Process Mapping of a Regional Trauma System

Author(s):  
David C. Evans ◽  
Douglas L. Andrusiek ◽  
Boris Sobolev
Prosperitas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Marinko Maslaric ◽  
Vojin Petrovic ◽  
Gabriel Fedorko ◽  
Svetlana Nikolicic ◽  
Dejan Mircetic
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russ S. Kotwal ◽  
Frank K. Butler ◽  
Erin P. Edgar ◽  
Stacy A. Shackelford ◽  
Donald R. Bennett ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falco Hietbrink ◽  
Roderick M. Houwert ◽  
Karlijn J. P. van Wessem ◽  
Rogier K. J. Simmermacher ◽  
Geertje A. M. Govaert ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction In 1999 an inclusive trauma system was initiated in the Netherlands and a nationwide trauma registry, including all admitted trauma patients to every hospital, was started. The Dutch trauma system is run by trauma surgeons who treat both the truncal (visceral) and extremity injuries (fractures). Materials and Methods In this comprehensive review based on previous published studies, data over the past 20 years from the central region of the Netherlands (Utrecht) was evaluated. Results It is demonstrated that the initiation of the trauma systems and the governance by the trauma surgeons led to a region-wide mortality reduction of 50% and a mortality reduction for the most severely injured of 75% in the level 1 trauma centre. Furthermore, major improvements were found in terms of efficiency, demonstrating the quality of the current system and its constructs such as the type of surgeon. Due to the major reduction in mortality over the past few years, the emphasis of trauma care evaluation shifts towards functional outcome of severely injured patients. For the upcoming years, centralisation of severely injured patients should also aim at the balance between skills in primary resuscitation and surgical stabilization versus longitudinal surgical involvement. Conclusion Further centralisation to a limited number of level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands is necessary to consolidate experience and knowledge for the trauma surgeon. The future trauma surgeon, as specialist for injured patients, should be able to provide the vast majority of trauma care in this system. For the remaining part, intramural, regional and national collaboration is essential


2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 1340-1348
Author(s):  
Maryam Meshkinfamfard ◽  
Jon Kristian Narvestad ◽  
Johannes Wiik Larsen ◽  
Arezo Kanani ◽  
Jørgen Vennesland ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Resuscitative emergency thoracotomy is a potential life-saving procedure but is rarely performed outside of busy trauma centers. Yet the intervention cannot be deferred nor centralized for critically injured patients presenting in extremis. Low-volume experience may be mitigated by structured training. The aim of this study was to describe concurrent development of training and simulation in a trauma system and associated effect on one time-critical emergency procedure on patient outcome. Methods An observational cohort study split into 3 arbitrary time-phases of trauma system development referred to as ‘early’, ‘developing’ and ‘mature’ time-periods. Core characteristics of the system is described for each phase and concurrent outcomes for all consecutive emergency thoracotomies described with focus on patient characteristics and outcome analyzed for trends in time. Results Over the study period, a total of 36 emergency thoracotomies were performed, of which 5 survived (13.9%). The “early” phase had no survivors (0/10), with 2 of 13 (15%) and 3 of 13 (23%) surviving in the development and mature phase, respectively. A decline in ‘elderly’ (>55 years) patients who had emergency thoracotomy occurred with each time period (from 50%, 31% to 7.7%, respectively). The gender distribution and the injury severity scores on admission remained unchanged, while the rate of patients with signs on life (SOL) increased over time. Conclusion The improvement over time in survival for one time-critical emergency procedure may be attributed to structured implementation of team and procedure training. The findings may be transferred to other low-volume regions for improved trauma care.


Transfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy A. Shackelford ◽  
Jennifer M. Gurney ◽  
Audra L. Taylor ◽  
Sean Keenan ◽  
Jason B. Corley ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Suzan Dijkink ◽  
Erik W. van Zwet ◽  
Pieta Krijnen ◽  
Luke P. H. Leenen ◽  
Frank W. Bloemers ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008–2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63–74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047439
Author(s):  
Rayan Jafnan Alharbi ◽  
Virginia Lewis ◽  
Sumina Shrestha ◽  
Charne Miller

IntroductionThe introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally.Methods and analysisThe proposed review will comply with the checklist of the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis’. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019142842.


Author(s):  
Paola Fugazzola ◽  
Vanni Agnoletti ◽  
Silvia Bertoni ◽  
Costanza Martino ◽  
Matteo Tomasoni ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1855.2-1855
Author(s):  
M. Stevens ◽  
N. Proudlove ◽  
J. Ball ◽  
C. Scott

Background:Pathology test turnaround times (TATs) are a limiting factor in patient flow through rheumatology services. Quality improvement (QI) methodologies such as Lean use tools including statistical process control (SPC) and process mapping to study the performance of the whole of a clinical pipeline, expose unnecessary complexity (non-value-adding activity), and streamline processes and staff roles.Objectives:Understand effects of changes made to CTD testing algorithm over last 12 years by measuring some of the effects on TATs. Model current processes and suggest changes to workflow to improve TAT.Methods:High-level flow diagrams of the current testing algorithm, and low-level process maps of analyser and staff processes were drawn.Activity and TATs (working days between report and booking date) for ANA, ENA, DNA and CCP tests were plotted as XmR control charts.Results:Finding 1: Largest referral laboratory does not currently operate a separate DNA monitoring workstream, resulting in unnecessary ANA and ENA testing (figure 1).Figure 1.Current testing strategy (left) and suggested improvement (right)Finding 2:Samples are handed off between 3 different lab benches, each of which may be staffed by a different staff member on a different day, and results processing involves handoff to a further 2 different staff members.Finding 3:ANA demand is close to capacity, ENA demand exceeds current capacity (table 1).Table 1.Demand for ANA, ENA and DNA tests, compared to capacityTestMedian Demand(tests/ day)Approx. Capacity(tests/ day)NotesANA74100Close to 80% recommended by the ILGsENA3836*Less capacity than demand!!DNA34100PlentyFinding 4:Stopping screening DNA requests on ANA result increased the number of DNA tests performed by about 10 samples per day (30%), but decreased turnaround time by a similar proportion (3.3 to 2.3 days, figure 2). It also reduced turnaround times of ANA and ENA tests.Figure 2.Control chart of average TAT of dsDNA antibodies by request dateConclusion:Typically for a QI project, the initially simple CTD testing pipeline has accumulated many changes made without consideration of whole system performance, and is now a struggle to run.Improvement ideas to be explored from this work include:Liaising with main referral lab to develop a DNA monitoring workstream to reduce unnecessary ANA and ENA testingReduce handoffs, sample journey around lab analysers, and staff hands-on time by:changing ANA test methodology to same as DNAcreating new staff roles (analyser operators to perform validation/ authorisation steps)Create more capacity for ENA testing by increasing the frequency of this test on the weekly rotaCreate more capacity for service expansion by running analysers at weekends (staff consultation required)Reduce demand on service by engaging and educating requestorsImprove TAT for DNA by:processing samples the day they are booked in, instead of 1 day laterauto-validating runs…using control charts to measure improvementDisclosure of Interests:None declared


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document