Standardising trauma monitoring: The development of a minimum dataset for trauma registries in Australia and New Zealand

dc.contributor.authorPalmer, Cameron S.en
dc.contributor.authorDavey, Tamzyn M.en
dc.contributor.authorMok, Meng Tucken
dc.contributor.authorMcClure, Rod J.en
dc.contributor.authorFarrow, Nathan C.en
dc.contributor.authorGruen, Russell L.en
dc.contributor.authorPollard, Cliff W.en
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-29T22:33:34Z
dc.date.available2025-05-29T22:33:34Z
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Trauma registries are central to the implementation of effective trauma systems. However, differences between trauma registry datasets make comparisons between trauma systems difficult. In 2005, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium began a process to develop a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for use in Australasian trauma registries. This study aims to describe the steps taken in the development and preliminary evaluation of the BMDS. Methods: A working party comprising sixteen representatives from across Australasia identified and discussed the collectability and utility of potential BMDS fields. This included evaluating existing national and international trauma registry datasets, as well as reviewing all quality indicators and audit filters in use in Australasian trauma centres. After the working party activities concluded, this process was continued by a number of interested individuals, with broader feedback sought from the Australasian trauma community on a number of occasions. Once the BMDS had reached a suitable stage of development, an email survey was conducted across Australasian trauma centres to assess whether BMDS fields met an ideal minimum standard of field collectability. The BMDS was also compared with three prominent international datasets to assess the extent of dataset overlap. Following this, the BMDS was encapsulated in a data dictionary, which was introduced in late 2010. Results: The finalised BMDS contained 67 data fields. Forty-seven of these fields met a previously published criterion of 80% collectability across respondent trauma institutions; the majority of the remaining fields either could be collected without any change in resources, or could be calculated from other data fields in the BMDS. However, comparability with international registry datasets was poor. Only nine BMDS fields had corresponding, directly comparable fields in all the national and international-level registry datasets evaluated. Conclusion: A draft BMDS has been developed for use in trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand. The email survey provided strong indications of the utility of the fields contained in the BMDS. The BMDS has been adopted as the dataset to be used by an ongoing Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program.en
dc.description.sponsorshipIn 2003, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium (NTRC) was formed. Primarily funded by the Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine in Queensland, Australia, the NTRC also received support from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), the Australasian Trauma Society (ATS), and (from 2005) the New South Wales Institute of Trauma and Injury Management. The overall aims and early achievements of the NTRC are summarised elsewhere. 3 As part of its activities, the NTRC established a working party tasked with the development of a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for Australia and New Zealand in late 2005. The primary aim of the BMDS was to serve as the core dataset for any future bi-national or national trauma registry (B/NTR). However, it was also hoped that a BMDS would enable standardisation of trauma monitoring across Australasia, and enable benchmarking of trauma system performance. 3 Jointly funded by the National Trauma Research Institute in Melbourne, and the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre in Darwin, the AusTQIP program has been preliminarily funded for two years. During this time, it is hoped that national-level data collection will be established in our region.en
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.format.extent8en
dc.identifier.issn0020-1383en
dc.identifier.otherPubMed:23265787en
dc.identifier.otherORCID:/0000-0001-8023-1957/work/167652264en
dc.identifier.scopus84877760782en
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877760782&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733754463
dc.language.isoenen
dc.sourceInjuryen
dc.subjectOutcome monitoringen
dc.subjectRegistry dataseten
dc.subjectTrauma registryen
dc.subjectTrauma systemsen
dc.titleStandardising trauma monitoring: The development of a minimum dataset for trauma registries in Australia and New Zealanden
dc.typeJournal articleen
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage841en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage834en
local.contributor.affiliationPalmer, Cameron S.; Royal Children's Hospital Melbourneen
local.contributor.affiliationDavey, Tamzyn M.; Monash University Malaysiaen
local.contributor.affiliationMok, Meng Tuck; National Trauma Research Instituteen
local.contributor.affiliationMcClure, Rod J.; Monash Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationFarrow, Nathan C.; National Trauma Research Instituteen
local.contributor.affiliationGruen, Russell L.; National Trauma Research Instituteen
local.contributor.affiliationPollard, Cliff W.; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospitalen
local.identifier.citationvolume44en
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.injury.2012.11.022en
local.identifier.pure79b2f402-119d-47db-8993-8f183b79929cen
local.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84877760782en
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads