Search

Background: In the UK, studies suggest that the transition from hospital to home after an injury can be a difficult time and many patients report feeling inadequately prepared. Patients often use primary care services after hospital discharge. These consultations provide opportunities to consider problems that patients experience and to facilitate recovery. Little is known, however, about how patients and service providers view care after hospital discharge and the role played by primary care services, specifically GPs. Aim: To identify good practice and unmet needs in respect of post-discharge support for injured patients. Design and Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews at four sites (Bristol, Leicester/Loughborough, Nottingham, and Surrey). Method: Qualitative interviews with 40 service providers and 45 hospitalised injured patients. Results: Although there were examples of well-managed hospital discharges, many patients felt they were not provided with the information they needed about their injury, what to expect in terms of recovery, pain control, return to work, psychological problems, and services to help meet their needs. They also described difficulty accessing services such as physiotherapy or counselling. Service providers identified problems with communication between secondary and primary care, lack of access to physiotherapy, poor communication about other services that may help patients, GP service and resource constraints, and difficulties in providing information to patients concerning likely prognosis. Conclusion: Discharge from hospital after an injury can be problematic for patients. Changes in both secondary and primary care are required to resolve this problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Traumatic injury is a leading contributor to the overall global burden of disease. However, there is a worldwide shortage of population data to inform understanding of non-fatal injury burden. An improved understanding of the pattern of recovery following trauma is needed to better estimate the burden of injury, guide provision of rehabilitation services and care to injured people, and inform guidelines for the monitoring and evaluation of disability outcomes. Objective To provide a comprehensive overview of patient outcomes and experiences in the first 5 years after serious injury. Design This is a population-based, nested prospective cohort study using quantitative data methods, supplemented by a qualitative study of a seriously injured participant sample. Participants All 2547 paediatric and adult major trauma patients captured by the Victorian State Trauma Registry with a date of injury from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 who survived to hospital discharge and did not opt-off from the registry. Analysis To analyse the quantitative data and identify factors that predict poor or good outcome, whether there is change over time, differences in rates of recovery and change between key participant subgroups, multilevel mixed effects regression models will be fitted. To analyse the qualitative data, thematic analysis will be used to identify important themes and the relationships between themes. Contribution to the field The results of this project have the potential to inform clinical decisions and public health policy, which can reduce the burden of non-fatal injury and improve the lives of people living with the consequences of severe injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To estimate the likelihood of recovery at 1, 4 and 12 months post injury and investigate predictors of recovery in injured people attending an emergency department (ED) or admitted to hospital in the UK. Methods Participants completed questionnaires at recruitment and 1, 4 and 12 months post injury or until recovered. Data were collected on injury details, sociodemographic characteristics, general health prior to injury and recovery. We compared three age groups: 5-17, 18-64 and 65 years and above. Modified Poisson regression estimated the relative risk of recovery. Multivariable models were built using backward stepwise regression. Sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of missing data. Results We recruited 1517 participants, 55% (n=836) ED attenders and 44% (n=661) hospital admissions. By 1 month after injury, 28% (285/968) had fully recovered, 54% (440/820) at 4 months and 71% (523/738) at 12 months. Recovery was independently associated with gender, admission status, injury severity, body region injured and place of injury for 5-17 year olds and 18-64 year olds and with gender, admission status, injury severity and long-term illness for those aged 65+. Injury severity and hospital admission were associated with recovery across all age groups, but not at every time point in each age group. Other factors varied between age groups or time points. Results were generally robust to imputing missing data. Conclusions A range of factors was found to predict recovery among injured people. These could be used to identify those at risk of delayed recovery and to inform the design of interventions to maximise recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK the most disadvantaged in society are more likely than those more affluent to be injured or killed in a road traffic collision and therefore it is a major cause of health inequality. There is a strong link between ethnicity, deprivation and injury. Whilst national road traffic injury data does not collect ethnic origin the London accident and analysis group does in terms of broad categories such as 'white', 'black' and 'Asian'. Analysis of this data revealed the over-representation of child pedestrian casualties from a 'black' ethnic origin. This information led road safety practitioners in one London borough to map child pedestrian casualties against census data which identified the Somali community as being particularly at risk of being involved in a road traffic collision. Working with the community they sought to discuss and address road safety issues and introduced practical evidence based approaches such as child pedestrian training. The process evaluation of the project used a qualitative approach and showed that engaging with community partners and working across organisational boundaries was a useful strategy to gain an understanding of the Somali community. A bottom approach provided the community with a sense of control and involvement which appears to add value in terms of reducing the sense of powerlessness that marginalised communities often feel. In terms of evaluation, small projects like these, lend themselves to a qualitative process evaluation though it has to be accepted that the strength of this evidence may be regarded as weak. Where possible routine injury data needs to take into account ethnicity which is a known risk factor for road casualty involvement which needs to be continually monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current methods of measuring the population burden of injuries rely on many assumptions and limited data available to the global burden of diseases (GBD) studies. The aim of this study was to compare the population burden of injuries using different approaches from the UK Burden of Injury (UKBOI) and GBD studies.Methods and Findings: The UKBOI was a prospective cohort of 1,517 injured individuals that collected patient-reported outcomes. Extrapolated outcome data were combined with multiple sources of morbidity and mortality data to derive population metrics of the burden of injury in the UK. Participants were injured patients recruited from hospitals in four UK cities and towns: Swansea, Nottingham, Bristol, and Guildford, between September 2005 and April 2007. Patient-reported changes in quality of life using the EQ-5D at baseline, 1, 4, and 12 months after injury provided disability weights used to calculate the years lived with disability (YLDs) component of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). DALYs were calculated for the UK and extrapolated to global estimates using both UKBOI and GBD disability weights. Estimated numbers (and rates per 100,000) for UK population extrapolations were 750,999 (1,240) for hospital admissions, 7,982,947 (13,339) for emergency department (ED) attendances, and 22,185 (36.8) for injury-related deaths in 2005. Nonadmitted ED-treated injuries accounted for 67% of YLDs. Estimates for UK DALYs amounted to 1,771,486 (82% due to YLDs), compared with 669,822 (52% due to YLDs) using the GBD approach. Extrapolating patient-derived disability weights to GBD estimates would increase injury-related DALYs 2.6-fold.Conclusions: The use of disability weights derived from patient experiences combined with additional morbidity data on ED-treated patients and inpatients suggests that the absolute burden of injury is higher than previously estimated. These findings have substantial implications for improving measurement of the national and global burden of injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]