Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles)2Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, UCLA3Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles)2Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, UCLA.
JAMA Surg. 2015 Oct;150(10):965-72. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1678.
Compliance with evidence-based guidelines in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been proposed as a marker of hospital quality. However, the association between hospital-level compliance rates and risk-adjusted clinical outcomes for patients with TBI remains poorly understood.
To examine whether hospital-level compliance with the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy is associated with risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients with severe TBI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients (N = 734) who presented to a regional consortium of 14 hospitals from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010, with severe TBI (ie, blunt head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale score of <9, and abnormal intracranial findings from computed tomography of the head). Data analysis took place from December 2013 through January 2015. We used hierarchical mixed-effects models to assess the association between hospital-level compliance with Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines and mortality rates after adjusting for patient-level demographics, severity of trauma (eg, mechanism of injury and Injury Severity Score), and TBI-specific variables (eg, cranial nerve reflexes and findings from computed tomography of the head).
Hospital-level risk-adjusted inpatient mortality rate and hospital-level compliance with Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy.
Unadjusted mortality rates varied by site from 20.0% to 50.0% (median, 42.6; interquartile range, 35.5-46.2); risk-adjusted rates varied from 24.3% to 56.7% (median, 41.1; interquartile range, 36.4-47.8). Overall, only 338 of 734 patients (46.1%) with an appropriate indication underwent placement of an intracranial pressure monitor and only 134 of 335 (45.6%) underwent craniotomy. Hospital-level compliance ranged from 9.6% to 65.2% for intracranial pressure monitoring and 6.7% to 76.2% for craniotomy. Despite widespread variation in compliance across hospitals, we found no association between hospital-level compliance rates and risk-adjusted patient outcomes (Spearman ρ = 0.030 [P = .92] for ICP monitoring and Spearman ρ = -0.066 [P = .83] for craniotomy).
Hospital-level compliance with evidence-based guidelines has minimal association with risk-adjusted outcomes in patients with severe TBI. Our results suggest that caution should be taken before using compliance with these measures as independent quality metrics. Given the complexity of TBI care, outcomes-based metrics, including functional recovery, may be more accurate than current process measures at determining hospital quality.
在创伤性脑损伤(TBI)中遵循基于证据的指南已被提出作为医院质量的标志。然而,TBI 患者的医院级别遵医嘱率与风险调整后的临床结局之间的关联仍知之甚少。
研究颅内压监测和开颅术的颅脑外伤基金会指南的医院级别遵医嘱率是否与严重 TBI 患者的风险调整死亡率相关。
设计、地点和参与者:2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2010 年 12 月 31 日,所有在 14 家区域性联盟医院就诊的成人(N=734)患者均患有严重 TBI(即,钝性头部创伤、格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分<9 分,头部 CT 显示异常颅内情况)。数据分析于 2013 年 12 月至 2015 年 1 月进行。我们使用分层混合效应模型来评估颅脑外伤基金会指南的医院级别遵医嘱率与死亡率之间的关联,同时调整了患者水平的人口统计学、创伤严重程度(例如,损伤机制和损伤严重程度评分)和 TBI 特异性变量(例如,颅神经反射和头部 CT 结果)。
医院级别风险调整住院死亡率和医院级别对颅脑外伤基金会颅内压监测和开颅术指南的遵医嘱率。
未经调整的死亡率因地点而异,范围为 20.0%至 50.0%(中位数,42.6;四分位距,35.5-46.2);风险调整后的死亡率范围为 24.3%至 56.7%(中位数,41.1;四分位距,36.4-47.8)。总体而言,只有 734 名符合适应证的患者中有 338 名(46.1%)接受了颅内压监测器的放置,仅有 335 名(45.6%)接受了开颅术。医院级别对颅内压监测的遵医嘱率为 9.6%至 65.2%,对开颅术的遵医嘱率为 6.7%至 76.2%。尽管医院之间的遵医嘱率存在广泛差异,但我们没有发现医院级别遵医嘱率与风险调整后的患者结局之间存在关联(Spearman ρ=0.030[P=0.92] 用于 ICP 监测,Spearman ρ=-0.066[P=0.83] 用于开颅术)。
在严重 TBI 患者中,医院级别对基于证据的指南的遵医嘱率与风险调整后的结局之间关联很小。我们的结果表明,在将这些措施的遵医嘱率用作独立的质量指标之前,应谨慎行事。鉴于 TBI 护理的复杂性,基于结果的指标(包括功能恢复)可能比当前的过程指标更能准确确定医院的质量。