Search

Background: Injury is a leading contributor to the global disease burden in children, affecting their health-related quality of life (HRQoL)—yet valid estimates of burden are absent. Methods: This study pooled longitudinal data from five cohort studies of pediatric injury survivors (5–17 years) at baseline, 1-, 4-, 6-, 12-, and 24- months (n = 2334). HRQoL post-injury was measured using the 3-level EQ-5D utility score (EQ-5D) and five health states (mobility, self-care, activity, pain, anxiety and depression (anxiety)). Results: Mean EQ-5D post-injury did not return to baseline level (0.95) by 24 months (0.88) and was lower for females over time (−0.04, 95%CI −0.05, −0.02). A decreased adjusted risk ratio over time (ARR) was observed for intentional injuries (pain: 0.85, 95%CI 0.73,0.98; anxiety: 0.62, 95%CI 0.49,0.78); spinal cord injuries (mobility: 0.61, 95%CI 0.45,0.83), self-care: 0.76, 95%CI 0.63,0.91, activity: 0.64, 95%CI 0.47,0.88); moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (activity: 0.83, 95%CI 0.71,0.96). ARRs were also low for certain fractures, with various health states affected. Conclusions: HRQoL outcomes over time for children and adolescents post-injury differed across key demographic and injury related attributes. HRQoL did not reach levels consistent with full health by 24 months with recovery plateauing from 6 to 24 months. Tailored interventions are required to respond to the varying post-injury recovery trajectories in this population.

Background\ud \ud Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods and findings\ud \ud We conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer—in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud We observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required.

Background\ud \ud Prehospital care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important to prevent secondary brain injury. We aim to compare prehospital care systems within Europe and investigate the association of system characteristics with the stability of patients at hospital arrival.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We studied TBI patients who were transported to CENTER-TBI centers, a pan-European, prospective TBI cohort study, by emergency medical services between 2014 and 2017. The association of demographic factors, injury severity, situational factors, and interventions associated with on-scene time was assessed using linear regression. We used mixed effects models to investigate the case mix adjusted variation between countries in prehospital times and interventions. The case mix adjusted impact of on-scene time and interventions on hypoxia (oxygen saturation

Background\ud \ud Many countries have centralized and dedicated trauma centres with high volumes of trauma patients. However, the volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital volume and outcomes in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs).\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) consisting of all English Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). Severely injured patients (ISS > 15) admitted to a MTC between 2013 and 2016 were included. The effect of hospital volume on outcome was analysed with random effects logistic regression models with a random intercept for centre and was tested for nonlinearity. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud A total of 47,157 severely injured patients from 28 MTCs were included in this study. Hospital volume varied from 69 to 781 severely injured patients per year. There were small between-centre differences in mortality after adjusting for important demographic and injury severity characteristics (adjusted 95% odds ratio range: 0.99–1.01). Hospital volume was found to be linear and not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.02 per 10 patients, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.54, p = 0.92).\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Despite the large variation in volume of the included MTCs, no relationship between hospital volume and outcome of severely injured patients was found. These results suggest that centres with similar structure and processes of care can achieve comparable outcomes in severely injured patients despite the number of severely injured patients they treat.

© 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. BACKGROUND The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients. METHODS Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter. RESULTS Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of-0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI,-0.27 to-0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies. CONCLUSION Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Introduction Traumatic injury is a leading contributor to the global disease burden in children and adolescents, but methods used to estimate burden do not account for differences in patterns of injury and recovery between children and adults. A lack of empirical data on postinjury disability in children has limited capacity to derive valid disability weights and describe the long-term individual and societal impacts of injury in the early part of life. The aim of this study is to establish valid estimates of the burden of non-fatal injury in children and adolescents. Methods and analysis Five longitudinal studies of paediatric injury survivors 18 years at the time of injury (Australia, Canada, UK and USA) and two whole-of-population linked administrative data paediatric studies (Australia and Wales) will be analysed over a 3-year period commencing 2018. Meta-analysis of deidentified patient-level data (2,600) from five injury-specific longitudinal studies (Victorian State Trauma Registry; Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry; UK Burden of Injury; British Columbia Children's Hospital Longitudinal Injury Outcomes; Children's Health After Injury) and >1 million children from two whole-of-population cohorts (South Australian Early Childhood Data Project and Wales Electronic Cohort for Children). Systematic analysis of pooled injury-specific cohort data using a variety of statistical techniques, and parallel analysis of whole-of-population cohorts, will be used to develop estimated disability weights for years lost due to disability, establish appropriate injury classifications and explore factors influencing recovery. Ethics and dissemination The project was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee project number 12 311. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in internationally peer-reviewed journals. The findings from this project have the capacity to improve the validity of paediatric injury burden measurements in future local and global burden of disease studies.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. Background Networked organised systems of care for patients with major trauma now exist in many countries, designed around the needs of the majority of patients (90% adults). Non-accidental injury is a significant cause of paediatric major trauma and has a different injury and age profile from accidental injury (AI). This paper compares the prehospital and inhospital phases of the patient pathway for children with suspected abuse, with those accidentally injured. Methods The paediatric database of the national trauma registry of England and Wales, Trauma Audit and Research Network, was interrogated from April 2012 (the launch of the major trauma networks) to June 2015, comparing the patient pathway for cases of suspected child abuse (SCA) with AI. Results In the study population of 7825 children, 7344 (94%) were classified as AI and 481 (6%) as SCA. SCA cases were younger (median 0.4 years vs 7 years for AI), had a higher Injury Severity Score (median 16vs9 for AI), and had nearly three times higher mortality (5.7%vs2.2% for AI). Other differences included presentation to hospital evenly throughout the day and year, arrival by non-ambulance means to hospital (74%) and delayed presentation to hospital from the time of injury (median 8 hours vs 1.8 hours for AI). Despite more severe injuries, these infants were less likely to receive key interventions in a timely manner. Only 20% arrived to a designated paediatric-capable major trauma centre. Secondary transfer to specialist care, if needed, took a median of 21.6 hours from injury(vs 13.8 hours for AI). Conclusion These data show that children with major trauma that is inflicted rather than accidental follow a different pathway through the trauma system. The current model of major trauma care is not a good fit for the way in which child victims of suspected abuse present to healthcare. To achieve better care, awareness of this patient profile needs to increase, and trauma networks should adjust their conventional responses.

INTRODUCTION: A new prognostic model has been developed and externally validated, the aim of which is to assist in the management of the blunt chest wall trauma patient in the emergency department (ED). A definitive randomised controlled trial (impact trial) is required to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of the new model before it can be accepted in clinical practice. The purpose of this trial is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of such a definitive trial and inform its design. \ud \ud METHODS/ANALYSIS: This feasibility trial is designed to test the methods of a multicentre, cluster-randomised (stepped- wedge) trial, with a substantial qualitative component. Four EDs in England and Wales will collect data for all blunt chest wall trauma patients over a 5-month period; in the initial period acting as the controls (normal care), and in the second period acting as the interventions (in which the new model will be used). Baseline measurements including completion of the SF-12v2 will be obtained on initial assessment in the ED. Patient outcome data will then be collected for any subsequent hospitalisations. Data collection will conclude with a 6-week follow-up completion of two surveys (SF-12v2 and Client Services Receipt Inventory). Analysis of outcomes will focus on feasibility, acceptability and trial processes and will include recruitment and retention rates, attendance at clinician training rates and use of model in the ED. Qualitative feedback will be obtained through clinician interviews and a research nurse focus group. An evaluation of the feasibility of health economics outcomes data will be completed. \ud \ud ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 granted approval for the trial in September 2016. Patient recruitment will commence in February 2017. Planned dissemination is through publication in a peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine Journal, presentation at appropriate conferences and to stakeholders at professional meetings. \ud \ud TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN95571506; Pre-results.

INTRODUCTION: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used in the assessment of clinical severity and prediction of outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The sum score is frequently applied, but the differential influence of the components infrequently addressed. We aimed to investigate the contribution of the GCS components to the sum score, floor and ceiling effects of the components, and their prognostic effects. \ud \ud METHODS: Data on adult TBI patients were gathered from three data repositories: TARN (n=50,064), VSTR (n=14,062), and CRASH (n=9,941). Data on initial hospital GCS-assessment and discharge mortality were extracted. A descriptive analysis was performed to identify floor and ceiling effects. The relation between GCS and outcome was studied by comparing case fatality rates (CFR) between different component-profiles adding up to identical sum scores using Chi(2)-tests, and by quantifying the prognostic value of each component and sum score with Nagelkerke's R(2) derived from logistic regression analyses across TBI severities. \ud \ud RESULTS: In the range 3-7, the sum score is primarily determined by the motor component, as the verbal and eye components show floor-effects at sum scores 7 and 8, respectively. In the range 8-12, the effect of the motor component attenuates and the verbal and eye components become more relevant. The motor, eye and verbal scores reach their ceiling-effects at sum 13, 14 and 15, respectively. Significant variations were exposed in CFR between different component-profiles despite identical sum scores, except in sum scores 6 and 7. Regression analysis showed that the motor score had highest R(2) values in severe TBI patients, whereas the other components were more relevant at higher sum scores. The prognostic value of the three components combined was consistently higher than that of the sum score alone. \ud \ud CONCLUSION: The GCS-components contribute differentially across the spectrum of consciousness to the sum score, each having floor and ceiling effects. The specific component-profile is related to outcome and the three components combined contain higher prognostic value than the sum score across different TBI severities. We, therefore, recommend a multidimensional use of the three-component GCS both in clinical practice, and in prognostic studies.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used in the assessment of clinical severity and prediction of outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The sum score is frequently applied, but the differential influence of the components infrequently addressed. We aimed to investigate the contribution of the GCS components to the sum score, floor and ceiling effects of the components, and their prognostic effects. Data on adult TBI patients were gathered from three data repositories: TARN (n=50,064), VSTR (n=14,062), and CRASH (n=9,941). Data on initial hospital GCS-assessment and discharge mortality were extracted. A descriptive analysis was performed to identify floor and ceiling effects. The relation between GCS and outcome was studied by comparing case fatality rates (CFR) between different component-profiles adding up to identical sum scores using Chi(2)-tests, and by quantifying the prognostic value of each component and sum score with Nagelkerke's R(2) derived from logistic regression analyses across TBI severities. In the range 3-7, the sum score is primarily determined by the motor component, as the verbal and eye components show floor-effects at sum scores 7 and 8, respectively. In the range 8-12, the effect of the motor component attenuates and the verbal and eye components become more relevant. The motor, eye and verbal scores reach their ceiling-effects at sum 13, 14 and 15, respectively. Significant variations were exposed in CFR between different component-profiles despite identical sum scores, except in sum scores 6 and 7. Regression analysis showed that the motor score had highest R(2) values in severe TBI patients, whereas the other components were more relevant at higher sum scores. The prognostic value of the three components combined was consistently higher than that of the sum score alone. The GCS-components contribute differentially across the spectrum of consciousness to the sum score, each having floor and ceiling effects. The specific component-profile is related to outcome and the three components combined contain higher prognostic value than the sum score across different TBI severities. We, therefore, recommend a multidimensional use of the three-component GCS both in clinical practice, and in prognostic studies.

Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.Objective: We sought to determine 30-day survival trends and prognostic factors following surgery for acute subdural hematomas (ASDHs) in England and Wales over a 20-year period. Summary of Background Data: ASDHs are still considered the most lethal type of traumatic brain injury. It remains unclear whether the adjusted odds of survival have improved significantly over time. Methods: Using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database, we analyzed ASDH cases in the adult population (>16 yrs) treated surgically between 1994 and 2013. Two thousand four hundred ninety-eight eligible cases were identified. Univariable and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed, using multiple imputation for missing data. Results: The cohort was 74% male with a median age of 48.9 years. Over half of patients were comatose at presentation (53%). Mechanism of injury was due to a fall (2 m 24%), road traffic collision (25%), and other (17%). Thirty-six per cent of patients presented with polytrauma. Gross survival increased from 59% in 1994 to 1998 to 73% in 2009 to 2013. Under multivariable analysis, variables independently associated with survival were year of injury, Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, age, and pupil reactivity. The time interval from injury to craniotomy and direct admission to a neurosurgical unit were not found to be significant prognostic factors. Conclusions: A significant improvement in survival over the last 20 years was observed after controlling for multiple prognostic factors. Prospective trials and cohort studies are expected to elucidate the distribution of functional outcome in survivors.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate current management of the anticoagulated trauma patient in the emergency departments (EDs) in England and Wales. Methods A survey exploring management strategies for anticoagulated trauma patients presenting to the ED was developed with two patient scenarios concerning assessment of coagulation status, reversal of international normalised ratio (INR), management of hypotension and management strategies for each patient. Numerical data are presented as percentages of total respondents to that particular question. Results 106 respondents from 166 hospitals replied to the survey, with 24% of respondents working in a major trauma unit with a specialist neurosurgical unit. Variation was reported in the assessment and management strategies of the elderly anticoagulated poly-trauma patient described in scenario one. Variation was also evident in the responses between the neurosurgical and non-neurosurgical units for the headinjured, anticoagulated trauma patient in scenario two. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the similarities and variation in the management strategies used in the EDs in England and Wales for the elderly, anticoagulated trauma patient. The variations in practice reported may be due to the differences evident in the available guidelines for these patients.

INTRODUCTION: Severely bleeding trauma patients are a small proportion of the major trauma population but account for 40% of all trauma deaths. Healthcare resource use and costs are likely to be substantial but have not been fully quantified. Knowledge of costs is essential for developing targeted cost reduction strategies, informing health policy, and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: In collaboration with the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) detailed patient-level data on in-hospital resource use, extended care at hospital discharge, and readmissions up to 12 months post-injury were collected on 441 consecutive adult major trauma patients with severe bleeding presenting at 22 hospitals (21 in England and one in Wales). Resource use data were costed using national unit costs and mean costs estimated for the cohort and for clinically relevant subgroups. Using nationally available data on trauma presentations in England, patient-level cost estimates were up-scaled to a national level. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) total cost of initial hospital inpatient care was £19,770 (£18,177 to £21,364) per patient, of which 62% was attributable to ventilation, intensive care, and ward stays, 16% to surgery, and 12% to blood component transfusion. Nursing home and rehabilitation unit care and re-admissions to hospital increased the cost to £20,591 (£18,924 to £22,257). Costs were significantly higher for more severely injured trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥15) and those with blunt injuries. Cost estimates for England were £148,300,000, with over a third of this cost attributable to patients aged 65 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: Severely bleeding major trauma patients are a high cost subgroup of all major trauma patients, and the cost burden is projected to rise further as a consequence of an aging population and as evidence continues to emerge on the benefits of early and simultaneous administration of blood products in pre-specified ratios. The findings from this study provide a previously unreported baseline from which the potential impact of changes to service provision and/or treatment practice can begin to be evaluated. Further studies are still required to determine the full costs of post-discharge care requirements, which are also likely to be substantial.