How do we PI? Results of an EAST quality, patient safety, and outcomes survey

• Published in: Trauma surgery & acute care open 2023-08, Vol.8 (1), p.e001059-e001059
• Main Authors: Horwitz, Daniel, Dumas, Ryan Peter, Cunningham, Kyle, Palacio, Carlos H, Margulies, Daniel R, Eme, Christine, Bukur, Marko
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Critical care; Emergency medical care; Nursing administration; Original Research; Orthopedics; Patient safety; Peer review; Polls & surveys; Quality improvement; Surgeons; Trauma care; Trauma centers
• ISSN: 2397-5776; 2397-5776
• DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2022-001059

BackgroundQuality improvement is a cornerstone for any verified trauma center. Conducting effective quality and performance improvement, however, remains a challenge. In this study, we sought to better explore the landscape and challenges facing the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) through a survey.MethodsA survey was designed by the EAST Quality Patient Safety and Outcomes Committee. It was reviewed by the EAST Research and Scholarship Committee and then distributed to 2511 EAST members. The questions were designed to understand the frequency, content, and perceptions surrounding quality improvement processes.ResultsThere were 151 respondents of the 2511 surveys sent (6.0%). The majority were trauma faculty (55%) or trauma medical directors (TMDs) (37%) at American College of Surgeons level I (62%) or II (17%) trauma centers. We found a wide variety of resources being used across hospitals with the majority of cases being identified by a TMD or attending (81%) for a multidisciplinary peer review (70.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the quality improvement process with TMDs being more likely to describe their process as moderately or very effective compared with their peers (77.5% vs. 57.7%, p=0.026). The ‘Just Culture’ model appeared to have a positive effect on the process improvement environment, with providers less likely to report a non-conducive environment (10.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.012) and less feelings of assigning blame (3.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.026).ConclusionCase review remains an essential but challenging process. Our survey reveals a need to continue to advocate for appropriate time and resources to conduct strong quality improvement processes.Level of evidenceEpidemiological study, level III.