Objective: To determine whether the statewide system of trauma care introduced in 2000 has resulted in improved survival for all major trauma patients in Victoria. Design, setting and participants: Population‐based cohort study using data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR), a registry of all hospitalised major trauma patients in Victoria. The study included major trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score > 15 captured by the VSTR between July 2001 and June 2006. Main outcome measure: In‐hospital mortality. Results: The number of major trauma cases captured by the registry rose from 1153  in 2001–02 to 1737 in 2005–06. Adjusting for key predictors of mortality, there was a significant overall reduction between 2001–02 and 2005–06 in the risk of death for patients treated in the trauma system (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.48–0.80]). The reduced risk of death was also significant when road trauma cases (AOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.39–0.80]) and serious head injury cases (AOR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46–0.83]) were analysed separately. The proportion of road trauma patients definitively treated at one of the three major trauma service (MTS) hospitals in Victoria rose by 7% over the 5‐year period. Direct transfers from the scene of injury to MTS hospitals rose by 8% for all cases and 13% for road trauma cases over the same period. Conclusions: Introduction of a statewide trauma system was associated with a significant reduction in risk‐adjusted mortality. Such inclusive systems of trauma care should be regarded as a minimum standard for health jurisdictions.

In adults with severe TBI, prehospital rapid sequence intubation by paramedics increases the rate of favorable neurologic outcome at 6 months compared with intubation in the hospital.

Improvement in outcomes over the study period was observed, although ongoing disability was common at 24 months. Recovery trajectories differed by patient characteristics, providing valuable information for informing prognostication and service planning, and improving our understanding of the burden of nonfatal injury.

No abstract

BackgroundImproved understanding of the quality of survival of patients is crucial in evaluating trauma care, understanding recovery patterns and timeframes, and informing healthcare, social, and disability service provision. We aimed to describe the longer-term health status of seriously injured patients, identify predictors of outcome, and establish recovery trajectories by population characteristics.Methods and findingsA population-based, prospective cohort study using the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) was undertaken. We followed up 2,757 adult patients, injured between July 2011 and June 2012, through deaths registry linkage and telephone interview at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months postinjury. The 3-level EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) was collected, and mixed-effects regression modelling was used to identify predictors of outcome, and recovery trajectories, for the EQ-5D-3L items and summary score. Mean (SD) age of participants was 50.8 (21.6) years, and 72% were male. Twelve percent (n = 333) died during their hospital stay, 8.1% (n = 222) of patients died postdischarge, and 155 (7.0%) were known to have survived to 36-months postinjury but were lost to follow-up at all time points. The prevalence of reporting problems at 36-months postinjury was 37% for mobility, 21% for self-care, 47% for usual activities, 50% for pain/discomfort, and 41% for anxiety/depression. Continued improvement to 36-months postinjury was only present for the usual activities item; the adjusted relative risk (ARR) of reporting problems decreased from 6 to 12 (ARR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90), 12 to 24 (ARR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90–0.98), and 24 to 36 months (ARR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99). The risk of reporting problems with pain or discomfort increased from 24- to 36-months postinjury (ARR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.12). While loss to follow-up was low, there was responder bias with patients injured in intentional events, younger, and less seriously injured patients less likely to participate; therefore, these patient subgroups were underrepresented in the study findings.ConclusionsThe prevalence of ongoing problems at 3-years postinjury is high, confirming that serious injury is frequently a chronic disorder. These findings have implications for trauma system design. Investment in interventions to reduce the longer-term impact of injuries is needed, and greater investment in primary prevention is needed.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive episode (MDE) are frequent and disabling consequences of surviving severe injury. The majority of those who develop these problems are not identified or treated. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a screening instrument that identifies, during hospitalization, adults at high risk for developing PTSD and/or MDE. Hospitalized injury patients (n = 527) completed a pool of questions that represented 13 constructs of vulnerability. They were followed up at 12 months and assessed for PTSD and MDE. The resulting database was split into 2 subsamples. A principal-axis factor analysis and then a confirmatory factor analysis were conducted on the 1st subsample, resulting in a 5-factor solution. Two questions were selected from each factor, resulting in a 10-item scale. The final model was cross-validated with the 2nd subsample. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were then created. The resulting Posttraumatic Adjustment Scale had a sensitivity of .82 and a specificity of .84 when predicting PTSD and a sensitivity of .72 and a specificity of .75 in predicting posttraumatic MDE. This 10-item screening index represents a clinically useful instrument to identify trauma survivors at risk for the later development of PTSD and/or MDE.

Based on existing reports, the true diagnostic attributes of FNA for thyroid malignancy in palpable nodules are uncertain and FNA could miss up to a third of all thyroid malignancy. Further research is required to investigate the incidence of malignancy in FNA negative cases and to determine the additive effect of clinical judgment.

VSTR data indicate that the statewide trauma system is working well and provides a method for ongoing monitoring and trauma care feedback.