ABSTACT Objective: Coding injuries from autopsy reports of traffic accident victims according to Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS © 2005 update 2008 [1] is quite time consuming. The suspicion arose, that many issues leading to discussion between coder and control reader were based on information required by the AIS that was not documented in the autopsy reports.
Methods: To quantify this suspicion, we introduced an AIS-detail-indicator (AIS-DI). To each injury in the AIS Codebook one letter from A to N was assigned indicating the level of detail. Rules were formulated to receive repeatable assignments. This scheme was applied to a selection of 149 multiply injured traffic fatalities. The frequencies of "not A" codes were calculated for each body region and it was analysed, why the most detailed level A had not been coded. As a first finding, the results of the head region are presented.
Results: 747 AIS head injury codes were found in 137 traffic fatalities, and 60% of these injuries were coded with an AIS-DI of level A. There are three different explanations for codes of AIS-DI "not A": Group 1 "Missing information in autopsy report" (5%), Group 2 "Clinical data required by AIS" (20%), and Group 3 "AIS system determined" (15%). Groups 1 and 2 show consequences for the ISS in 25 cases. Other body regions might perform differently.
Conclusions: The AIS-DI can indicate the quality of the underlying data basis and, depending on the aims of different AIS users it can be a helpful tool for quality checks.
Keywords: Abbreviated Injury Scale; Proof of Concept Study; injury documentation; multiple trauma; quality control.