Abstract:Background: The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients. Materials and methods: Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator. Results: By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS <14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO2) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant. Conclusion: Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.

The Australian Trauma Registry (ATR): a leading clinical quality registry

Making trauma registries more useful for improving patient care: A survey of trauma care and trauma registry stakeholders across Australia and New Zealand

Evolution of trauma care and the trauma registry in the West Australian health system

The Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry: 22 years of point-of-injury data

Multi-disciplinary, simulation-based, standardised trauma team training within the Victorian State Trauma System

Establishing determinants and quality indicators for getting home alive following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: the Australian Traumatic Brain Injury National Data Project

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Systematic Review of Clinical Factors Associated with Outcomes in People with Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Impacting trauma care in resource‐limited settings: Lessons learned from Tanzania's web‐based trauma registry initiatives

A multi-dimensional approach to identifying high performing trauma centers across the United States

AUS-TBI: The Australian Health Informatics Approach to Predict Outcomes and Monitor Intervention Efficacy after Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

The Status of Trauma Registry Systems in Chinese Hospitals

Methodical Framework for the Systematic Collection of Dentoalveolar Trauma Data

Trauma Connect Clinic: Continuing the trauma case management model for patients affected by traumatic injuries: A quality improvement initiative

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Single Data Dictionary to Predict Outcome for People With Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System

Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology

A Qualitative Interview Study Among Clinicians Managing Trauma Patients: Identifying Barriers and Potential Solutions to Improving a Trauma Registry in a Lower-to-Middle-Income Country.

An Additional Certification as a Centre for Geriatric Trauma Had No Benefit on Mortality Among Seriously Injured Elderly Patients—An Analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU® with Data of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU)

Global neurotrauma: A systematic review and summary of the current state of registries around the world

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: systematic review of the effect of acute interventions on outcome for people with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury

Doing our work better, together: a relationship-based approach to defining the quality improvement agenda in trauma care