Search

Objective: To measure the prevalence of alcohol and/or other drug (AOD) detections in suspected major trauma patients with non‐transport injuries who presented to an adult major trauma centre. Methods: This registry‐based cohort study examined the prevalence of AOD detections in patients aged ≥18 years who: (i) sustained non‐transport injuries; and (ii) met predefined trauma call‐out criteria and were therefore managed by an interdisciplinary trauma team between 1 July 2021 and 31 December 2022. Prevalence was measured using routine in‐hospital blood alcohol and urine drug screens. Results: A total of 1469 cases met the inclusion criteria. Of cases with a valid blood test (n = 1248, 85.0%), alcohol was detected in 313 (25.1%) patients. Of the 733 (49.9%) cases with urine drug screen results, cannabinoids were most commonly detected (n = 103, 14.1%), followed by benzodiazepines (n = 98, 13.4%), amphetamine‐type substances (n = 80, 10.9%), opioids (n = 28, 3.8%) and cocaine (n = 17, 2.3%). Alcohol and/or at least one other drug was detected in 37.4% (n = 472) of cases with either a blood alcohol or urine drug test completed (n = 1263, 86.0%). Multiple substances were detected in 16.6% (n = 119) of cases with both blood alcohol and urine drug screens (n = 718, 48.9%). Detections were prevalent in cases of interpersonal violence (n = 123/179, 68.7%) and intentional self‐harm (n = 50/106, 47.2%), and in those occurring on Friday and Saturday nights (n = 118/191, 61.8%). Conclusion: AOD detections were common in trauma patients with non‐transport injury causes. Population‐level surveillance is needed to inform prevention strategies that address AOD use as a significant risk factor for serious injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the most ubiquitous summary score derived from Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) data. It is frequently used to classify patients as 'major trauma' using a threshold of ISS >15. However, it is not known whether this is still appropriate, given the changes which have been made to the AIS codeset since this threshold was first used. This study aimed to identify appropriate ISS and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) thresholds for use with the 2008 AIS (AIS08) which predict mortality and in-hospital resource use comparably to ISS >15 using AIS98.Methods: Data from 37,760 patients in a state trauma registry were retrieved and reviewed. AIS data coded using the 1998 AIS (AIS98) were mapped to AIS08. ISS and NISS were calculated, and their effects on patient classification compared. The ability of selected ISS and NISS thresholds to predict mortality or high-level in-hospital resource use (the need for ICU or urgent surgery) was assessed.Results: An ISS >12 using AIS08 was similar to an ISS >15 using AIS98 in terms of both the number of patients classified major trauma, and overall major trauma mortality. A 10% mortality level was only seen for ISS 25 or greater. A NISS >15 performed similarly to both of these ISS thresholds. However, the AIS08-based ISS >12 threshold correctly classified significantly more patients than a NISS >15 threshold for all three severity measures assessed.Conclusions: When coding injuries using AIS08, an ISS >12 appears to function similarly to an ISS >15 in AIS98 for the purposes of identifying a population with an elevated risk of death after injury. Where mortality is a primary outcome of trauma monitoring, an ISS >12 threshold could be adopted to identify major trauma patients.Level Of Evidence: Level II evidence--diagnostic tests and criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the twelve-month outcomes of a serious orthopaedic injuries due to sport and active recreation to patients that are admitted to Level 1 Trauma Centers in Melbourne, Victoria. It states that a total of 366 adults admitted to two Level 1 trauma centers for an orthopaedic sport and active recreation injury have participated to the study and they were captured by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR). It reveals that almost one quarter of the patients were still experiencing moderate to severe physical disability, and the increasing age and patterns of injury were the main predictors of a poor physical outcome at 12 months. It also emphasizes the importance of further investigation into sports and recreation injury.

