Level-I trauma centre treatment effects on return to work in teaching hospitals

An Analysis of Injured Patients Treated at Level 1 Trauma Centers Versus Other Centers: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Trauma systems continue to evolve to create the best outcomes possible for patients who have undergone traumatic injury.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to evaluate the existing research on outcomes based on field triage to a Level 1 trauma center (L1TC) compared to other levels of hospitals and nontrauma centers.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Database. Studies analyzing measures of morbidity, mortality, and cost after receiving care at L1TCs compared to lower-level trauma centers and nontrauma centers in the United States and Canada were included. Three independent reviewers reviewed abstracts, and two independent reviewers conducted full-text review and quality assessment of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twelve thousand five hundred fourteen unique articles were identified using the literature search. 61 relevant studies were included in this scoping review. 95.2% of included studies were national or regional studies, and 96.8% were registry-based studies. 72.6% of included studies adjusted their results to account for injury severity. The findings from receiving trauma care at L1TCs vary depending on severity of injury, type of injury sustained, and patient characteristics. Existing literature suffers from limitations inherent to large de-identified databases, making record linkage between hospitals impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review shows that the survival benefit of L1TC care is largest for patients with the most severe injuries. This scoping review demonstrates that further research using high-quality data is needed to elucidate more about how to structure trauma systems to improve outcomes for patients with different severities of injuries and in different types of facilities.

Measuring socioeconomic outcomes in trauma patients up to one year post-discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Trauma accounts for nearly one-tenth of the global disability-adjusted life-years, a large proportion of which is seen in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Trauma can affect employment opportunities, reduce social participation, be influenced by social support, and significantly reduce the quality of life (QOL) among survivors. Research typically focuses on specific trauma sub-groups. This dispersed knowledge results in limited understanding of these outcomes in trauma patients as a whole across different populations and settings. We aimed to assess and provide a systematic overview of current knowledge about return-to-work (RTW), participation, social support, and QOL in trauma patients up to one year after discharge.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the literature published since 2010 on RTW, participation, social support, and QOL in adult trauma populations, up to one year from discharge, utilizing the most commonly used measurement tools from three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We performed a meta-analysis based on the type of outcome, tool for measurement, and the specific effect measure as well as assessed the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles were included. More than one-third (36%) of patients had not returned to work even a year after discharge. Those who did return to work took more than 3 months to do so. Trauma patients reported receiving moderate social support. There were no studies reporting social participation among trauma patients using the inclusion criteria. The QOL scores of the trauma patients did not reach the population norms or pre-injury levels even a year after discharge. Older adults and females tended to have poorer outcomes. Elderly individuals and females were under-represented in the studies. More than three-quarters of the included studies were from high-income countries (HICs) and had higher methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

RTW and QOL are affected by trauma even a year after discharge and the social support received was moderate, especially among elderly and female patients. Future studies should move towards building more high-quality evidence from LMICs on long-term socioeconomic outcomes including social support, participation and unpaid work.

Medically graded reduced capacity to work (RCW) following significant injury as explained by patient related outcome measures (PROMs) - A prospective trauma center evaluation

BACKGROUND

Data is limited how well patient-reported longer-term outcome measures (PROMs) explain medically graded reduced capacity for work (RCW).

OBJECTIVE

This prospective study investigates the association of RCW with several PROMs in addition to demographic and injury-related variables in significantly injured of working age.

METHODS

Patients (New Injury Severity Score, NISS ≥ 8) were recruited consecutively. RCW, as registered by the largest Swiss accident insurer, was tested against demographic, trauma and treatment characteristics, and patients' contemporaneous two year rating of functional outcome and quality of life following trauma with measures such as the Short-Form (SF)-36 or Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP), using uni- and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

140 patients (mean 42 years, 2-year RCW rate 21%) participated in the longer-term follow-up of self-rated outcome. In multivariable analysis, all investigated baseline factors together accounted for 48% of the variance explaining 2-year postinjury RCW with 31% contributed by demographic, injury or treatment related variables, and 17% by patients' condition at hospital discharge. Patients' self-rated longer-term outcome provided 61% of the information on concurrent RCW, whereby 53% identified worsening of physical function (SF-36) and additional 8% constraints in daily activities (TOP). Four variables (Glasgow Outcome Scale at the time of hospital discharge and SF-36 physical functioning, TOP daily activities, SF-36 role physical at two years) explained 71% of RCW, corresponding to an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95.

CONCLUSIONS

Objectively graded RCW 2 years after injury was found to be well explained by the combined information of patients' subjective longer-term outcome together with basic patient, trauma and treatment characteristics.

Comparison of trauma systems in Asian countries: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the demographic characteristics and trauma service structures and processes of hospitals in 15 countries across the Asia Pacific, and to provide baseline data for the integrated trauma database: the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS).

METHODS

Medical directors and emergency physicians at PATOS-participating hospitals in countries across the Asia Pacific were surveyed through a standardized questionnaire. General information, trauma care system data, and trauma emergency department (ED) outcomes at each hospital were collected by email and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Survey data from 35 hospitals across 15 countries were collected from archived data between June 2014 and July 2015. Designated trauma centers were identified as the highest hospital level for trauma patients in 70% of surveyed countries. Half of the hospitals surveyed had special teams for trauma care, and almost all prepared activation protocol documents for these teams. Most hospitals offered specialized trauma education programs, and 72.7% of hospitals had a hospital-based trauma registry. The total number of trauma patients visiting the ED across 25 of the hospitals was 300,376. The overall survival-to-discharge rate was 97.2%; however, it varied greatly between 85.1% and 99.7%. The difference between survival-to-discharge rates of moderate and severe injury groups was highest in Taiwan (41.8%) and lowest in Thailand (18.6%).

CONCLUSION

Trauma care systems and ED outcomes vary widely among surveyed hospitals and countries. This information is useful to build further detailed, systematic platforms for trauma surveillance and evidence-based trauma care policies.