Elsevier

Injury

Volume 39, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 686-695
Injury

Review
The value of trauma registries

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2008.02.023Get rights and content

Summary

Trauma registries are databases that document acute care delivered to patients hospitalised with injuries. They are designed to provide information that can be used to improve the efficiency and quality of trauma care. Indeed, the combination of trauma registry data at regional or national levels can produce very large databases that allow unprecedented opportunities for the evaluation of patient outcomes and inter-hospital comparisons. However, the creation and upkeep of trauma registries requires a substantial investment of money, time and effort, data quality is an important challenge and aggregated trauma data sets rarely represent a population-based sample of trauma. In addition, trauma hospitalisations are already routinely documented in administrative hospital discharge databases. The present review aims to provide evidence that trauma registry data can be used to improve the care dispensed to victims of injury in ways that could not be achieved with information from administrative databases alone. In addition, we will define the structure and purpose of contemporary trauma registries, acknowledge their limitations, and discuss possible ways to make them more useful.

Introduction

Injuries are the most frequent cause of death under the age of 45 in most high-income countries,88, 91 as well as a major financial burden.20, 21, 91 In low-income countries, the societal costs of injury are even more alarming—projections show that road traffic deaths will increase by 83% between 2000 and 2020 in countries undergoing industrialisation.71 While injury prevention is certainly the most cost-effective approach to this problem, the medical profession also has an obligation to monitor the care delivered to victims of trauma.

The idea of categorising injury types, treatments, and expected outcomes can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians,52 and armies over the centuries have studied the wounds of soldiers in order to design better protective equipment and to improve the management of diseases and injuries. Indeed, the accomplishments of Florence Nightingale were achieved by her effective use of such statistics as well as her personal dedication to individual patients.18

The modern era of trauma registries appears to have begun with the computerised trauma database implemented in Cook County Hospital, Chicago in 1969, leading to the Illinois State trauma registry in 1971.8 The consolidation of hospital-based registries into regional and national databases, along with the increasing capacity of computers and statistical methods for their analysis, has led to the rapid expansion of this potential resource to study the adverse effects of injury.

The purpose of this review is to define the structure and purpose of contemporary trauma registries, acknowledge their limitations, and discuss possible ways to make them more useful. In particular, we hope to demonstrate that trauma registries combined from multiple institutions can add value beyond readily available hospital administrative data.

Section snippets

What are trauma registries?

Trauma registries are databases designed to document the acute phase of hospital care delivered to victims of trauma. Patients are included in the database according to specific inclusion criteria, usually based on a definition using the international classification of diseases (ICD). Trauma registries generally include information on patient demographics, the circumstances surrounding injury, pre-hospital care and transport, emergency department and in-hospital interventions received, anatomic

Quality improvement

Originally, trauma registries were designed as a quality improvement tool for individual hospitals treating injured patients, but were subsequently implemented as part of integrated trauma systems. Registries are continually used to support such systems in accreditation, verification and designation processes. Studies demonstrating the decrease in trauma mortality following the introduction of integrated trauma systems have provided indirect evidence of the value of trauma registries.41, 49, 50

Data quality

In order to maximise the quality and integrity of data, trauma registries must be governed by a central organisation responsible for data aggregation, validation37 and analysis. Data validation is essential to ensure the quality of registry data but requires a thorough data cleaning process, follow-up and correction of data problems, and studies of intra- and inter-coder agreement. A steering committee composed of representatives from key stakeholders should oversee procedures and make sure

The future of trauma registries

Judging by the present trend, the use of trauma registries for research will continue to increase, particularly as national trauma registries become freely available to researchers worldwide.68 If we are to enhance their value, efforts should be made to improve the quality of data, the efficiency of data collection and the information content of trauma registries.

Many of the problems associated with trauma registries have also been experienced by colleagues involved with cancer, cardiac

Conclusions

Trauma registries require significant financial investment and the dedication of all those involved in their upkeep. To be worthwhile, they must continually be used to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of trauma and the care delivered to victims of trauma. Efforts must also be made to ensure high-data quality and acceptable population coverage. We have shown that trauma registries are already being used to describe injury epidemiology and suggest prevention strategies, to evaluate the

Conflict of interest statement

David E. Clark is chairman of the National Trauma Data Bank Subcommittee for the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Neither of the authors have any other conflicts of interest to declare.

References (102)

  • O. Bouamra et al.

    A new approach to outcome prediction in trauma: a comparison with the TRISS model

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • C.R. Boyd et al.

    Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score

    J Trauma

    (1987)
  • D.R. Boyd et al.

    Trauma registry. New computer method for multifactorial evaluation of a major health problem

    JAMA

    (1973)
  • C.C. Branas et al.