Trauma registries, like disease registries, provide an important analysis tool to assess the management of patient care. Trauma registries are well established and relatively common in the USA and have been used to change legislation, promote trauma prevention and to evaluate trauma system effectiveness. In Australia, the first truly statewide trauma registry was established in Victoria in 2001 with an estimated capture of 1700 major trauma cases annually. The Victorian State Trauma Registry, managed by the Victorian State Trauma Outcomes Registry and Monitoring (VSTORM) group, was established in response to a ministerial review of trauma and emergency services undertaken in 1997 to advise the Victorian Government on a best practice model of trauma service provision that was responsive to the particular needs of critically ill trauma patients. This taskforce recommended the establishment of a new system of care for major trauma patients in Victoria and a statewide trauma registry to monitor this new system. The development of the Victorian state trauma registry has shown that there are certain issues that must be resolved for successful implementation of any system-wide registry. This paper describes the issues faced by VSTORM in developing, implementing and maintaining a statewide trauma registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions.Methods: We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean.Results: We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r2) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers.Conclusions: We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r2 of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is well recognised that organised trauma systems reduce trauma patient mortality. As established systems mature, there is an increasing need to better understand the patient recovery trajectory. Mobility and physical function are key aspects of recovery, but the optimal instruments for measurement in the acute hospital setting remain unclear. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify and describe mobility and physical function instruments scored by direct patient assessment, in adult trauma patients in an acute hospital setting. Databases were searched with no date restrictions. Instruments that were specific to subgroups or related to individual conditions, diseases or joints were excluded. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist was used to assess risk of bias where relevant. Clinimetric properties were reported where possible, including reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: Fourteen thousand one hundred and fourteen articles were identified with 37 eligible for final review, including six instruments. None had been specifically designed for use in a heterogeneous range of trauma patients. The Functional Independence Measure was the most commonly cited (n = 10 studies), with evidence of construct validity, responsiveness and minimal floor/ceiling effects (<3%). The Acute Care Index of Function (n = 1 study) was found to be valid and responsive whilst the modified Iowa Level of Assistance (n = 2 studies) was reliable and responsive, but ceiling effects ranged from 26% to 37%. Little clinimetric data were available for other measures. Conclusion: Evidence from a few studies show promise for the use of the Functional Independence Measure, Acute Care Index of Function and modified Iowa Level of Assistance to measure mobility and physical function in trauma patients, however comprehensive clinimetric data are lacking. Future research should test these scores in specifically designed clinimetric property studies in defined trauma patient populations. This would enable the identification of a gold standard measure for evaluating treatment effectiveness, enabling benchmarking between centres, allow prediction of recovery pathways and optimise trauma patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Injuries represent one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality. For countries with ageing populations, admissions of injured older patients are increasing exponentially. Yet, we know little about hospital resource use for injured older patients. Our primary objective was to evaluate inter-hospital variation in the risk-adjusted resource use for injured older patients. Secondary objectives were to identify the determinants of resource use and evaluate its association with clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of injured older patients (≥65 years) admitted to any trauma centres in the province of Quebec (2013–2016, N  = 33,184). Resource use was estimated using activity-based costing and modelled with multilevel linear models. We conducted separate subgroup analyses for patients with trauma and fragility fractures. Results Risk-adjusted resource use varied significantly across trauma centres, more for older patients with fragility fractures (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.093, 95% CI [0.079, 0.102]) than with trauma (ICC = 0.047, 95% CI = 0.035–0.051). Risk-adjusted resource use increased with age, and the number of comorbidities, and varied with discharge destination (P  < 0.001). Higher hospital resource use was associated with higher incidence of complications for trauma (Pearson correlation coefficient r  = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3–0.7) and fragility fractures (r  = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3–0.7) and with higher mortality for fragility fractures (r  = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.6). Conclusions We observed significant inter-hospital variations in resource use for injured older patients. Hospitals with higher resource use did not have better clinical outcomes. Hospital resource use may not always positively impact patient care and outcomes. Future studies should evaluate mechanisms, by which hospital resource use impacts care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-harm and intentional injuries represent a significant public health concern. People who survive serious injury from self-harm can experience poor outcomes that negatively impact on their daily life. The aim of this study was to investigate a cohort of major trauma patients hospitalised for self-harm in Victoria, and to identify risk factors for longer term mortality, functional recovery and return to work.Method: 482 adult major trauma patients who were injured due to self-harm and survived to hospital discharge, and were captured by the population-based Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR), were included. For those with a date of injury from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2013, demographics and injury event data, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) and return to work (RTW) outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury were extracted from the registry. Post-discharge mortality was identified through the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of the GOS-E and RTW and survival analysis was used to identify predictors of mortality.Results: A total of 37 (7.7%) deaths occurred post-discharge. There were no clear predictors of all-cause mortality. Overall, 36% of patients reported making a good recovery at 24 months. Older age (p=0.01), transport-related methods of self-harm (p=0.02), higher Injury Severity Score (p<0.001) and having a Charlson Comorbidity Index weighting of one or more (p=0.02) were predictive of poorer functional recovery. Of patients who were working or studying prior to injury, 54% reported returning to work by 24 months post-injury. Higher Injury Severity Score was an important predictor of not returning to work (p=0.002).Conclusion: The vast majority of major trauma patients who self-harmed and survived to hospital discharge were alive at two years post-injury, yet only half of this cohort returned to work and just over a third of patients experienced a good recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]