Cargando…

Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

BACKGROUND: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. METHODS: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Ne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaubey, Vikas P, Roberts, Derek J, Ferri, Mauricio B, Bobrovitz, Niklas H, Stelfox, Henry T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-112
_version_ 1782356111261696000
author Chaubey, Vikas P
Roberts, Derek J
Ferri, Mauricio B
Bobrovitz, Niklas H
Stelfox, Henry T
author_facet Chaubey, Vikas P
Roberts, Derek J
Ferri, Mauricio B
Bobrovitz, Niklas H
Stelfox, Henry T
author_sort Chaubey, Vikas P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. METHODS: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or –affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared. RESULTS: All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of timeliness of care (23% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Non-teaching centres were more likely to use indicators whose content evaluated triage and patient flow (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of efficiency of care (25% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). While over 80% of teaching centres used time to laparotomy, pulmonary complications, in hospital mortality, and appropriate admission physician/service as quality indicators, only two of these (in hospital mortality and appropriate admission physician/service) were used by over half of non-teaching trauma centres. The majority of centres reported using morbidity and mortality conferences (96% vs. 97%, p = 0.61) and quality of care audits (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.08) while approximately half used report cards (51% vs. 43%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4320430
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43204302015-02-08 Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Chaubey, Vikas P Roberts, Derek J Ferri, Mauricio B Bobrovitz, Niklas H Stelfox, Henry T BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. METHODS: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or –affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared. RESULTS: All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of timeliness of care (23% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Non-teaching centres were more likely to use indicators whose content evaluated triage and patient flow (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of efficiency of care (25% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). While over 80% of teaching centres used time to laparotomy, pulmonary complications, in hospital mortality, and appropriate admission physician/service as quality indicators, only two of these (in hospital mortality and appropriate admission physician/service) were used by over half of non-teaching trauma centres. The majority of centres reported using morbidity and mortality conferences (96% vs. 97%, p = 0.61) and quality of care audits (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.08) while approximately half used report cards (51% vs. 43%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres. BioMed Central 2014-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4320430/ /pubmed/25533153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-112 Text en © Chaubey et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chaubey, Vikas P
Roberts, Derek J
Ferri, Mauricio B
Bobrovitz, Niklas H
Stelfox, Henry T
Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title_full Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title_fullStr Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title_full_unstemmed Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title_short Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
title_sort quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the united states, canada, australia, and new zealand
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-112
work_keys_str_mv AT chaubeyvikasp qualityimprovementpracticesusedbyteachingversusnonteachingtraumacentresanalysisofamultinationalsurveyofadulttraumacentresintheunitedstatescanadaaustraliaandnewzealand
AT robertsderekj qualityimprovementpracticesusedbyteachingversusnonteachingtraumacentresanalysisofamultinationalsurveyofadulttraumacentresintheunitedstatescanadaaustraliaandnewzealand
AT ferrimauriciob qualityimprovementpracticesusedbyteachingversusnonteachingtraumacentresanalysisofamultinationalsurveyofadulttraumacentresintheunitedstatescanadaaustraliaandnewzealand
AT bobrovitzniklash qualityimprovementpracticesusedbyteachingversusnonteachingtraumacentresanalysisofamultinationalsurveyofadulttraumacentresintheunitedstatescanadaaustraliaandnewzealand
AT stelfoxhenryt qualityimprovementpracticesusedbyteachingversusnonteachingtraumacentresanalysisofamultinationalsurveyofadulttraumacentresintheunitedstatescanadaaustraliaandnewzealand