Suppr超能文献

创伤中心绩效排名:基本要素

Ranking of trauma center performance: the bare essentials.

作者信息

Nathens Avery B, Xiong Wei, Shafi Shahid

机构信息

St. Michael's Hospital, Division of Trauma and the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

J Trauma. 2008 Sep;65(3):628-35. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181837994.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of trauma center performance has been limited to comparisons of observed versus expected mortality using trauma and injury severity score methodology. Few studies have focused on identifying top performers. In part, this is due to the perceived need for extensive data required to adequately risk adjust. We set out to identify the patient and injury-related factors that most affect case-mix across centers and thus are most likely to alter assessments of hospital performance.

METHODS

One hundred ninety trauma centers contributing data to the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) during 2004 to 2005 were used for hospital rankings (n = 169,929 patients). Trauma centers were ranked by crude mortality. We then added variables [injury severity score {ISS}, systolic blood pressure {SBP}, mechanism, age, gender, comorbidities, body region abbreviated injury scale {AIS}] singly to a risk-adjustment model to obtain adjusted probability of death. Trauma centers were then ranked again. The variable that affected rankings the greatest was kept and the process was repeated in an iterative fashion until the incremental change in ranks was minimal.

RESULTS

ISS accounted for the most variation in mortality rates across trauma centers, shown by the large rank change with addition of ISS to the model. Specifically, when ISS was taken into consideration, 92% of trauma centers changed their rank by >/=3 and almost half their quartile rank by at least 1. In lesser order of importance, age, SBP, head AIS, mechanism, gender, and abdominal AIS were relevant to adjust for case mix.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma center rankings are affected by few parameters, reflecting their relationship to mortality and their relative frequencies. Complex risk adjustment methodology is not required to address differences in case mix. Data abstraction for the purpose of comparing trauma center performance should focus on ensuring that at minimum, these variables are collected with a high degree of accuracy.

摘要

背景

创伤中心绩效评估一直局限于使用创伤和损伤严重程度评分方法比较观察到的死亡率与预期死亡率。很少有研究专注于识别表现最佳的机构。部分原因在于人们认为需要大量数据来进行充分的风险调整。我们着手确定对各中心病例组合影响最大的患者和损伤相关因素,因此这些因素最有可能改变对医院绩效的评估。

方法

2004年至2005年期间向国家创伤数据库(NTDB)提供数据的190个创伤中心用于医院排名(n = 169,929例患者)。创伤中心按粗死亡率排名。然后我们将变量[损伤严重程度评分{ISS}、收缩压{SBP}、致伤机制、年龄、性别、合并症、身体区域简明损伤定级{AIS}]逐个添加到风险调整模型中以获得调整后的死亡概率。然后再次对创伤中心进行排名。对排名影响最大的变量被保留,然后以迭代方式重复该过程,直到排名的增量变化最小。

结果

ISS在各创伤中心死亡率变化中占比最大,这通过将ISS添加到模型中时排名的大幅变化得以体现。具体而言,当考虑ISS时,92%的创伤中心排名变化≥3,且几乎一半的四分位排名至少变化1。按重要性降序排列,年龄、SBP、头部AIS、致伤机制、性别和腹部AIS与病例组合调整相关。

结论

创伤中心排名受少数参数影响,反映了它们与死亡率的关系及其相对频率。不需要复杂的风险调整方法来解决病例组合的差异。为比较创伤中心绩效而进行的数据提取应专注于确保至少以高度准确性收集这些变量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验