Lewis Paul R, Badiee Jayraan, Sise Michael J, Calvo Richard Y, Brill Jason B, Wallace James D, Shackford Steven R, Dunne Casey E, Bansal Vishal, Sise C Beth
From the Trauma Service, Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Feb;82(2):334-337. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001279.
The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma devised process audit filters to identify opportunities for improvement (OFI), prevent adverse outcomes, and improve quality. Delay to the operating room for primary trauma laparotomy is a process audit filter that has not been definitively associated with improved outcomes. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of delay to the operating room of greater than 2 hours (DOR) to independently identify an adverse outcome or an OFI at our Level I trauma center.
Trauma patients who underwent primary exploratory laparotomy from July 2006 to March 2015 were reviewed. Those with DOR were identified and compared with those without DOR. To analyze the ability of DOR to independently identify an adverse outcome or an OFI, DOR patients were further divided into those with isolated DOR and those with DOR in conjunction with one or more other process audit filter. Primary outcome was the presence of a complication. Secondary outcome was an identified OFI. Medical records of patients with either outcome were reviewed to determine if the outcome resulted directly from DOR.
Of 472 patients, 109 (23%) had DOR and 363 (77%) did not. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or injury severity between the two groups. The rates of complications among DOR patients and those without DOR were not significantly different (35% vs. 38%, p = 0.59). The DOR was the only process audit filter flagged in 31(28%) patients in the DOR group. This subgroup had no identified complications but incurred two OFIs; neither OFI was associated with an adverse outcome.
In trauma patients undergoing primary exploratory laparotomy, DOR fails to independently identify adverse outcomes. These findings suggest that DOR, as a routinely collected process audit filter, is not an effective indicator of suboptimal care or adverse outcomes at a Level I trauma center.
Therapeutic study, level IV; prognostic study, level III.
美国外科医师学会创伤委员会设计了流程审核筛选指标,以识别改进机会(OFI)、预防不良后果并提高质量。初次创伤性剖腹手术的手术室延迟是一项流程审核筛选指标,尚未明确与改善结局相关。我们试图评估在我们的一级创伤中心,超过2小时的手术室延迟(DOR)能否独立识别不良后果或改进机会。
回顾2006年7月至2015年3月期间接受初次剖腹探查术的创伤患者。识别出有DOR的患者,并与无DOR的患者进行比较。为了分析DOR独立识别不良后果或改进机会的能力,将有DOR的患者进一步分为单纯DOR患者和合并一项或多项其他流程审核筛选指标的DOR患者。主要结局是并发症的存在。次要结局是识别出的改进机会。对出现任一结局的患者病历进行审查,以确定结局是否直接由DOR导致。
472例患者中,109例(23%)有DOR,363例(77%)无DOR。两组在年龄、性别或损伤严重程度方面无显著差异。有DOR的患者与无DOR的患者的并发症发生率无显著差异(35%对38%,p = 0.59)。DOR是DOR组中31例(28%)患者唯一标记的流程审核筛选指标。该亚组未发现并发症,但出现了两项改进机会;两项改进机会均与不良后果无关。
在接受初次剖腹探查术的创伤患者中,DOR未能独立识别不良后果。这些发现表明,作为常规收集的流程审核筛选指标,DOR在一级创伤中心并非次优护理或不良后果的有效指标。
治疗性研究,IV级;预后性研究,III级。