Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Standards of Care II01:19

Standards of Care II

Nurses bear specific legal responsibilities under several federal statutes, including:
SBAR II: Application of SBAR01:14

SBAR II: Application of SBAR

SBAR is an effective communication tool used by healthcare professionals to communicate patient information accurately. SBAR stands for Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation. For a better understanding, an example is given below.
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...
Standards of Care I01:22

Standards of Care I

Federal statutes profoundly impact nursing practice, providing critical guidelines to ensure patient care is equitable, accessible, and of the highest quality. The following laws address distinct aspects of healthcare provision and patient rights:

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial on the Surgery of Fractured Ribs: The SOFRIB Trial.

Annals of surgery·2026
Same author

Building stronger trauma systems in Canada.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2026
Same author

An evaluation of the association between patient sociodemographic factors and delayed time to analgesia in the trauma bay.

Injury·2026
Same author

Models, frameworks, and strategies used to implement digital interventions targeted to youth mental health: a scoping review protocol.

BMJ open·2025
Same author

The Association Between Online Surgeon Ratings and Patients' Postoperative Outcomes in the United States.

Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches·2025
Same author

A Call to Action and Roadmap for Improving Emergency Treatment of Ophthalmic Trauma in the United States.

Ophthalmology·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise
05:25

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise

Published on: March 29, 2019

Quality indicators for evaluating trauma care: a scoping review.

Henry Thomas Stelfox1, Barbara Bobranska-Artiuch, Avery Nathens

  • 1Department of Critical Care Medicine, Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, 1403-29 St. NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Tom.Stelfox@albertahealthservices.ca

Archives of Surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)
|March 17, 2010
PubMed
Summary

This systematic review found numerous quality indicators (QIs) for trauma care, but evidence supporting them is weak. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for trauma care quality indicators.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise
05:25

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise

Published on: March 29, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Trauma Care Research
  • Healthcare Quality Improvement
  • Systematic Review Methodology

Background:

  • Evaluating the quality of trauma care is crucial for patient outcomes.
  • Numerous quality indicators (QIs) have been proposed in the literature.
  • A comprehensive understanding of the existing QIs and their evidence base is lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically review the literature on QIs for trauma care.
  • To identify and define proposed QIs.
  • To examine the evidence supporting these QIs.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane).
  • Included grey literature, hand-searched journals, reference lists, and expert consultation.
  • Selected articles proposing QIs for major traumatic injuries, covering prehospital to posthospital care.

Main Results:

  • Identified 1572 QIs across 8 categories, with non-ACS-COT audit filters and ACS-COT audit filters being most common.
  • Prehospital and hospital process measures constituted the majority of identified QIs (60.4%).
  • Evidence supporting the identified QIs was generally not strong, particularly for posthospital care and secondary injury prevention.

Conclusions:

  • A substantial number of QIs exist for trauma care evaluation.
  • The current evidence base supporting many proposed QIs is weak.
  • Future efforts should focus on systematic reviews of candidate indicators and empirical studies to address knowledge gaps, especially for postacute care.