Patient Experiences of Trauma Resuscitation

Patient Experiences of Acute and Postacute Care After Trauma

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic injury can transform a healthy, independent individual into a patient with complex health needs. Little is known about how injured patients understand their health and healthcare needs during postacute recovery, limiting our ability to optimize care. This multiple-methods study explored injured patients' experiences of care up to 30 days after discharge.

METHODS

Injured adults admitted to an urban, Level I trauma center August 1, 2019-November 30, 2020 were sampled purposively to balance blunt and penetrating injuries. Patient experience and health status were assessed at baseline and 30 days postdischarge using the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure. Fifteen qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive subset and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of 67 participants (76% male, 73% Black, 51% penetrating, median age 34 years), 37 completed follow-up surveys. Quality of acute care was rated 9-10/10 by 81% of the sample for acute and 65% for postacute care (P = 0.09). Thirty percent described fair or poor mental health, but only mental health concerns were addressed for only 2/3. Pain control was inadequate in 31% at baseline and for 46% at follow-up (P = 0.09). Qualitative analysis revealed general satisfaction with acute care but challenges in recovery with unmet needs for communication and care coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients appreciated the quality of their acute care experiences but identified opportunities for improvement in prognostic communication, pain management, and mental health support. Unmet mental and physical care needs persist at least 1 month after hospital discharge and reinforce the need for interventions that optimize postacute trauma care.

Challenges associated with recovery from blunt thoracic injuries from hospital admission to six-months after discharge: A qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Recovery for patients presenting to trauma services globally with blunt thoracic injury (BTI) remains challenging with substantial levels of physical, psychological socio-economic burden. The aim of this study is to examine the challenges experienced by patients with BTI from hospital admission to 6-months after hospital discharge.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from trauma patients admitted with BTI and were recruited from 7 sites across England and Wales between March and June 2019. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at six-months after discharge from hospital, and in total 11 interviews were undertaken. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes were identified within the data: (i) Challenges within the acute hospital admission where pain and analgesic management and the processes of investigation and treatment were the sources of most challenges to recovery. (ii) Challenges within the post-discharge recovery journey, where managing pain at home, unidentified injuries, and mental well-being impacted most on recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the body of qualitative evidence surrounding recovery from major trauma and the patient experience within the recovery journey after BTI and It is important that clinicians consider the whole recovery journey as a continuous process rather than two isolated processes.

A Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled Phase III Study of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) as a Resuscitative Agent in Hypovolemic Shock Patients

Introduction

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin^®) showed significant safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies.

Methods

A prospective, multicentric, randomized phase III study was conducted in patients with hypovolemic shock, systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mmHg, and blood lactate levels ≥ 2 mmol/L. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the centhaquine group (n = 71) or the control (saline) group (n = 34). Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. The study drug (normal saline or centhaquine 0.01 mg/kg) was administered in 100 mL of normal saline infusion over 1 h. The primary objectives were to determine changes (mean through 48 h) in SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood lactate levels, and base deficit. The secondary objectives included the amount of fluids, blood products, and vasopressors administered in the first 48 h, duration of hospital stay, time in intensive care units, time on ventilator support, change in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), and the proportion of patients with 28-day all-cause mortality.

Results

The demographics of patients and baseline vitals in both groups were comparable. The cause of hypovolemic shock was trauma in 29.4 and 47.1% of control group and centhaquine group patients, respectively, and gastroenteritis in 44.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Shock index (SI) and quick sequential organ failure assessment at baseline were similar in the two groups. An equal amount of fluids and blood products were administered in both groups during the first 48 h of resuscitation. A lesser amount of vasopressors was needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation in the centhaquine group. An increase in SBP from baseline was consistently higher up to 48 h (12.9% increase in area under the curve from 0 to 48 h [AUC_0–48]) in the centhaquine group than in the control group. A significant increase in pulse pressure (48.1% increase in AUC_0–48) in the centhaquine group compared with the control group suggests improved stroke volume due to centhaquine. The SI was significantly lower in the centhaquine group from 1 h (p = 0.032) to 4 h (p = 0.049) of resuscitation. Resuscitation with centhaquine resulted in a significantly greater number of patients with improved blood lactate (control 46.9%; centhaquine 69.3%; p = 0.03) and the base deficit (control 43.7%; centhaquine 69.8%; p = 0.01) than in the control group. ARDS and MODS improved with centhaquine, and an 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group.

Conclusion

Centhaquine is an efficacious resuscitative agent for treating hypovolemic shock. The efficacy of centhaquine in distributive shock is being explored.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry, India; ctri.icmr.org.in, CTRI/2019/01/017196; clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04045327.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01547-5.

A multicentric, randomized, controlled phase III study of centhaquine (Lyfaquin ® ) as a resuscitative agent in hypovolemic shock patients

INTRODUCTION

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin ^® ) showed significant safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentric, randomized phase III study was conducted in patients with hypovolemic shock having systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤90 mm Hg and blood lactate levels of ≥2 mmol/L. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, 71 patients to the centhaquine group and 34 patients to the control (saline) group. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. The study drug (normal saline or centhaquine (0.01 mg/kg)) was administered in 100 mL of normal saline infusion over 1 hour. The primary objectives were to determine changes (mean through 48 hours) in SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood lactate levels, and base deficit. The secondary objectives included the amount of fluids, blood products, vasopressors administered in the first 48 hours, duration of hospital stay, time in ICU, time on the ventilator support, change in patient's Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) scores, and the proportion of patients with 28-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The demographics of patients and baseline vitals in both groups were comparable. Trauma was the cause of hypovolemic shock in 29.41% of control and 47.06% of centhaquine, gastroenteritis in 44.12% of control, and 29.41% of centhaquine patients. An equal amount of fluids and blood products were administered in both groups during the first 48 hours of resuscitation. A lesser amount of vasopressors was needed in the first 48 hours of resuscitation in the centhaquine group. An increase in SBP from the baseline was consistently higher in the centhaquine group than in the control. A significant increase in pulse pressure in the centhaquine group than the control group suggests improved stroke volume due to centhaquine. The shock index was significantly lower in the centhaquine group than control from 1 hour (p=0.0320) till 4 hours (p=0.0494) of resuscitation. Resuscitation with centhaquine had a significantly greater number of patients with improved blood lactate and the base deficit than the control group. ARDS and MODS improved with centhaquine, and an 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group.

CONCLUSION

Centhaquine is a highly efficacious resuscitative agent for treating hypovolemic shock. The efficacy of centhaquine in distributive shock due to sepsis and COVID-19 is being explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry, India; ctri.icmr.org.in, CTRI/2019/01/017196; clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04045327 .

KEY SUMMARY POINTS

A multicentric, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of centhaquine in hypovolemic shock patients.One hundred and five patients were randomized 2:1 to receive centhaquine or saline. Centhaquine was administered at a dose of 0.01 mg/kg in 100 mL saline and infused over 1 hour. The control group received 100 mL of saline over a 1-hour infusion.Centhaquine improved blood pressure, shock index, reduced blood lactate levels, and improved base deficit. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) score improved with centhaquine.An 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group. There were no drug-related adverse events in the study.

The Bolivian trauma patient's experience: A qualitative needs assessment

BACKGROUND

Despite a significant burden of injury-related deaths, the Plurinational State of Bolivia (Bolivia), a lower- middle-income country in South America, lacks a formalized trauma system. This study sought to examine Bolivian trauma care from the patient perspective in order to determine barriers to care and targets for improvement.

METHODS

Investigators conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with trauma patients admitted at four hospitals in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in June and July of 2016. Interviews were transcribed, translated, and analyzed through content and discourse analysis to identify key themes and perceptions of trauma care.

RESULTS

Participants primarily presented with orthopedic injuries due to road traffic incidents and falls. Only one participant reported receiving first aid from a layperson at the scene of injury. Of the 15 participants, 12 did not know any number to contact emergency medical services (EMS). Participants expressed negative views of EMS as well as concerns for slow response times and inadequate personnel and training. Two thirds of participants were initially brought to a hospital without adequate resources to care for their injuries. Participants generally expressed positive views regarding healthcare workers involved in their hospital-based medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

This region of Bolivia has a disorganized, underutilized, and distrusted trauma system. In order to increase survival, interventions should focus on improving prehospital trauma care. Potential interventions include the implementation of layperson trauma first responder courses, the establishment of a medical emergency hotline, the unification of EMS, the implementation of basic training requirements for EMS personnel, and public education campaigns to increase trust in EMS.

