Are A ustralian and N ew Z ealand trauma service resources reflective of the A ustralasian T rauma V erification Model Resource Criteria?

The A ustralasian T rauma V erification P rogram was developed in 2000 to improve the quality of care provided at services in A ustralia and N ew Z ealand. The programme outlines resources required for differing levels of trauma services. This study compares the human resources in A ustralia and N ew Z ealand trauma services with those recommended by the A ustralasian C ollege of S urgeons T rauma V erification P rogram. Methods In S eptember 2011, all trauma nurse coordinators in A ustralia and N ew Z ealand were invited to participate in an electronic survey endorsed by the A ustralasian T rauma S ociety. This study expands on previous bi‐national research and aimed to identify demographic and trauma service human resource levels. Results Fifty‐three surveys (78%) were completed and all 27 Level 1 trauma centres represented. Of the Level 1 trauma centres, a trauma director and fellow were available at 16 (51.8%) and 14 (40.7%) centres, respectively. The majority (93%) had a full‐time trauma coordinator although a trauma case manager was only available at 14 (48.1%) of Level 1 trauma centres. Despite the large amount of data collection and extraction required, trauma services had limited access to a data manager (50.9%) or clerical staff (36.9%). Conclusion Human resources in A ustralian and NZ trauma services are not reflective of those recommended by the A ustralasian T rauma V erification P rogram. This impacts on the ability to coordinate trauma monitoring and performance improvement. Review of the A ustralasian T rauma V erification M odel R esource C riteria is required. Injury surveillance in A ustralia and NZ is hampered by insufficient trauma registry resources.