Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury: an umbrella review protocol

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care

Importance

The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators.

Objective

To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability.

Results

Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

The interaction of the circadian and immune system: Desynchrony as a pathological outcome to traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a complex and costly worldwide phenomenon that can lead to many negative health outcomes including disrupted circadian function. There is a bidirectional relationship between the immune system and the circadian system, with mammalian coordination of physiological activities being controlled by the primary circadian pacemaker in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus. The SCN receives light information from the external environment and in turn synchronizes rhythms throughout the brain and body. The SCN is capable of endogenous self-sustained oscillatory activity through an intricate clock gene negative feedback loop. Following TBI, the response of the immune system can become prolonged and pathophysiological. This detrimental response not only occurs in the brain, but also within the periphery, where a leaky blood brain barrier can permit further infiltration of immune and inflammatory factors. The prolonged and pathological immune response that follows TBI can have deleterious effects on clock gene cycling and circadian function not only in the SCN, but also in other rhythmic areas throughout the body. This could bring about a state of circadian desynchrony where different rhythmic structures are no longer working together to promote optimal physiological function. There are many parallels between the negative symptomology associated with circadian desynchrony and TBI. This review discusses the significant contributions of an immune-disrupted circadian system on the negative symptomology following TBI. The implications of TBI symptomology as a disorder of circadian desynchrony are discussed.

Low-Value Clinical Practices in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: An Umbrella Review

Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have improved little over the last 3 decades, which raises concern about the value of care in this patient population. We aimed to synthesize the evidence on 14 potentially low-value clinical practices in TBI care. Using umbrella review methodology, we identified systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of 14 potentially low-value practices in adults with acute TBI. We present data on methodological quality (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews), reported effect sizes, and credibility of evidence (I to IV). The only clinical practice with evidence of benefit was therapeutic hypothermia (credibility of evidence II to IV). However, the most recent meta-analysis on hypothermia based on high-quality trials suggested harm (credibility of evidence IV). Meta-analyses on platelet transfusion for patients on antiplatelet therapy were all consistent with harm but were statistically non-significant. For the following practices, effect estimates were consistently close to the null: computed tomography (CT) in adults with mild TBI who are low-risk on a validated clinical decision rule; repeat CT in adults with mild TBI on anticoagulant therapy with no clinical deterioration; antibiotic prophylaxis for external ventricular drain placement; and decompressive craniectomy for refractory intracranial hypertension. We identified five clinical practices with evidence of lack of benefit or harm. However, evidence could not be considered to be strong for any clinical practice as effect measures were imprecise and heterogeneous, systematic reviews were often of low quality, and most included studies had a high risk of bias.