Close Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Trauma Leadership
    • Program Management
    • System Leadership
    • Trauma Registry
    • Prehospital Trauma
    • Trauma Research
    • Trauma Conferences
  • Trauma Care
  • Jobs
    • Post a Job
    • Employer Dashboard
  • Virtual Summit on Trauma Data Management
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Trauma Survey Notebook: ACS Level II reverification review in Colorado
  • 3 trauma quality projects from the 2025 Distinguished TCRN
  • Nominate your trauma program or health system for a 2025 National Certification Champion Award
  • 7 questions trauma nurses should ask when transporting a patient to a higher level of care
  • (Webinar) Trauma PI Strategy: Leveraging “Case Review vs. Aggregate Review” for More Efficient Loop Closure
  • 4 complications of brain injury that trauma nurses must identify quickly
  • It’s time to right-size and refocus the Military Health System
  • 5 ways to build communication skills for better trauma resuscitations
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trauma System News
  • Home
  • About
  • Trauma Leadership
    • Program Management
    • System Leadership
    • Trauma Registry
    • Prehospital Trauma
    • Trauma Research
    • Trauma Conferences
  • Trauma Care
  • Jobs
    • Post a Job
    • Employer Dashboard
  • Virtual Summit on Trauma Data Management
Trauma System News

Is specialist response to trauma fast enough? When in doubt, monitor additional endpoints

0
By Trauma News on November 8, 2023 Sponsored

The 2022 revision of Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) includes new response time requirements for neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

This paid content was developed by Trauma System News in cooperation with Viz Trauma Suite.

By definition, trauma centers that meet these response times are in compliance with the ACS requirements. And yet, technical compliance with the standards does not necessarily equal patient safety.

How do you make sure your trauma program is not just checking a box but actually doing right by the patient?

Recently, leaders at a Level II trauma center faced this question with regard to their neurosurgeon response plan. Although they knew their system would be compliant with the wording of Standard 5.17, they still wanted to make sure patients in need of a neuro evaluation were receiving a timely specialist response. Their solution was to verify patient safety by monitoring additional endpoints.

Looking at the bigger picture

The trauma center, which was located in a rural area, had significant difficulty hiring neurosurgeons. According to one of the trauma program’s leaders, the only way the center could secure neurosurgery coverage was to agree that the specialists could live in a community 30 minutes away from the hospital.

Trauma program management believed this arrangement was acceptable under the strict wording of Standard 5.17, since “neurosurgical evaluation” can start with the initial review of imaging. The neurosurgeon can conduct his or her evaluation at home within the 30-minute response threshold and, if needed, be at bedside within 40 minutes of request.

However, although this timeline was technically compliant with the standard, program management still wanted to ensure they were doing right by patients. As the program leader explained, “If the overall goal is to improve patient outcomes, we decided to look at the bigger picture.”

To get a big-picture view of performance, the trauma program chose to monitor the time interval from neurosurgical consult request to OR start time. As a goal, they selected a target of 60 minutes, which seemed reasonable based on the parallel standard for hemorrhage control.

“We found that the neurosurgeon who was chronically beyond a 30-minute bedside time was efficient at starting surgery within 60 minutes of request,” the program leader explained. “At that point, we felt we could argue that our PI monitoring was enhanced to ensure optimal care and confirmed that patient care was not suffering due to delayed surgeon presentation.”

The same quality strategy can be applied to any trauma process or care protocol. Monitoring additional endpoints allows trauma program leaders to gain a full-spectrum view of quality and patient safety.

More practical strategies

More practical strategies for ensuring a timely specialist response are available in the new white paper:

Streamlining and Documenting the Specialist Response to Trauma

This digital white paper includes tools and resources that can help trauma program leaders design, implement and monitor effective specialty response processes:

  • A summary of key changes to the ACS specialist response standards
  • PI-driven strategies for improving documentation of response times
  • An approach to identifying the hidden causes of poor compliance
  • Simple backup systems for ensuring specialist response documentation

This white paper is sponsored by Viz.ai, developer of Viz Trauma Suite. To view the white paper immediately, click below:

Related Posts

Jamin Rankin named 2024 Distinguished TCRN

2024 Erlanger Trauma Symposium to take place in May

Leveraging the trauma registry to facilitate concurrent inpatient review

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

About Trauma System News

Trauma System News is the only information channel dedicated to trauma center and trauma system leadership and management. Find out more.

SiteLock
Copyright © 2024 Trauma System News

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.