International comparison of injury care structures, processes, and outcomes between integrated trauma systems in Québec, Canada, and Victoria, Australia

Background: Quality improvement activities in trauma systems are widely based on comparisons between trauma centers within the same system. Comparisons across different trauma systems may reveal further opportunities for quality improvement. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the integrated trauma systems in Québec, Canada and in Victoria, Australia, regarding their structures, care processes and patient outcomes. Methodology: The elements recommended by the American College of Surgeons were used to compare trauma systems structures. Comparisons of care processes and patient outcomes were based on data from major trauma admissions extracted from trauma registries (2013 and 2017). Care processes included time to reach a definitive care facility, time spent in the emergency department, and time lapsed before the first head computed tomography (CT) scan. These care processes were compared using a z-test of log-transformed times. Hospital mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared using indirect standardization based on multiple logistic and linear regression. Results: Major differences in trauma system structure were Advanced Trauma Life Support at the scene of injury (Victoria), the use of validated prehospital triage tools (Québec), and mandatory accreditation of all trauma centers (Québec). Patients in Québec arrived at their definitive care hospital earlier than their counterparts in Victoria (median: 1.93 vs. 2.13 h, p = 0.002), but spent longer in the emergency department (median: 8.23 vs. 5.15 h, p<0.0001) and waited longer before having their first head CT (median: 1.90 vs. 1.52 h, p<0.0001). In-hospital mortality and hospital LOS were higher in Québec than in Victoria (standardized mortality ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.20; standardized LOS ratio: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.11). Conclusion: We observed important differences in the structural components and care processes in Québec and Victoria's trauma systems, which might explain some of the observed differences in patient outcomes. This study shows the potential value of international comparisons in trauma care and identifies possible opportunities for quality improvement.