Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 1993 Sep;75(5):321–324.

Trauma audit: clinical judgement or statistical analysis?

D W Yates 1, M Woodford 1, S Hollis 1
PMCID: PMC2497993  PMID: 8215146

Abstract

Comparisons have been made between two methods currently used to assess the effectiveness of management of major trauma. These are the review of fatal cases by senior clinicians and the use of statistical analysis of severity scores. The former was assessed by a re-examination of the Coroners' reports of 508 patients reviewed by senior clinicians at the request of The Royal College of Surgeons of England Working Party on the Management of Patients with Major Injuries. The latter was based on the 665 fatalities on the files of the UK Major Trauma Outcome Study. The two groups of patients had comparable age and sex profiles and broadly similar ranges of injury severity. There were major differences between and inconsistencies within the two assessments. Clinicians more frequently judged death avoidable in those with very severe injuries. In contrast, the statistical analysis suggested, paradoxically, that the proportion of avoidable deaths in those patients who had minor injuries was less than the proportion of avoidable deaths in those who had more serious injuries. These variations underline the limited values of retrospective peer review and will not encourage clinicians to adopt currently available statistical methods. Further refinements of anatomical and physiological scoring systems and their integration to provide a statistically valid and clinically acceptable measure of outcome are essential prerequisites to the wider introduction and success of trauma audit.

Full text

PDF
321

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson I. D., Woodford M., de Dombal F. T., Irving M. Retrospective study of 1000 deaths from injury in England and Wales. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 May 7;296(6632):1305–1308. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6632.1305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker S. P., O'Neill B., Haddon W., Jr, Long W. B. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974 Mar;14(3):187–196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker S. P., O'Neill B. The injury severity score: an update. J Trauma. 1976 Nov;16(11):882–885. doi: 10.1097/00005373-197611000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd C. R., Tolson M. A., Copes W. S. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987 Apr;27(4):370–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Champion H. R., Copes W. S., Sacco W. J., Lawnick M. M., Bain L. W., Gann D. S., Gennarelli T., Mackenzie E., Schwaitzberg S. A new characterization of injury severity. J Trauma. 1990 May;30(5):539–546. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199005000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Champion H. R., Sacco W. J., Copes W. S., Gann D. S., Gennarelli T. A., Flanagan M. E. A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma. 1989 May;29(5):623–629. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. West J. G., Trunkey D. D., Lim R. C. Systems of trauma care. A study of two counties. Arch Surg. 1979 Apr;114(4):455–460. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1979.01370280109016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Yates D. W., Woodford M., Hollis S. Preliminary analysis of the care of injured patients in 33 British hospitals: first report of the United Kingdom major trauma outcome study. BMJ. 1992 Sep 26;305(6856):737–740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6856.737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES