The Institute of Medicine proposed six aims for healthcare quality improvement. Nevertheless, trauma care quality research still focuses on one aim at a time. This research investigates how to incorporate all aims into trauma care quality assessments using data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Through a literature review, we identified quantifiable metrics for most aims, except for equity and patient-centeredness. We proposed two approaches to build composite scores accounting for equity via an adjustment procedure based on observed disparities. The single- and multi-aim approaches were compared through correlation, concordance of trauma centre categorisations, and hypothetical incentives. The differences in the approaches stemmed mainly from the weights allocated to the different aims. Results indicated the potential value of multi-aim quality assessment and provided insights about implementation challenges and opportunities. The methods are applicable to the preferred metrics; nevertheless, further research is needed in measuring patient-centeredness.