Maggio Paul M, Brundage Susan I, Hernandez-Boussard Tina, Spain David A
Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
J Trauma. 2009 Jul;67(1):190-4; discussion 194-5. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a51b2f.
After an unsuccessful American College of Surgery Committee on Trauma visit, our level I trauma center initiated an improvement program that included (1) hiring new personnel (trauma director and surgeons, nurse coordinator, orthopedic trauma surgeon, and registry staff), (2) correcting deficiencies in trauma quality assurance and process improvement programs, and (3) development of an outreach program. Subsequently, our trauma center had two successful verifications. We examined the longitudinal effects of these efforts on volume, patient outcomes and finances.
The Trauma Registry was used to derive data for all trauma patients evaluated in the emergency department from 2001 to 2007. Clinical data analyzed included number of admissions, interfacility transfers, injury severity scores (ISS), length of stay, and mortality for 2001 to 2007. Financial performance was assessed for fiscal years 2001 to 2007. Data were divided into patients discharged from the emergency department and those admitted to the hospital.
Admissions increased 30%, representing a 7.6% annual increase (p = 0.004), mostly due to a nearly fivefold increase in interfacility transfers. Severe trauma patients (ISS >24) increased 106% and mortality rate for ISS >24 decreased by 47% to almost half the average of the National Trauma Database. There was a 78% increase in revenue and a sustained increase in hospital profitability.
A major hospital commitment to Committee on Trauma verification had several salient outcomes; increased admissions, interfacility transfers, and acuity. Despite more seriously injured patients, there has been a major, sustained reduction in mortality and a trend toward decreased intensive care unit length of stay. This resulted in a substantial increase in contribution to margin (CTM), net profit, and revenues. With a high level of commitment and favorable payer mix, trauma center verification improves outcomes for both patients and the hospital.
在美国外科医师学会创伤委员会的访问未成功之后,我们的一级创伤中心启动了一项改进计划,该计划包括:(1)招聘新员工(创伤主任和外科医生、护士协调员、创伤骨科医生和登记人员);(2)纠正创伤质量保证和流程改进计划中的缺陷;(3)制定一项外展计划。随后,我们的创伤中心成功通过了两次核查。我们研究了这些举措对工作量、患者结局和财务状况的长期影响。
利用创伤登记系统获取2001年至2007年在急诊科接受评估的所有创伤患者的数据。分析的临床数据包括2001年至2007年的入院人数、机构间转运次数、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、住院时间和死亡率。评估了2001年至2007财年的财务绩效。数据分为从急诊科出院的患者和入院的患者。
入院人数增加了30%,年增长率为7.6%(p = 0.004),主要原因是机构间转运次数增加了近五倍。严重创伤患者(ISS>24)增加了106%,ISS>24的死亡率下降了47%,几乎降至国家创伤数据库平均水平的一半。收入增长了78%,医院盈利能力持续提高。
医院对创伤委员会核查的重大投入产生了几个显著成果;入院人数、机构间转运次数和病情严重程度增加。尽管患者受伤更严重,但死亡率大幅持续下降,重症监护病房住院时间有缩短趋势。这导致边际贡献(CTM)、净利润和收入大幅增加。凭借高度的投入和有利的支付方组合,创伤中心核查改善了患者和医院的结局。