Proceedings from the Consensus Conference on Trauma Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Sakran, Joseph V.; Ezzeddine, Hiba; Schwab, C. William; Bonne, Stephanie; Brasel, Karen J.; Burd, Randall S.; Cuschieri, Joseph; Ficke, James R.; Gaines, Barbara A.; Giacino, Joseph T.; Gibran, Nicole S.; Haider, Adil H.; Hall, Erin C.; Herrera-Escobar, Juan P.; Joseph, Bellal; Kao, Lillian S.; Kurowski, Brad G.; Livingston, David H.; Mandell, Samuel P.; Nehra, Deepika; Sarani, Babak; Seamon, Mark J.; Yonclas, Peter; Zarzaur, Ben L.; Stewart, Ronald M; Bulger, Eileen M.; Nathens, Avery B.; Amtmann, Dagmar; Bixby, Pam; Brighton, Brian; Burstin, Helen; Burns, Chris; Caldwell, Michelle; Chaney, Éric; Chung, Kevin C.; Cipolle, Mark; deRoon-Cassine, Terri; Dicker, Rochelle; Fallat, Mary E.; Gabbe, Belinda; Gfeller, Bob; Gioia, Gérard A.; Haut, Elliott R.; Hendrix, Jason; Hoeft, Chris; Hotz, Heidi; Keavany, Kathleen; Levy‐Carrick, Nomi; Manley, Geoffrey T.; Michetti, Christopher P; Miller, Anna N.; Miller, Cate; Morris, David S.; Naik‐Mathuria, Bindi; Neal, Melanie; Patel, Bhavin; Newgard, Craig D.; Nitzschke, Stephanie; Okonkwo, David O.; Polk, Travis M.; Price, Michelle; Rivara, F. P.; Sochor, Mark; Stein, Deborah M.; Subačius, Haris; Taylor, H. Gerry; Thomas, William J.; Wagner, Amy K.; Winfield, Rob; Zatzick, Douglas; Zielinski, Martin D.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.01.032

Cited by 37 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Measuring the long-term physical, functional, and psychological outcomes of patients discharged during the pandemic may inform the value of such follow-up for future trauma patients. 13 …”

Section: Post-trauma Center Carementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect on Trauma Care Secondary to the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Measuring the long-term physical, functional, and psychological outcomes of patients discharged during the pandemic may inform the value of such follow-up for future trauma patients. 13 …”

Section: Post-trauma Center Carementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect on Trauma Care Secondary to the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Increasingly, trauma centers are being encouraged to collect self-report outcome data from patients to capture key longitudinal injury outcomes. [1][2][3] The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma may recommend the routine collection of outcomes, including physical and mental health symptoms, functional outcomes, and patterns of health service utilization, during the course of the weeks and months after injury. A series of largescale trauma center prospective cohort and clinical trial investigations have relied exclusively on patient self-report to ascertain rates of physical and mental health symptoms, functional outcomes, and patterns of health service utilization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging a health information exchange to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department utilization data among hospitalized injury survivors

Whiteside

Vrablik

Russo

et al. 2021

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccurate acute care medical utilization history is an important outcome for clinicians and investigators concerned with improving trauma center care. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department (ED) utilization compared with utilization obtained from the Emergency Department Information Exchange (EDIE) in admitted trauma surgery patients with comorbid mental health and substance use problems.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 169 injured patients admitted to the University of Washington’s Harborview Level I Trauma Center. Patients had high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and alcohol comorbidity. The investigation used EDIE, a novel health technology tool that collects information at the time a patient checks into any ED in Washington and other US states. Patterns of EDIE-documented visits were described, and the accuracy of injured patients’ self-report visits was compared with EDIE-recorded visits during the course of the 12 months prior to the index trauma center admission.ResultsOverall, 45% of the sample (n=76) inaccurately recalled their ED visits during the past year, with 36 participants (21%) reporting less ED visits than EDIE indicated and 40 (24%) reporting more ED visits than EDIE indicated. Patients with histories of alcohol use problems and major psychiatric illness were more likely to either under-report or over-report ED health service use.DiscussionNearly half of all patients were unable to accurately recall ED visits in the previous 12 months compared with EDIE, with almost one-quarter of patients demonstrating high levels of disagreement. The improved accuracy and ease of use when compared with self-report make EDIE an important tool for both clinical and pragmatic trial longitudinal outcome assessments. Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could further examine the benefits of introducing EDIE and other information exchanges into routine acute care clinical workflows.Level of evidenceII/III.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT02274688.

show abstract

“…The largest repository of longitudinal follow-up results is the Victorian State Trauma Registry 2 , 6 , 7 based on standardized telephone interviews. The United States very recently launched national initiatives in this regard 8 , 9 , modelled on the Boston trauma centre experience 10 , 11 . Extensive European trauma registries, such as the Trauma Audit & Research Network (TARN; https://www.tarn.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ca=4 ) and the German Society for Trauma Surgery Registry 12 , have started to include longer-term follow-up data of patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Main factors predicting somatic, psychological, and cognitive patient outcomes after significant injury: a pilot study of a simple prognostic tool

Groß

Amsler

2021

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are still insufficient data on the complexity and predictability of patient-related outcomes following trauma. The aim of this study was to assess longer-term outcomes in patients with significant injury and to develop a simple scoring method to identify patients at high risk of subsequent deficits 1–2 years after injury. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of survivors of significant injury (New Injury Severity Score, NISS greater than or equal to 8), with analysis of patients’ 1- to 2-year health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and their functional outcomes based on Short Form-36 (SF-36), Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP), and Quality Of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI). Documented variables suspected or known from the literature to be possible factors associated with outcome were first analysed by univariate analysis, and significant variables were entered into a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Scores predicting longer-term impaired outcome were constructed from risk factors resulting from multivariate analysis. Results Depending on the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used, up to 30 per cent of 1052 study patients (mean NISS 18.6) indicated somatic, 27 per cent psychological, and 54 per cent cognitive deficits. The investigated sociodemographic, injury-related, treatment, and early hospital outcome variables demonstrated only low associations with longer-term outcome in univariate analysis that were highest for preinjury pain or function (R = 0.4) and outcome at hospital discharge (R = 0.3). After logistic regression, the study variables explained a maximum variance of 23 per cent for somatic, 11 per cent for psychological, and 14 per cent for cognitive longer-term outcomes. The resulting Aarau trauma prognostic longer-term outcome scoring (ATPLOS) system, developed by checking eight risk factors, had a specificity of up to 80 per cent, and importantly may facilitate early detection of patients at risk of a poorer longer-term outcome. Conclusion Despite the high rate of deficits recorded for survivors of significant injury, particularly in loss of cognitive function, the multiple variables analysed only led to a limited characterization of patient-related longer-term outcomes. Until more is known about additional individual influencing factors, the proposed scoring system may serve well for clinical evaluation. Registration number NCT 02165137 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

show abstract

Proceedings from the Consensus Conference on Trauma Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Cited by 37 publications

References 72 publications

The Effect on Trauma Care Secondary to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Effect on Trauma Care Secondary to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Leveraging a health information exchange to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department utilization data among hospitalized injury survivors

Main factors predicting somatic, psychological, and cognitive patient outcomes after significant injury: a pilot study of a simple prognostic tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About