients., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, level III.

Background: American College of Surgeons verified trauma centers and a third-party payer within the state of Michigan built a regional collaborative quality initiative (CQI). The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program began as a pilot in 2008 and expanded to a formal program in 2011. Here, we examine the performance of the collaborative over time with regard to patient outcomes, resource utilization, and process measures., Methods: Data from the initial 23 hospitals that joined the CQI in 2011 were analyzed. Performance trends from 2011 to 2015 were evaluated for outcomes, resource utilization, and process measures using univariate analysis. Risk-adjustment was performed to confirm results observed in the unadjusted data. To calculate the potential number of patients impacted by the CQI program, the maximum absolute change was multiplied by the number of trauma patients treated in the 23 hospitals during 2015., Results: Membership in a CQI program significantly reduced serious complications (8.5 vs. 7.3%, p = 0.002), decreased resource utilization, and improved process measure execution in trauma patients over 5 years time. Similar results were obtained in unadjusted and risk-adjusted analyses. The CQI program potentially avoided inferior vena cava filter placement in 167 patients annually. Decreased venous thromboembolism rates mirrored increased compliance with venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis., Conclusion: This study confirms our hypothesis that participation in a regional CQI improves patient outcomes and decreases resource utilization while promoting compliance with processes of care., Level of Evidence: Economic/therapeutic care, level V.

Trauma centers and a third-party payer within Michigan built a regional collaborative quality initiative. Hallmarks of the collaborative are standardized data collection, annual data validation visits, face-to-face collaborative meetings, and dedication to performance improvement. The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program has shown measurable improvement in patient outcomes, resource use, and compliance with processes of care., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program (MTQIP) is a collaborative quality initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network (BCBSM/BCN). The MTQIP benchmark reports identified our trauma center as a high outlier for venous thromboembolism (VTE) episodes. This study outlines the performance improvement (PI) process used to reduce the rate of VTE using MTQIP infrastructure., Study Design: Trauma patients admitted for > 24 hours, with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 5, were included in this study. We performed a preliminary analysis examining prophylaxis drug type to VTE, adjusted by patient confounders and timing of first dose, using MTQIP data abstracted for our hospital. It showed that patients receiving enoxaparin had a VTE rate that was half that of those receiving unfractionated heparin (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.85). Guided by these results, we produced the following plan: consolidation to single VTE prophylaxis agent and dose, focused education of providers, initiation of VTE prophylaxis for all patients-with clear exception rules-and dose withholding minimization. Results were monitored using the MTQIP platform., Results: After implementation of our focused PI plan, the VTE rate decreased from 6.2% (n = 36/year) to 2.6% (n = 14/year). Our trauma center returned to average performance status within MTQIP., Conclusions: Participation in MTQIP provided identification of trauma center outlier status for the outcome of VTE. Analysis of MTQIP data allowed creation of a local action plan. The MTQIP infrastructure supported execution and monitoring of the action plan consistent with loop-closure practices, as advocated by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, and a positive performance improvement result was achieved with VTE reduction., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although evidence suggests that quality improvement to reduce complications for trauma patients should decrease costs, studies have not addressed this question directly. In Michigan, trauma centers and a private payer have created a regional collaborative quality initiative (CQI). This CQI program began as a pilot in 2008 and expanded to a formal statewide program in 2010. We examined the relationship between outcomes and expenditures for trauma patients treated in collaborative participant and nonparticipant hospitals., Methods: Payer claims and collaborative registry data were analyzed for 30-day episode payments and serious complications in patients admitted with trauma diagnoses. Patients were categorized as treated in hospitals that had different CQI status: (1) never participated (Never-CQI); (2) collaborative participant, but patient treated before CQI initiation (Pre-CQI); or (3) active collaborative participant (Post-CQI). DRG International Classification of Diseases--9th Rev. codes were crosswalked to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 codes. Episode payment data were risk adjusted (age, sex, comorbidities, type/severity of injury, and year of treatment), and price was standardized. Outcome data were risk adjusted. A serious complication consisted of one or more of the following occurrences: acute lung injury/adult respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest with cardiopulmonary resuscitation, decubitus ulcer, deep vein thrombosis, enterocutaneous fistula, extremity compartment syndrome, mortality, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, severe sepsis, stroke/cerebral vascular accident, unplanned intubation, or unplanned return to operating room., Results: The risk-adjusted rate of serious complications declined from 14.9% to 9.1% (p < 0.001) in participating hospitals (Post-CQI, n = 26). Average episode payments decreased by $2,720 (from $36,043 to $33,323, p = 0.08) among patients treated in Post-CQI centers, whereas patients treated at Never-CQI institutions had a significant year-to-year increase in payments (from $23,547 to $28,446, p < 0.001). A savings of $6.5 million in total episode payments from 2010 to 2011 was achieved for payer-covered Post-CQI treated patients., Conclusion: This study confirms our hypothesis that participation in a regional CQI program improves outcomes and reduces costs for trauma patients. Support of a regional CQI for trauma represents an effective investment to achieve health care value., Level of Evidence: Economic/value-based evaluation, level III.

