Search

Introduction: Mortality due to trauma has reduced the past decades. Trauma network implementations have been an important contributor to this achievement. Besides mortality, patient reported outcome parameters should be included in evaluation of trauma care. While concentrating major trauma care, hospitals are designated with a certain level of trauma care following specific criteria. Objective: Comparing health status of major trauma patients after two years across different levels of trauma care in trauma networks. Methods: Multicentre observational study comprising a secondary longitudinal multilevel analysis on prospective cohorts from two neighbouring trauma regions in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria: patient aged ≥ 18 with an ISS > 15 surviving their injuries at least one year after trauma. Health status was measured one and two years after trauma by EQ-5D-5 L, added with a sixth health dimension on cognition. Level I trauma centres were considered as reference in uni- and multivariate analysis. Results: Respondents admitted to a level I trauma centre scored less favourable EQ-US and EQ-VAS in both years (0.81–0.81, 71–75) than respondents admitted to a level II (0.88–0.87, 78–85) or level III (0.89–0.88, 75–80) facility. Level II facilities scored significantly higher EQ-US and EQ-VAS in time for univariate analysis (β 0.095, 95% CI 0.038–0.153, p = 0.001, and β 7.887, 95% CI 3.035–12.740, p = 0.002), not in multivariate analysis (β 0.052, 95% CI -0.010–0.115, p = 0.102, and β 3.714, 95% CI -1.893–9.321, p = 0.193). Fewer limitations in mobility (OR 0.344, 95% CI 0.156–0.760), self-care (OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.077–0.618), and pain and discomfort (OR 0.421, 95% CI 0.214–0.831) remained significant for level II facilities in multivariate analysis, whereas significant differences with level III facilities disappeared. Conclusion: Major trauma patients admitted to level I trauma centres reported a less favourable general health status and more limitations compared to level II and III facilities scoring populations norms one to two years after trauma. Differences on general health status and limitations in specific health domains disappeared in adjusted analysis. Well-coordinated trauma networks offer homogeneous results for all major trauma patients when they are distributed in different centres according to their need of care.

Introduction: Twenty years ago the Dutch trauma care system was reformed by the designating 11 level one Regional trauma centres (RTCs) to organise trauma care. The RTCs set up the Dutch National Trauma Registry (DNTR) to evaluate epidemiology, patient distribution, resource use and quality of care. In this study we describe the DNTR, the incidence and main characteristics of Dutch acutely admitted trauma patients, and evaluate the value of including all acute trauma admissions compared to more stringent criteria applied by the national trauma registries of the United Kingdom and Germany.Methods: The DNTR includes all injured patients treated at the ED within 48 hours after trauma and consecutively followed by direct admission, transfers to another hospital or death at the ED. DNTR data on admission years 2007-2018 were extracted to describe the maturation of the registry. Data from 2018 was used to describe the incidence rate and patient characteristics. Inclusion criteria of the Trauma Audit and Research (TARN) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie (DGU) were applied on 2018 DNTR data.Results: Since its start in 2007 a total of 865,460 trauma cases have been registered in the DNTR. Hospital participation increased from 64% to 98%. In 2018, a total of 77,529 patients were included, the median age was 64 years, 50% males. Severely injured patients with an ISS=16, accounted for 6% of all admissions, of which 70% was treated at designated RTCs. Patients with an ISS= 15were treated at non-RTCs in 80% of cases.Application of DGU or TARN inclusion criteria, resulted in inclusion of respectively 5% and 32% of the DNTR patients. Particularly children, elderly and patients admitted at non-RTCs are left out. Moreover, 50% of ISS >= 16 and 68% of the fatal cases did not meet DGU inclusion criteriaConclusion: The DNTR has evolved into a comprehensive well-structured nationwide population-based trauma register. With 80,0 00 inclusions annually, the DNTR has become one of the largest trauma databases in Europe The registries strength lies in the broad inclusion criteria which enables studies on the burden of injury and the quality and efficiency of the entire trauma care system, encompassing all trauma-receiving hospitals. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Well-advised priority setting in prevention and treatment of injuries relies on detailed insight into costs of injury. This study aimed to provide a detailed overview of medical and productivity costs due to injury up to two years post-injury and compare these costs across subgroups for injury severity and age. Methods A prospective longitudinal cohort study followed all adult (≥18 years) injury patients admitted to a hospital in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands. Patients filled out questionnaires 1 week, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after trauma, including items on health care consumption from the medical consumption questionnaire (iMCQ) and productivity loss from the productivity cost questionnaire (PCQ). Furthermore, injury severity was defined by Injury Severity Score (ISS). Data on diagnostics was retrieved from hospital registries. We calculated medical costs, consisting of in-hospital costs and post-hospital medical costs, and productivity costs due to injury up to two years post-injury. Results Approximately 50% (N = 4883) of registered patients provided informed consent, and 3785 filled out at least one questionnaire. In total, the average costs per patient were €12,190. In-hospital costs, post-hospital medical costs and productivity costs contributed €4810, €5110 and €5830, respectively. Total costs per patient increased with injury severity, from €7030 in ISS1-3 to €23,750 in ISS16+ and were lowest for age category 18-24y (€7980), highest for age category 85 years and over (€15,580), and fluctuated over age groups in between. Conclusion Both medical costs and productivity costs generally increased with injury severity. Furthermore, productivity costs were found to be a large component of total costs of injury in ISS1-8 and are therefore a potentially interesting area with regard to reducing costs.

