Introduction Trauma quality improvement (QI) programs have been shown to improve outcomes and decrease cost. These are high priorities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 2,000,000 deaths due to survivable injuries occur each year. We sought to define areas for improvement in trauma QI programs in four LMICs. Methods We conducted a survey among trauma care providers in four Andean middle-income countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Results 336 physicians, medical students, nurses, administrators and paramedical professionals responded to the cross-sectional survey with a response rate greater than 90% in all included countries except Bolivia, where the response rate was 14%. Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences occur at their hospital. Conferences were often reported as infrequent – 45% occurred less than every three months and poorly attended – 63% had five or fewer staff physicians present. Only 23% of conferences had standardized selection criteria, most lacked documentation – notes were taken at only 35% of conferences. Importantly, only 13% of participants indicated that discussions were routinely followed-up with any sort of corrective action. Multivariable analysis revealed the presence of standardized case selection criteria (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.16–10.46), written documentation of the M&M conferences (OR 5.73, 95% CI 1.73–19.06), and a clear plan for follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.59–14.50) to be associated with effective M&M conferences. Twenty-two percent of respondents worked at hospitals with a trauma registry. Fifty-two percent worked at institutions where autopsies were conducted, but only 32% of those reported the autopsy results to ever be used to improve hospital practice. Conclusions M&M conferences are frequently practiced in the Andean region of Latin America but often lack methodologic rigor and thus effectiveness. Next steps in the maturation of QI programs include optimizing use of data from autopsies and registries, and systematic follow-up of M&M conferences with corrective action to ensure that these activities result in appreciable changes in clinical care.

This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of the American College of Surgeons and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The American College of Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

BACKGROUND:Trauma and acute care surgery (ACS) staffing models vary widely across the United States, resulting in large discrepancies in staffing, compensation, schedule, and clinical/nonclinical expectations. An urgent need exists to define clinical, academic, and schedule expectations for a full-time employment (FTE) of a trauma and ACS surgeon in the United States. METHODS:A survey was distributed to departmental leaders at Levels I, II, III trauma centers across the United States regarding current workload.Variables concerning the responsibilities of surgeons, compensation models, and clinical expectations were collected. This was followed by virtual semistructured interviews of agreeable respondents. A thematic analysis was used to describe current staffing challenges and "ideal" staffing and compensation models of trauma centers. RESULTS:Sixty-eight of 483 division chiefs/medical directors responded (14%), the majority (66%) representing Level I centers. There were differences in clinical responsibilities, elective surgery coverage as well as number of and reimbursement for call. The median description of an FTE was 26 weeks (interquartile range, 13 weeks) with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 8) 12-hour call shifts per month.Level III centers were more likely to perform elective surgery and covered more call shifts, typically from home. In our qualitative interviews, we identified numerous themes, including inconsistent models and staffing of services, surgeon-administration conflict and elective surgery driven by productivity and desire. CONCLUSION:Defining the workload of a full-time trauma and ACS surgeon is nuanced and requires consideration of local volume, acuity and culture. Between the quantitative and qualitative analysis, a reasonable workload for a 1.0 FTE acute care surgeon at a Level I center is 24 to 28 service weeks per year and four to five in-house calls per month. Nighttime and daytime staffing needs can be divergent and may lead to conflict with administration. Future research should consider the individual surgeon's perspective on the definition of an FTE.