    Access to trauma centers in the United States

    JAMA

    (2005)
  • P.A. Cameron et al.

    Developing Australia's first statewide trauma registry: what are the lessons?

    Aust NZ J Surg

    (2004)
  • P.A. Cameron et al.

    The trauma registry as a statewide quality improvement tool

    J Trauma

    (2005)
  • C.G. Cayten et al.

    Limitations of the TRISS method for interhospital comparisons: a multihospital study

    J Trauma

    (1991)
  • H.R. Champion et al.

    A new characterization of injury severity

    J Trauma

    (1990)
  • H.R. Champion et al.

    Improved predictions from a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOT) over trauma and injury severity score (TRISS): results of an independent evaluation

    J Trauma

    (1996)
  • H.R. Champion et al.

    The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for trauma care

    J Trauma

    (1990)
  • D.E. Clark et al.

    Epidemiology and short-term outcomes of injured medicare patients

    J Am Geriatr Soc

    (2004)
  • D.E. Clark et al.

    Predicting hospital mortality, length of stay, and transfer to long-term care for injured patients

    J Trauma

    (2007)
  • I.B. Cohen

    Florence Nightingale

    Sci Am

    (1984)
  • W.S. Copes et al.

    Linking data from national trauma and rehabilitation registries

    J Trauma

    (1996)
  • Cost of injury

    (2007)
  • E.A. Finkelstein et al.

    Incidence and economic burden of injuries in the United States

    (2006)
  • L.S. Forst et al.

    A state trauma registry as a tool for occupational injury surveillance

    J Occup Environ Med

    (1999)
  • B.J. Gabbe et al.

    Is the revised trauma score still useful?

    Aust NZ J Surg

    (2003)
  • B.J. Gabbe et al.

    Routine follow up of major trauma patients from trauma registries: what are the outcomes?

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • B.J. Gabbe et al.

    TRISS: does it get better than this?

    Acad Emerg Med

    (2004)
  • B.J. Gabbe et al.

    Choosing outcome assessment instruments for trauma registries

    Acad Emerg Med

    (2005)
  • J.W. German et al.

    Cargo areas of pickup trucks: an avoidable mechanism for neurological injuries in children

    J Neurosurg

    (2007)
  • German Society of Trauma Surgery Trauma Registry; 2007. Available at: http://www.dgu-online.de/de/index.jsp (accessed...
  • L.G. Glance et al.

    Judging trauma center quality: does it depend on the choice of outcomes?

    J Trauma

    (2004)
  • M.E. Goecke et al.

    Characteristics and conviction rates of injured alcohol-impaired drivers admitted to a tertiary care Canadian trauma centre

    Clin Invest Med

    (2007)
  • J.R. Hall et al.

    The outcome for children with blunt trauma is best at a pediatric trauma center

    J Pediatr Surg

    (1996)
  • I.A. Harris et al.

    Factors associated with back pain after physical injury: a survey of consecutive major trauma patients

    Spine

    (2007)
  • R. Hartl et al.

    Direct transport within an organized state trauma system reduces mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • W.R. Hersh et al.

    Automatic prediction of trauma registry procedure codes from emergency room dictations

    Medinfo

    (1998)
  • D.A. Hill et al.

    A chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) analysis of factors determining trauma outcomes

    J Trauma

    (1997)
  • T. Hlaing et al.

    Trauma registry data validation: essential for quality trauma care

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • J. Hosking et al.

    Screening and intervention for alcohol problems among patients admitted following unintentional injury: a missed opportunity?

    N Z Med J

    (2007)
  • A.S. Jakola et al.

    Five-year outcome after mild head injury: a prospective controlled study

    Acta Neurol Scand

    (2007)
  • E. Javouhey et al.

    Are restrained children under 15 years of age in cars as effectively protected as adults?

    Arch Dis Child

    (2006)
  • G.J. Jurkovich et al.

    Systematic review of trauma system effectiveness based on registry comparisons

    J Trauma

    (1999)
  • A.J. Kerwin et al.

    The burden of noncompliance with seat belt use on a trauma center

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • P.D. Kilgo et al.

    Incorporating recent advances to make the TRISS approach universally available

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • M.M. Knudson et al.

    Can adult trauma surgeons care for injured children?

    J Trauma

    (1992)
  • H.M. Krumholz et al.

    Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Writing Group: cosponsored by the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and the Stroke Council. Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

    Circulation

    (2006)
  • Latenser BA, Miller SF, Bessey PQ, et al. National burn repository 2006 report dataset version 3.0. J Burn Care Res;...
  • Cited by (202)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text