INNOVATIONS BACKGROUNDThe trauma registry data are key to informing quality improvement, prevention initiatives, research, clinical guidelines, and other topics related to the in-jured patient at all levels: from the individual facility to nationally (Porgo et al., 2016;Protetch & Chappel, 2008). The usefulness of the registry relies on data quality, including completeness and accuracy. Thus, there should be ongoing review of registry data. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient (American College of Surgeons & Committee on Trauma, 2014) recommends that hospitals validate registry data by reabstracting 5%-10% of patient records.There are additional practices beyond full reabstraction to support validation. Centers can build validation rules within their registries to facilitate concurrent review and support entry of valid data from the outset (Rees, 2020). Targeting key data fields most relevant to an individual trauma program can be helpful for centers with high patient volumes for whom full reabstraction may be a challenge (Fojut, 2015).Impact of data quality issues starts at the trauma center level. Errors can contribute to inaccurate trends and misclassifications, affecting accurate tracking of performance improvement efforts (Hlaing et al., 2006). A study looking at heterogeneity of registry data across trauma centers in one state found that erroneous data varied widely by center, which affects the homogeneity needed for good comparison and benchmarking among centers (Dente et al., 2016).

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers routinely utilize the Injury Severity Score for performance improvement. Yet, transferring facilities do not always have access to patients' final Injury Severity Score. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to develop and implement a multiregion Injury Severity Score follow-up feedback protocol for transferring facilities to receive standardized information on patient treatment and the ability to calculate an accurate follow-up Injury Severity Score of transferred patients. METHODS: This project included 25 Adult and Pediatric Level I, II, and III trauma centers within three regional trauma systems in a Midwestern state. This project included trauma centers that used one of the two different trauma registry software systems as a solution to develop and implement a protocol for follow-up feedback for transferred trauma patients. A template was created to capture data posttransfer to calculate a final Injury Severity Score. RESULTS: The feedback protocol was well received by participating regions. Implementation revealed the impact of variable trauma registry software on the ability to create multi-institution feedback programs. CONCLUSION: Trauma systems can implement similar strategies to ensure transferring trauma centers routinely receive standardized, timely patient feedback.