This is a preprint.
Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study
- PMID: 37961569
- PMCID: PMC10635388
- DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3477512/v1
Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study
Update in
-
Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study.J Registry Manag. 2024 Spring;51(1):12-18. J Registry Manag. 2024. PMID: 38881991 Free PMC article.
Abstract
Background: In the following manuscript, we describe the detailed protocol for a mixed-methods, observational case study conducted to identify and evaluate existing data-related processes and challenges currently faced by trauma centers in a rural state. The data will be utilized to assess the impact of these challenges on registry data collection.
Methods: The study relies on a series of interviews and observations to collect data from trauma registry staff at level 1-4 trauma centers across the state of Arkansas. A think-aloud protocol will be used to facilitate observations as a means to gather keystroke-level modeling data and insight into site processes and workflows for collecting and submitting data to the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Informal, semi-structured interviews will follow the observation period to assess the participant's perspective on current processes, potential barriers to data collection or submission to the registry, and recommendations for improvement. Each session will be recorded and de-identified transcripts and session notes will be used for analysis. Keystroke level modeling data derived from observations will be extracted and analyzed quantitatively to determine time spent performing end-to-end registry-related activities. Qualitative data from interviews will be reviewed and coded by 2 independent reviewers following a thematic analysis methodology. Each set of codes will then be adjudicated by the reviewers using a consensus-driven approach to extrapolate the final set of themes.
Discussion: We will utilize a mixed methods approach to understand existing processes and barriers to data collection for the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Anticipated results will provide a baseline measure of the data collection and submission processes at various trauma centers across the state. We aim to assess strengths and limitations of existing processes and identify existing barriers to interoperability. These results will provide first-hand knowledge on existing practices for the trauma registry use case and will provide quantifiable data that can be utilized in future research to measure outcomes of future process improvement efforts. The potential implications of this study can form the basis for identifying potential solutions for streamlining data collection, exchange, and utilization of trauma registry data for clinical practice, public health, and clinical and translational research.
Keywords: Arkansas Trauma Registry; qualitative research; real-world data; registries; thematic analysis.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study.J Registry Manag. 2024 Spring;51(1):12-18. J Registry Manag. 2024. PMID: 38881991 Free PMC article.
-
Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level I-IV Trauma Centers in Arkansas: Results of a Mixed-Methods Case Study.J Registry Manag. 2025 Spring;52(1):6-15. J Registry Manag. 2025. PMID: 40656556 Free PMC article.
-
Improving Data Collection and Abstraction to Assess Health Equity in Trauma Care.J Med Syst. 2022 Mar 9;46(4):21. doi: 10.1007/s10916-022-01804-4. J Med Syst. 2022. PMID: 35260929
-
Pediatric disaster preparedness: the potential role of the trauma registry.J Trauma. 2009 Aug;67(2 Suppl):S172-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181af0aeb. J Trauma. 2009. PMID: 19667854 Review.
-
A proposal to embed patient and public involvement within qualitative data collection and analysis phases of a primary care based implementation study.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 May 31;9(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00440-7. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 37259130 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, Christian JB, editors. 21st Century Patient Registries: Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide: 3rd Edition, Addendum [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018. [cited 2022 May 20]. (AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care; ). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493818/ - PubMed
-
- Moore L, Clark DE. The value of trauma registries. Injury. 2008. Jun;39(6):686–95. - PubMed
-
- Arkansas Department of Health. Arkansas Trauma Registry (ATR) [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/programs-services/topics/arkansas-traum...
-
- Pollock DA. Trauma Registries and Public Health Surveillance Injuries [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Health Statistics; p. 1–6. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ice/ice95v1/c11.pdf
-
- American Trauma Society. Trauma Center Levels Explained [Internet]. [cited 2023 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.amtrauma.org/page/traumalevels
Publication types
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources