While the present study supports the use of the CPOT and the NVPS-R with critically ill trauma and neurosurgical patients, further research should explore the role of vital signs in pain.

ObjectivesWe aimed to describe ethnic variations in infant mortality and explore the contribution of area deprivation, mother’s country of birth, and prematurity to these variations.MethodsWe analyzed routine birth and death data on singleton live births (gestational age≥22 weeks) in England and Wales, 2006–2012. Infant mortality by ethnic group was analyzed using logistic regression with adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics and gestational age.ResultsIn the 4,634,932 births analyzed, crude infant mortality rates were higher in Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Black African, and Bangladeshi infants (6.92, 6.00, 5.17 and 4.40 per 1,000 live births, respectively vs. 2.87 in White British infants). Adjustment for maternal sociodemographic characteristics changed the results little. Further adjustment for gestational age strongly attenuated the risk in Black Caribbean (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89–1.17) and Black African infants (1.17, 1.06–1.29) but not in Pakistani (2.32, 2.15–2.50), Bangladeshi (1.47, 1.28–1.69), and Indian infants (1.24, 1.11–1.38). Ethnic variations in infant mortality differed significantly between term and preterm infants. At term, South Asian groups had higher risks which cannot be explained by sociodemographic characteristics. In preterm infants, adjustment for degree of prematurity (<28, 28–31, 32–33, 34–36 weeks) fully explained increased risks in Black but not Pakistani and Bangladeshi infants. Sensitivity analyses with further adjustment for small for gestational age, or excluding deaths due to congenital anomalies did not fully explain the excess risk in South Asian groups.ConclusionsHigher infant mortality in South Asian and Black infants does not appear to be explained by sociodemographic characteristics. Higher proportions of very premature infants appear to explain increased risks in Black infants but not in South Asian groups. Strategies targeting the prevention and management of preterm birth in Black groups and suboptimal birthweight and modifiable risk factors for congenital anomalies in South Asian groups might help reduce ethnic inequalities in infant mortality.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe the variation in risks of adverse birth outcomes across ethnic groups and socioeconomic circumstances, and to explore the evidence of mediation by socioeconomic circumstances of the effect of ethnicity on birth outcomes.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsThe data came from the 4.6 million singleton live births between 2006 and 2012.ExposureThe main exposure was ethnic group. Socioeconomic circumstances, the hypothesised mediator, were measured using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), an area-level measure of deprivation, based on the mother’s place of residence.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were birth outcomes, namely: neonatal death, infant death and preterm birth. We estimated the slope and relative indices of inequality to describe differences in birth outcomes across IMD, and the proportion of the variance in birth outcomes across ethnic groups attributable to IMD. We investigated mediation by IMD on birth outcomes across ethnic groups using structural equation modelling.ResultsNeonatal mortality, infant mortality and preterm birth risks were 2.1 per 1000, 3.2 per 1000 and 5.6%, respectively. Babies in the most deprived areas had 47%–129% greater risk of adverse birth outcomes than those in the least deprived areas. Minority ethnic babies had 48%–138% greater risk of adverse birth outcomes compared with white British babies. Up to a third of the variance in birth outcomes across ethnic groups was attributable to differences in IMD, and there was strong statistical evidence of an indirect effect through IMD in the effect of ethnicity on birth outcomes.ConclusionThere is evidence that socioeconomic circumstances could be contributing to the differences in birth outcomes across ethnic groups.

The Advanced Trauma Care for Nurses (ATCN) course was designed to help nurses increase their knowledge in management of the multiple trauma patient. To determine whether the trauma-related knowledge of ATCN course takers differed from nontakers, assess the factors associated with ATCN content knowledge among course takers, and explore the extent to which the ATCN content was used by course takers in their clinical practice. A cross-sectional online survey of 78 ATCN takers (nurses who had successfully completed the ATCN course within the previous 3 years) and 58 ATCN nontakers (a control group of nurses who had not taken the course but who worked in comparable clinical settings) was conducted. The survey consisted of demographic questions and a 15-item knowledge test spanning the ATCN course content. ATCN takers were also asked about the frequency with which a specific ATCN content had been used in their practice since taking the course. ATCN takers had a significantly higher (mean ± SD = 10.6 ± 2.2) total score on the study test than the ATCN nontakers (mean ± SD = 6.4 ± 2.6); t(134) = -10.0, p < .001. A shorter time since course completion was associated with higher knowledge scores. ATCN takers rated the clinical relevance and applicability of the course content as high. The findings suggest that completing the ATCN course increases knowledge levels of trauma patient management and that the ATCN course content is clinically relevant to the nurses. However, higher knowledge scores were observed for the most recent study participants, suggesting that booster sessions for ATCN course participants may be warranted.