Trauma registry methodology: a survey of trauma registry custodians to determine current approaches

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The global burden of injury is enormous, especially in developing countries. Trauma systems in highincome countries have reduced mortality and disability. An important component of trauma quality improvement programmes is the trauma registry which monitors the epidemiology, processes and outcomes of trauma care. There is a severe deficit of trauma registries in developing countries and there are few resources to support the development of trauma registries. Specifically, publicly available information of trauma registry methodology in developed trauma registries is sparse. The aim of this study was to describe and compare trauma registries globally. Methods: A survey of trauma registry custodians was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select trauma registries following a structured review of the literature. Registries for which there were at least two included abstracts over the five-year period were defined as active and selected. Following piloting and revision, a detailed survey covering physical and human resources, administration and methodology was distributed. The survey responses were analysed; single hospital and multi-hospital registries were compared. Results: Eighty-four registries were emailed the survey. Sixty-five trauma registries participated, giving a response rate of 77 . Of the 65 participating registries, 40 were single hospital registries and 25 were multi-hospital registries. Fifteen countries were represented; more than half of the participating registries were based in the USA. There was considerable variation in resourcing and methodology between registries. A trauma registry most commonly had at least three staff, reported to both the hospital and government, included more than 1000 cases annually, listed admission, death and transfer amongst inclusion criteria, mandated collection of more than 100 data elements, used AIS Version 2005 (2008 update) and used age, the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Injury Severity Score for injury severity adjustment. Conclusion: Whilst some characteristics were common across many trauma registries, the resourcing and methodology varied markedly. The common features identified may serve as a guide to those looking to establish a trauma registry. However much remains to be done for trauma registries to determine the best standardised approach.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)201 - 206
Number of pages6
JournalInjury
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this

@article{e8a27b0ed6434518b8600e8337fedf32,
title = "Trauma registry methodology: a survey of trauma registry custodians to determine current approaches",
abstract = "Introduction: The global burden of injury is enormous, especially in developing countries. Trauma systems in highincome countries have reduced mortality and disability. An important component of trauma quality improvement programmes is the trauma registry which monitors the epidemiology, processes and outcomes of trauma care. There is a severe deficit of trauma registries in developing countries and there are few resources to support the development of trauma registries. Specifically, publicly available information of trauma registry methodology in developed trauma registries is sparse. The aim of this study was to describe and compare trauma registries globally. Methods: A survey of trauma registry custodians was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select trauma registries following a structured review of the literature. Registries for which there were at least two included abstracts over the five-year period were defined as active and selected. Following piloting and revision, a detailed survey covering physical and human resources, administration and methodology was distributed. The survey responses were analysed; single hospital and multi-hospital registries were compared. Results: Eighty-four registries were emailed the survey. Sixty-five trauma registries participated, giving a response rate of 77 . Of the 65 participating registries, 40 were single hospital registries and 25 were multi-hospital registries. Fifteen countries were represented; more than half of the participating registries were based in the USA. There was considerable variation in resourcing and methodology between registries. A trauma registry most commonly had at least three staff, reported to both the hospital and government, included more than 1000 cases annually, listed admission, death and transfer amongst inclusion criteria, mandated collection of more than 100 data elements, used AIS Version 2005 (2008 update) and used age, the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Injury Severity Score for injury severity adjustment. Conclusion: Whilst some characteristics were common across many trauma registries, the resourcing and methodology varied markedly. The common features identified may serve as a guide to those looking to establish a trauma registry. However much remains to be done for trauma registries to determine the best standardised approach.",
author = "O'Reilly, {Gerard Michael} and Gabbe, {Belinda Jane} and Peter Cameron",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.010",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "201 -- 206",
journal = "Injury",
issn = "0020-1383",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

Trauma registry methodology: a survey of trauma registry custodians to determine current approaches. / O'Reilly, Gerard Michael; Gabbe, Belinda Jane; Cameron, Peter.

In: Injury, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2015, p. 201 - 206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trauma registry methodology: a survey of trauma registry custodians to determine current approaches

AU - O'Reilly, Gerard Michael

AU - Gabbe, Belinda Jane

AU - Cameron, Peter

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Introduction: The global burden of injury is enormous, especially in developing countries. Trauma systems in highincome countries have reduced mortality and disability. An important component of trauma quality improvement programmes is the trauma registry which monitors the epidemiology, processes and outcomes of trauma care. There is a severe deficit of trauma registries in developing countries and there are few resources to support the development of trauma registries. Specifically, publicly available information of trauma registry methodology in developed trauma registries is sparse. The aim of this study was to describe and compare trauma registries globally. Methods: A survey of trauma registry custodians was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select trauma registries following a structured review of the literature. Registries for which there were at least two included abstracts over the five-year period were defined as active and selected. Following piloting and revision, a detailed survey covering physical and human resources, administration and methodology was distributed. The survey responses were analysed; single hospital and multi-hospital registries were compared. Results: Eighty-four registries were emailed the survey. Sixty-five trauma registries participated, giving a response rate of 77 . Of the 65 participating registries, 40 were single hospital registries and 25 were multi-hospital registries. Fifteen countries were represented; more than half of the participating registries were based in the USA. There was considerable variation in resourcing and methodology between registries. A trauma registry most commonly had at least three staff, reported to both the hospital and government, included more than 1000 cases annually, listed admission, death and transfer amongst inclusion criteria, mandated collection of more than 100 data elements, used AIS Version 2005 (2008 update) and used age, the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Injury Severity Score for injury severity adjustment. Conclusion: Whilst some characteristics were common across many trauma registries, the resourcing and methodology varied markedly. The common features identified may serve as a guide to those looking to establish a trauma registry. However much remains to be done for trauma registries to determine the best standardised approach.

AB - Introduction: The global burden of injury is enormous, especially in developing countries. Trauma systems in highincome countries have reduced mortality and disability. An important component of trauma quality improvement programmes is the trauma registry which monitors the epidemiology, processes and outcomes of trauma care. There is a severe deficit of trauma registries in developing countries and there are few resources to support the development of trauma registries. Specifically, publicly available information of trauma registry methodology in developed trauma registries is sparse. The aim of this study was to describe and compare trauma registries globally. Methods: A survey of trauma registry custodians was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to select trauma registries following a structured review of the literature. Registries for which there were at least two included abstracts over the five-year period were defined as active and selected. Following piloting and revision, a detailed survey covering physical and human resources, administration and methodology was distributed. The survey responses were analysed; single hospital and multi-hospital registries were compared. Results: Eighty-four registries were emailed the survey. Sixty-five trauma registries participated, giving a response rate of 77 . Of the 65 participating registries, 40 were single hospital registries and 25 were multi-hospital registries. Fifteen countries were represented; more than half of the participating registries were based in the USA. There was considerable variation in resourcing and methodology between registries. A trauma registry most commonly had at least three staff, reported to both the hospital and government, included more than 1000 cases annually, listed admission, death and transfer amongst inclusion criteria, mandated collection of more than 100 data elements, used AIS Version 2005 (2008 update) and used age, the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Injury Severity Score for injury severity adjustment. Conclusion: Whilst some characteristics were common across many trauma registries, the resourcing and methodology varied markedly. The common features identified may serve as a guide to those looking to establish a trauma registry. However much remains to be done for trauma registries to determine the best standardised approach.

UR - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138314004495

U2 - 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.010

DO - 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.010

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 201

EP - 206

JO - Injury

JF - Injury

SN - 0020-1383

IS - 2

ER -