Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Table 1 Characteristics of trauma centres participating in survey as stratified by teaching status ^*

Characteristic	Teaching (%)	Non-teaching (%)	Chi-square
Characteristic	(N = 175)	(N = 74)	P-Value
Accredited or verified as:	(N = 155)^*	(N = 70)^*
Trauma centre	140 (90)	65 (93)	0.37
Trauma system	4 (2.6)	3 (4.3)
Trauma centre & system	11 (7.1)	2 (2.9)
Level of designated care	(N = 171)^*	(N = 68)^*
Level 1	152 (89)	40 (59)	<0.001
Level 2	15 (8.8)	18 (26)
Level 3 or 4	4 (2.3)	10 (15)
Geographic Location	(N = 175)^*	(N = 74)^*
Urban	151 (86)	46 (62)	<0.001
Suburban	15 (8.6)	15 (20)
Rural	9 (5.1)	13 (18)
Volume	(N = 99)^*	(N = 47)^*
Low	43 (43)	41 (87)	<0.001
High	56 (56)	6 (13)
Median household income of surrounding neighbourhoods	(N = 175)^*	(N = 74)^*
Top tertile	59 (34)	23 (31)	<0.001
Middle tertile	46 (26)	38 (51)
Bottom tertile	70 (40)	13 (18)
Designated trauma team	170 (97)	71 (96)	0.62
Trauma team activation criteria	168 (96)	72 (97)	0.62
Patients with injuries assessed yearly
Any ISS, median (IQR)	1733 (930–2652)	890 (468–1412.5)	<0.001^**
ISS > 15, median (IQR)	402 (227–638)	132 (73.5-225)	<0.001^**
Trauma registry	173 (99)	71 (96)	0.13

IQR: interquartile range.
ISS: Injury Severity Score.
^*Complete information was not available for all centres. The number of survey responses is presented if different from the total sample.
^**The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for calculating this p-value.

ISSN: 1471-2482