Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1–4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study

BACKGROUND: In the following manuscript, we describe the detailed protocol for a mixed-methods, observational case study conducted to identify and evaluate existing data-related processes and challenges currently faced by trauma centers in a rural state. The data will be utilized to assess the impact of these challenges on registry data collection. METHODS: The study relies on a series of interviews and observations to collect data from trauma registry staff at level 1–4 trauma centers across the state of Arkansas. A think-aloud protocol will be used to facilitate observations as a means to gather keystroke-level modeling data and insight into site processes and workflows for collecting and submitting data to the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Informal, semi-structured interviews will follow the observation period to assess the participant’s perspective on current processes, potential barriers to data collection or submission to the registry, and recommendations for improvement. Each session will be recorded and de-identified transcripts and session notes will be used for analysis. Keystroke level modeling data derived from observations will be extracted and analyzed quantitatively to determine time spent performing end-to-end registry-related activities. Qualitative data from interviews will be reviewed and coded by 2 independent reviewers following a thematic analysis methodology. Each set of codes will then be adjudicated by the reviewers using a consensus-driven approach to extrapolate the final set of themes. DISCUSSION: We will utilize a mixed methods approach to understand existing processes and barriers to data collection for the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Anticipated results will provide a baseline measure of the data collection and submission processes at various trauma centers across the state. We aim to assess strengths and limitations of existing processes and identify existing barriers to interoperability. These results will provide first-hand knowledge on existing practices for the trauma registry use case and will provide quantifiable data that can be utilized in future research to measure outcomes of future process improvement efforts. The potential implications of this study can form the basis for identifying potential solutions for streamlining data collection, exchange, and utilization of trauma registry data for clinical practice, public health, and clinical and translational research.