Preventable trauma deaths: evaluation by peer review and a guide for quality improvement. Emergency Medical Study Group for Quality.

K Takayanagi, K Koseki, T Aruga
{"title":"Preventable trauma deaths: evaluation by peer review and a guide for quality improvement. Emergency Medical Study Group for Quality.","authors":"K Takayanagi,&nbsp;K Koseki,&nbsp;T Aruga","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The trauma-injury severity-score (TRISS) methodology was developed in the United States to calculate the probability of survival for trauma patients presenting for emergency care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed the utility of using the TRISS methodology to identify preventable trauma deaths and compared the results to peer review using explicit standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Explicit peer review standards were developed by a focus group. The validity of these standards was evaluated by comparing the results of peer review performed by two independent expert panels. All trauma cases admitted to 10 centers in Japan between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 1996, were evaluated using the TRISS methodology. Cases with an expected probability of survival of more than 0.5 were considered preventable. These cases were subjected to peer review. Patients who were dead on arrival were excluded from analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3,125 patients who were not dead on arrival, the TRISS methodology identified 2,525 as having a probability of survival greater than 0.5. In this group, 189 patients died; thus, 25.3% of all deaths were considered preventable by the TRISS method. Peer review found that only 11.2% of the deaths were preventable; thus, only 46.6% of preventable deaths identified by TRISS were confirmed by peer review. Agreement between the two expert peer review panels was very good (kappa = 0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TRISS can be used as a screening tool to identify potentially preventable trauma deaths. Peer review is appropriate to confirm preventability and to identify potential medical errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":79831,"journal":{"name":"Clinical performance and quality health care","volume":"6 4","pages":"163-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical performance and quality health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The trauma-injury severity-score (TRISS) methodology was developed in the United States to calculate the probability of survival for trauma patients presenting for emergency care.

Objective: We assessed the utility of using the TRISS methodology to identify preventable trauma deaths and compared the results to peer review using explicit standards.

Methods: Explicit peer review standards were developed by a focus group. The validity of these standards was evaluated by comparing the results of peer review performed by two independent expert panels. All trauma cases admitted to 10 centers in Japan between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 1996, were evaluated using the TRISS methodology. Cases with an expected probability of survival of more than 0.5 were considered preventable. These cases were subjected to peer review. Patients who were dead on arrival were excluded from analysis.

Results: Of 3,125 patients who were not dead on arrival, the TRISS methodology identified 2,525 as having a probability of survival greater than 0.5. In this group, 189 patients died; thus, 25.3% of all deaths were considered preventable by the TRISS method. Peer review found that only 11.2% of the deaths were preventable; thus, only 46.6% of preventable deaths identified by TRISS were confirmed by peer review. Agreement between the two expert peer review panels was very good (kappa = 0.62).

Conclusion: TRISS can be used as a screening tool to identify potentially preventable trauma deaths. Peer review is appropriate to confirm preventability and to identify potential medical errors.

可预防的创伤死亡:同行审查评价和质量改进指南。急诊医学质量研究小组。
背景:创伤-损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)方法是在美国开发的,用于计算急诊创伤患者的生存概率。目的:我们评估了使用TRISS方法识别可预防的创伤死亡的效用,并将结果与使用明确标准的同行评议结果进行了比较。方法:通过焦点小组制定明确的同行评议标准。这些标准的有效性是通过比较由两个独立专家小组进行的同行评审的结果来评估的。采用TRISS方法对1994年4月1日至1996年3月31日期间日本10个中心收治的所有创伤病例进行评估。预期生存概率大于0.5的病例被认为是可预防的。这些案例都经过同行评议。到达时死亡的患者被排除在分析之外。结果:在3125名到达时未死亡的患者中,TRISS方法确定2525名患者的生存概率大于0.5。在这一组中,189名患者死亡;因此,25.3%的死亡被认为可以通过TRISS方法预防。同行评议发现,只有11.2%的死亡是可以预防的;因此,在TRISS确定的可预防死亡中,只有46.6%得到同行评议的确认。两个专家同行评议小组的一致性非常好(kappa = 0.62)。结论:TRISS可作为识别可预防的创伤性死亡的筛查工具。同行评议对于确认可预防性和识别潜在的医疗差错是适当的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信