Beyond survival: the broader consequences of prehospital transport by police for penetrating trauma

Background

Time to definitive hemorrhage control is a primary driver of survival after penetrating injury. For these injuries, mortality outcomes after prehospital transport by police and emergency medical service (EMS) providers are comparable. In this study we identify patient and geographic predictors of police transport relative to EMS transport and describe perceptions of police transport elicited from key stakeholders.

Methods

This mixed methods study was conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has the highest rate of police transport nationally. Patient data were drawn from Pennsylvania’s trauma registry and geographic data from the US Census and American Community Survey. For all 7500 adults who presented to Philadelphia trauma centers with penetrating injuries, 2006–2015, we compared how individual and geospatial characteristics predicted the odds of police versus EMS transport. Concurrently, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients, police officers and trauma clinicians to describe their perceptions of police transport in practice.

Results

Patients who were Black (OR 1.50; 1.20–1.88) and Hispanic (OR 1.38; 1.05–1.82), injured by a firearm (OR 1.58; 1.19–2.10) and at night (OR 1.48; 1.30–1.69) and who presented with decreased levels of consciousness (OR 1.18; 1.02–1.37) had higher odds of police transport. Neighborhood characteristics predicting police transport included: percent of Black population (OR 1.18; 1.05–1.32), vacant housing (OR 1.40; 1.20–1.64) and fire stations (OR 1.32; 1.20–1.44). All stakeholders perceived speed as police transport’s primary advantage. For patients, disadvantages included pain and insecurity while in transport. Police identified occupational health risks. Clinicians identified occupational safety risks and the potential for police transport to complicate the workflow.

Conclusions

Police transport may improve prompt access to trauma care but should be implemented with consideration of the equity of access and broad stakeholder perspectives in efforts to improve outcomes, safety, and efficiency.

Level of evidence

Epidemiological study, level III.

Patient experiences of initial trauma care

BACKGROUND

Correct initial treatment of trauma patients reduces mortality and morbidity. However, the initial examination may be perceived as traumatic because of the stressful situation, the unfamiliar setting and the shock of being seriously injured. To date, little is known about patient's experiences of initial trauma management. The aim of this study was to explore trauma patients' experiences of being exposed to initial full trauma team assessment at a Level 1 trauma centre.

METHODS

Interviews with 16 patients who had been exposed to initial trauma care were conducted at a Level 1 trauma centre, at a Swedish University Hospital. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed with qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients' experiences of initial trauma care can be summarized as: feeling safe in a frightening situation. The trauma team members were mostly perceived as professional, well-organised, and efficient. Yet, the patients described an emotional response to the trauma, physical discomfort during the examination, and feeling prioritised or being ignored in the encounter with the trauma team members.

CONCLUSION

The initial trauma care may be improved if the trauma team members keep the patient's physical and emotional wellbeing in focus and maintain an informative dialogue with the patient during the whole process.

Major trauma in the elderly: Frailty decline and patient experience after injury

Introduction

The prevalence of major trauma in the elderly is increasing with ageing western societies. Frailty is now a well-recognised predictor of poor outcome after injury; however, few studies have focused on the progression of frailty and patients’ perceptions of their injuries after discharge.

Aim

We hypothesised that the number of elderly patients that survive major trauma is low and, of those that do, frailty post injury worsens with overall negative views about quality of life. To investigate this, we examined mortality, frailty and patient experience for elderly major trauma admissions to a level 1 trauma centre at one year after admission.

Method

All consecutive patients > 75 with an injury severity score of > 15 were included in the study. Patients were invited to participate in a structured telephone interview to assess change in frailty status as well as assess patient experience after injury.

Results

A total of 79 patients met inclusion criteria; 34 patients had died and 17 were uncontactable; 88% had become more frail (p < 0.05), and more than half commented positively on their overall quality of life following injury.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the elevated mortality in elderly major trauma patients, but also indicate that preconceived opinions on quality of life, post injury, might not be appropriate.