Background: Major postoperative complications are associated with a substantial increase in hospital costs. Trauma patients are known to have a higher rate of complications than the general surgery population. We used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) methodology to evaluate hospital costs, duration of stay, and payment associated with complications in trauma patients., Methods: Using NSQIP principles, patient data were collected for 512 adult patients admitted to the trauma service for > 24 hours at a Level 1 trauma center (2004-2005). Patients were placed in 1 of 3 groups: no complications (none), >or=1 minor complication (minor, eg, urinary tract infection), or >or=1 major complication (major, eg, pneumonia). Total hospital charges, costs, payment, and duration of stay associated with each complication group were determined from a cost-accounting database. Multiple regression was used to determine the costs of each type of complication after adjusting for differences in age, sex, new injury severity score, Glasgow coma scale score, maximum head abbreviated injury scale, and first emergency department systolic blood pressure., Results: A total of 330 (64%) patients had no complications, 53 (10%) had >or= 1 minor complication, and 129 (25%) had >or= 1 major complication. Median hospital charges increased from $33,833 (none) to $81,936 (minor) and $150,885 (major). The mean contribution to margin per day was similar for the no complication and minor complication groups ($994 vs $1,115, P = .7). Despite higher costs, the patients in the major complication group generated a higher mean contribution to margin per day compared to the no complication group ($2,168, P < .001). The attributable increase in median total hospital costs when adjusted for confounding variables was $19,915 for the minor complication group (P < .001), and $40,555 for the major complication group (P < .001)., Conclusion: Understanding the costs associated with traumatic injury provides a window for assessing the potential cost reductions associated with improved quality care. To optimize system benefits, payers and providers should develop integrated reimbursement methodologies that align incentives to provide quality care.

Background: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has reduced complications for surgery patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma maintains the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) to track injured patient comorbidities, complications, and mortality. We sought to apply the NSQIP methodology to collect comorbidity and outcome data for trauma patients. Data were compared to the NTDB to determine the benefit and validity of using the NSQIP methodology for trauma., Study Design: Utilizing the NSQIP methodology, data were collected from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005 on all adult patients admitted to the trauma service at a level 1 trauma center. NSQIP data were collected for general surgery patients during the same time period from the same institution. Data were also extracted from v5.0 of the NTDB for patients >or=18 years old admitted to level 1 trauma centers. Comparisons between University of Michigan (UM) NSQIP Trauma and UM NSQIP General Surgery patients and between UM NSQIP Trauma and NTDB (2004) patients were performed using univariate and multivariate analysis., Results: Before risk adjustment, there was a difference in mortality between the UM NSQIP Trauma and NTDB (2004) groups with univariate analysis (8.4% vs 5.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.9; P = .01). This survival advantage reversed to favor the UM NSQIP Trauma patient group when risk adjustment was performed (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4; P < .001). The UM NSQIP Trauma group had more complications than the UM NSQIP general surgery patients. Despite having a lower risk-adjusted rate of mortality, the UM NSQIP Trauma patients had significantly higher rates of complications (wound infection, wound disruption, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, deep vein thrombosis, and sepsis) than the NTDB (2004) patients in both univariate and multivariate analyses., Conclusion: Complications occurred more frequently in trauma patients than general surgery patients. The UM NSQIP Trauma patients had higher rates of complications than reported in the NTDB. The NTDB data potentially underreport important comorbidity and outcome data. Application of the NSQIP methodology to trauma may present an improved means of effectively tracking and reducing adverse outcomes in a risk-adjusted manner.