Monitoring performance: longterm impact of trauma verification and review

This study documents how the verification process at a Level I pediatric trauma center affected patient care through changes in care indicators (CIs) from predesignation through four postverification time frames. An important component of any verification program is its effectiveness, not only at the time of verification but during the time between "examinations." To date, few data exist describing the interval periods and the progression and maturation of a trauma program after initial verification.

Forty-seven distinct CIs were monitored monthly through data generated from the trauma registry. Six distinct time periods were identified. PRE (January, June, October 1997), trauma care without monitoring; VER (November 1999 to September 2000), preparation for verification; and four postverification periods: P1 (January to June 2001), P2 (July to December 2001), P3 (January to June 2002), and P4 (July to September 2002).

Between 1997 and 2002, trauma admissions increased from 200 per year to 313 per year. Mortality rate and Injury Severity Score distributions remained unaltered. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) quantitative and qualitative changes were observed in numbers (percent) of patients reaching clinical criteria. These included prehospital, emergency department, and hospital-based trauma competencies. Trauma patient evaluation (including radiology) and disposition out of the emergency department (<120 minutes) improved in each study section and remained high during the postverification time period. There was a strong pair-wise correlation (p < 0.005, Cronbach alpha 0.8) between CNS charting and acquisition of head CAT scans. Pediatric ICU duration of stay increased in both the (summer) P2 and P4 time periods. Prehospital and emergency department fluid monitoring remained unsatisfactory.

Statistically significant changes in patient care indicators were noted to improve during the trauma center designation process, and other key deficiencies were identified and addressed. Maintaining these improvements requires constant monitoring or performance may revert below accepted levels.