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.

Application of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the guideline development process of the German polytrauma guideline

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation to Spanish of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the health guidelines development process

An Instrument for Evaluating the Clinical Applicability of Guidelines

An Approach to Diversifying the Selection of a Guideline Panel—The Process Utilized for the Updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers

The impact of a digital guideline version on schizophrenia guideline knowledge: results from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial

New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development

Guidelines or mindlines? - implementing a new CKD guideline in German primary care

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guideline Development Scheme: An Overview of Evidence Quality Assessment Methods, Evidence to Decision Frameworks, and Reporting Standards in Guideline Development

Quality of Critical Care Clinical Practice Guidelines: Assessment with AGREE II Instrument.

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

Decomposing clinical practice guidelines panels' deliberation into decision theoretical constructs

Development of the Implementability Assessment Tool for Clinical Practice Guidelines Based on the COSMIN Framework and Factorial Experiment: a Study Protocol

The perceptions and experience of developing patient (version of) guidelines: a descriptive qualitative study with Chinese guideline developers

Development and Preliminary Verification of the Evaluation System for Clinical Practice Guidelines in China

Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study

Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure

Required knowledge for guideline panel members to develop healthcare related testing recommendations: a developmental study

[Methodological Standard for the Development of Quality Indicators within Clinical Practice Guidelines - Results of a structured consensus process]

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel