NCEPOD: Trauma - Who Cares? - London Health Programmes

MethodSpecifi c sections of the assessment form were completedby NCEPOD researchers using information extracted fromthe casenotes such as the times of investigations, Airway,Breathing, Circulation (ABC) measurements and the gradesof doctors involved in the patients’ care. The remainder ofthe assessment form was completed by the advisors whowere asked to provide expert opinion on the prehospitalcare, trauma response, timeliness of investigations and theoverall care of the patient.Peer review processAll questionnaires and casenotes were anonymised bythe non-clinical staff at NCEPOD. All patient, clinician andhospital identifi ers were removed. Neither clinical staff atNCEPOD, nor the advisors had access to any identifi ableinformation.After being anonymised each case was reviewed by oneadvisor within a multidisciplinary group. At regular intervalsthroughout the meeting, the chair allowed a period ofdiscussion for each advisor to summarise their cases andask for opinions from other specialties or raise aspects of acase for discussion.Good practice:A standard that you would accept from yourself, yourtrainees and your institution.Room for improvement:Aspects of clinical care that could have been better.Room for improvement:Aspects of organisational care that could have beenbetter.Room for improvement:Aspects of both clinical and organisational care thatcould have been better.Less than satisfactory:Several aspects of clinical and/or organisationalcare that were well below that you would accept fromyourself, your trainees and your institution.Insuffi cient information submitted to assess thequality of care.The grading system below was used by the advisors tograde the overall care each patient received.19