Abstract
Advanced practitioners (APs) have been successfully integrated into the clinical care of injured patients. Given the expanding role of APs in trauma care, we hypothesized that APs can perform Performance Improvement and Patient Safety (PIPS) peer review at a level comparable with trauma surgeons. For Phase 1, cases previously reviewed by a trauma surgeon were randomly selected by the PIPS coordinator and peer reviewed by an AP. The trauma surgeons' and APs' reviews were compared. For Phase 2, cases requiring concurrent review were peer reviewed by both an AP and an MD, who were blinded to each other's review. Both the APs' and trauma surgeons' reviews of the same medical record were presented at a bimonthly performance improvement (PI) meeting. In Phase 1, 46 PI cases were reviewed including 22 deaths. Trauma surgeons and APs had high concordance (96.0%) regarding appropriateness or inappropriateness of care ([kappa] = 0.774). Among disagreements, APs were 3 times more likely than trauma surgeons to determine care to be inappropriate. Trauma surgeons and APs had similarly high concordance (95.5%) regarding preventability of mortality ([kappa] = 0.861). In Phase 2, 38 PI cases were reviewed, including 31 deaths. Trauma surgeons and APs had high concordance (89.0%) regarding appropriateness or inappropriateness of care ([kappa] = 0.585). Among disagreements, trauma surgeons and APs had similarly high concordance (86.2%) regarding preventability of mortality ([kappa] = 0.266). We found that APs had high concordance with trauma surgeons regarding medical record reviews and are thus able to effectively review medical records for the purposes of PIPS.