A difficult standard
Standardization is not frequently found within trauma data programs. While verification is a voluntary and standardized process, center designations are inconsistent across states which creates inequity from one Level III trauma center data set to another. The predominantly manual process of trauma data management only adds to this issue.
Data-defined best practices in trauma care delivery is more difficult than it appears — and that’s saying something.
Our trauma expertise
We offer a comprehensive approach to trauma Level I, II, III, and IV data management with a team of experts, including CSTRs and CAISSs.
Programs we support
- Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP)
- American College of Surgeons (ACS)
- National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB)
- State-specific trauma programs
Grady Health System record closure
Record Closure Rate Did Not Meet the ACS Standard:
- 955 of the 1,653 records abstracted in-house were completed within 60 days of patient discharge, yielding a concurrency rate of 58% (Figure 1)
- Concurrency rate fell short of the 80% required by the ACS to define the registry as “concurrent”
Outcomes after Q-Centrix Partnership:
- Utilizing a partner: 1,522 of the 1,592 records were completed within 60 days of patient discharge, yielding a concurrency rate of 95%
- Concurrency rate improved to 94% within the first month of record the project and ranged from 93-100% for the remainder of the analysis period
- Exceeded the 80% required by the ACS to be considered a “concurrent registry”
Current state of trauma data
Vice President, Client Services and Data Integrity
Senior Vice President, Enterprise Business Development