Purpose To evaluate the correspondence of directly reported and recalled health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a heterogeneous sample of trauma patients. Methods Adult trauma patients who attended the Emergency Department and were admitted between 03/2016 and 11/2016 were invited to participate. Postal surveys were sent 1 week (T1), 3 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) post-trauma. The EQ-5D-3L and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) were used to assess directly reported and recalled HRQL. Results The EQ-5D was completed by 446 patients at T1, T2, and T3. Directly reported mean T1 EQ-5D summary score was 0.482, whereas recalled T1 EQ-5D summary score was 0.453 (p

IntroductionAdverse events and associated morbidity and subsequent costs receive increasing attention in clinical practice and research. As opposed to complications, errors are not described or analysed in literature on fracture surgery. The aim of this study was to provide a description of errors and complications in relation to fracture surgery, as well as the circumstances in which they occur, for example urgency, type of surgeon, and type of fracture.MethodsAll errors and complications were recorded prospectively in our hospital’s complication registry, which forms an integral part of the electronic medical patient file. All recorded errors and complications in the complication registry linked to fracture surgery between 1 January, 2000 and 31 December, 2010 were analysed.ResultsDuring the study period 4310 osteosynthesis procedures were performed. In 78 (1.8 %) procedures an error in osteosynthesis was registered. The number of procedures in which an error occurred was significantly lower (OR = 0.53; p = 0.007) when an orthopaedic trauma surgeon was part of the operating team. Of all 3758 patients who were admitted to the surgical ward for osteosynthesis, 745 (19.8 %) had one or more postoperative complications registered. There was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications after osteosynthesis procedures in which an orthopaedic trauma surgeon was present or absent (16.7 vs. 19.1 %; p = 0.088; OR 0.85).DiscussionIn the present study the true error rate after osteosynthesis may have been higher than the rate found. Errors that had no significant consequence may be especially susceptible to underreporting.ConclusionThe present study suggests that an osteosynthesis procedure performed by or actively assisted by an orthopaedic trauma surgeon decreases the probability of an error in osteosynthesis. Apart from errors in osteosynthesis, the involvement of an orthopaedic trauma surgeon did not lead to a significant reduction in the number of postoperative complications.Keywords: Fractures, Surgical error, Complications

BackgroundFormer studies have demonstrated that health-related quality of life is decreased in severely injured patients. However, in those studies patients were asked about their functioning and not about their (dis)contentment concerning their functioning. Little is known about how severely injured patients experience their quality of life (QOL). The objective of this cross-sectional study was to measure this subjective QOL of severely injured patients after their rehabilitation phase and to examine which accident- and patient-related factors affect the QOL of these patients.MethodsPatients of 18 years or older with an injury severity score (ISS) above 15 were included 15–53 months after their accident. Comorbidity before the accident, accident and sociodemographic characteristics, and QOL were obtained from the trauma registry and questionnaires. The WHOQOL-BREF was used to measure QOL. A reference group of the Dutch general population was used for comparison.ResultsThe participation rate was 61% (n = 173). Compared with the reference data, severely injured patients experienced a significantly worse QOL in all domains except social relations. The QOL scores were significantly decreased in all domains for patients with intracranial injury in combination with other injuries. Patients with a severe intracranial injury (AIS > 3) only reported significantly impaired QOL in the general and physical domains. Patients who resumed working or lived with others had significantly higher scores in all domains of QOL than patients who did not work anymore or were living alone. Significantly lower QOL scores were obtained from patients with comorbidity before the accident and from patients with longer durations of intensive care unit (ICU) treatment or hospitalisation. Gender, accident characteristics and time since the accident did not appear to be important for experienced QOL.ConclusionsThe experience of impaired QOL appears to depend on living alone, inability to return to work and pre-accidental comorbidity rather than on the injured body area or the severity of the injury. Duration of hospital or ICU stay is important to subsequent QOL, even if ISS or body region is not.Keywords: Quality of life, Injury, Trauma