Citation

Palmer CS, Davey TM, Mok MT, McClure RJ, Farrow NC, Gruen RL, Pollard CW. Injury 2013; 44(6): 834-841.

Affiliation

Trauma Service, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: cameron.palmer@rch.org.au.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.injury.2012.11.022

PMID

23265787

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Trauma registries are central to the implementation of effective trauma systems. However, differences between trauma registry datasets make comparisons between trauma systems difficult. In 2005, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium began a process to develop a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for use in Australasian trauma registries. This study aims to describe the steps taken in the development and preliminary evaluation of the BMDS. METHODS: A working party comprising sixteen representatives from across Australasia identified and discussed the collectability and utility of potential BMDS fields. This included evaluating existing national and international trauma registry datasets, as well as reviewing all quality indicators and audit filters in use in Australasian trauma centres. After the working party activities concluded, this process was continued by a number of interested individuals, with broader feedback sought from the Australasian trauma community on a number of occasions. Once the BMDS had reached a suitable stage of development, an email survey was conducted across Australasian trauma centres to assess whether BMDS fields met an ideal minimum standard of field collectability. The BMDS was also compared with three prominent international datasets to assess the extent of dataset overlap. Following this, the BMDS was encapsulated in a data dictionary, which was introduced in late 2010. RESULTS: The finalised BMDS contained 67 data fields. Forty-seven of these fields met a previously published criterion of 80% collectability across respondent trauma institutions; the majority of the remaining fields either could be collected without any change in resources, or could be calculated from other data fields in the BMDS. However, comparability with international registry datasets was poor. Only nine BMDS fields had corresponding, directly comparable fields in all the national and international-level registry datasets evaluated. CONCLUSION: A draft BMDS has been developed for use in trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand. The email survey provided strong indications of the utility of the fields contained in the BMDS. The BMDS has been adopted as the dataset to be used by an ongoing Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

Language: en