Comparison of registry and government evaluation data to ascertain severe trauma cases in Japan

Abstract

AimsAccurate evaluation of health care quality requires high‐quality data, and case ascertainment (confirming eligible cases and deaths) is a foundation for accurate data collection. This study examined the accuracy of case ascertainment from two Japanese data sources.MethodsUsing hospital‐level data, we investigated the concordance in ascertaining trauma cases between a nationwide trauma registry (the Japan Trauma Data Bank) and annual government evaluations of tertiary hospitals between April 2012 and March 2013. We compared the median values for trauma case volumes, numbers of deaths, and case fatality rates from both data sources, and also evaluated the variability in discrepancies for the intrahospital differences of these outcomes.ResultsThe analyses included 136 hospitals. In the registry and annual evaluation data, the median case volumes were 120.5 cases and 180.5 cases, respectively; the median numbers of deaths were 11 and 12, respectively; and the median case fatality rates were 8.1% and 6.4%, respectively. There was broad variability in the intrahospital differences in these outcomes.ConclusionsThe observed discordance between the two data sources implies that these data sources may have inaccuracies in case ascertainment. Measures are needed to evaluate and improve the accuracy of data from these sources.

Trends and characteristics of severe road traffic injuries in children: a nationwide cohort study in Japan

“…Medical staff in participating institutions collected and submitted data using a web-based system and received training in Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coding to ensure the accuracy of registered data. The JTDB steering committee annually distributes pooled data to participating hospitals, following data cleaning and providing feedback to hospitals with significant missing data [13]. The JTDB provides a comprehensive collection of patient information, including age, sex, mechanism of injury, AIS codes (version 1998), Injury Severity Score (ISS), vital signs on hospital arrival, date and time of hospital arrival, procedures (e.g., interventional radiology), surgical operations and computed tomography scans, complications, and mortality at discharge.…”

Current Status, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence in Japan

“…10. Japan Trauma Data Bank The Japan Trauma Data Bank collects and analyzes trauma data to improve the quality of trauma care [50][51][52]. It is operated by the Japan Society for Acute Medicine and Japan Injury Association.…”