J. Sturm

Preface. German Trauma Registry.

The reason to start a German Trauma Registry more than 20 years ago was a controversial discussion on how to best define a polytrauma patient. Advantages and disadvantages of scoring systems like the Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, TRISS and the German Hannover Polytrauma Score were debated. Studies performed by single hospitals evaluating the accuracy of these scores had limitations as the number of patients treated in each hospital was too small for validation. Multicenter studies sharing data between hospitals were unusual as research in those days was rather competitive. Most hospitals treating trauma patients wanted to show that they performed best. Three trauma leaders Schmit-Neuerburg, Schweiberer and Tscherne suggested to aggregate the research potential in that field under the auspices of the German Trauma Society. The first meeting took place in 1992 at the Trauma Department of the University Hospital in Essen. Under the leadership of Oestern, Nast-Kolb and Neugebauer a task force on ‘‘scoring systems’’ was founded. In order to evaluate scoring systems it became clear that a trauma registry was needed. There was a controversial discussion which and how many variables should be included in such a registry. Another important question was how participating hospitals could get comparative feedback on their performance while anonymity of the data would be ensured? Finally three main goals of the trauma registry were defined [1]:

Alterstraumazentren von der Idee bis zur Umsetzung

The geriatric trauma working party, a subgroup of the German Society of Trauma Surgery (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU), focuses on the challenges of geriatric fractures, which are steadily increasing due to demographic changes. Inherent comorbidities implicate perioperative complications leading to loss of mobility and endangered independence followed by an increased burden on the social services. An interdisciplinary approach is required. The geriatric trauma working party defined criteria for interdisciplinary treatment and comprehensive care as well as early rehabilitation in interdisciplinary geriatric fracture centers. By passing an independent audit process these centers can achieve certification as a geriatric trauma center DGU (AltersTraumaZentrum DGU). Certified centers can participate in a recently established geriatric fracture registry which includes an internationally consented data set. Audit and registry enable centers to acquire an international benchmark, ensure permanent improvement in quality and allow participation in health services research.

Geriatric trauma centers from the idea to implementation. What has been achieved

The geriatric trauma working party, a subgroup of the German Society of Trauma Surgery (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU), focuses on the challenges of geriatric fractures, which are steadily increasing due to demographic changes. Inherent comorbidities implicate perioperative complications leading to loss of mobility and endangered independence followed by an increased burden on the social services. An interdisciplinary approach is required. The geriatric trauma working party defined criteria for interdisciplinary treatment and comprehensive care as well as early rehabilitation in interdisciplinary geriatric fracture centers. By passing an independent audit process these centers can achieve certification as a geriatric trauma center DGU (AltersTraumaZentrum DGU). Certified centers can participate in a recently established geriatric fracture registry which includes an internationally consented data set. Audit and registry enable centers to acquire an international benchmark, ensure permanent improvement in quality and allow participation in health services research.

Alterstraumazentren von der Idee bis zur Umsetzung@@@Geriatric trauma centers from the idea to implementation: Was wurde erreicht?@@@What has been achieved?

The geriatric trauma working party, a subgroup of the German Society of Trauma Surgery (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU), focuses on the challenges of geriatric fractures, which are steadily increasing due to demographic changes. Inherent comorbidities implicate perioperative complications leading to loss of mobility and endangered independence followed by an increased burden on the social services. An interdisciplinary approach is required. The geriatric trauma working party defined criteria for interdisciplinary treatment and comprehensive care as well as early rehabilitation in interdisciplinary geriatric fracture centers. By passing an independent audit process these centers can achieve certification as a geriatric trauma center DGU (AltersTraumaZentrum DGU). Certified centers can participate in a recently established geriatric fracture registry which includes an internationally consented data set. Audit and registry enable centers to acquire an international benchmark, ensure permanent improvement in quality and allow participation in health services research.

Das TraumaNetzwerkD DGU 2009@@@The Trauma Network of the German Society for Trauma 2009

In 2009, 3 years after the foundation of the Trauma Network of the German Society for Trauma (TraumaNetzwerkD DGU), the majority of German hospitals participating in the treatment of seriously injured patients is registered in regional trauma networks (TNW). Currently there are 41 trauma networks with more than 660 hospitals in existence, 18 more are registered but are still in the planning phase. Each Federal State has an average of 39 trauma centres of different levels taking part in the treatment of seriously injured patients and every trauma network has an average catchment area of 8708 km(2). The most favourable geographical infrastructure conditions exist in Nordrhein-Westfalen, the least favourable in Sachsen-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. A total of 95 hospitals have already fulfilled the first audit of the structural, personnel and qualitative requirements by the certification bodies. Examination of the check lists of 26 hospitals showed shortcomings in the clinical structure so that these hospitals must be rechecked after correction of the shortcomings. A total of 59 hospitals throughout Germany were successfully audited and only one failed to fulfil the requirements. Because of the varying sizes of the trauma networks there are differences in the areas covered by each trauma network and trauma centre. Concerning the process of certification and auditing (together with the company DIOcert) it could be seen that by careful examination of the check lists of each hospital unforeseen problems during the audit could be avoided. The following article will present the current state of development of the Trauma Network of the German Society for Trauma and describe the certification and auditing process.