Outcome after musculoskeletal trauma treated in a regional hospital

A Brief Mind-body Intervention Is Feasible and May Prevent Persistent Pain After Acute Orthopaedic Traumas: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% to 50% of patients develop persistent pain after traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Psychosocial factors are an important predictor of persistent pain; however, there are no evidence-based, mind-body interventions to prevent persistent pain for this patient population.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery after Injury (TOR) achieve a priori feasibility benchmarks in a multisite randomized control trial (RCT)? (2) Does TOR demonstrate a preliminary effect in improving pain, as well as physical and emotional function?

METHODS

This pilot RCT of TOR versus a minimally enhanced usual care comparison group (MEUC) was conducted among 195 adults with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury at risk for persistent pain at four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers between October 2021 to August 2023. Fifty percent (97 of 195) of participants were randomized to TOR (mean age 43 ± 17 years; 67% [65 of 97] women) and 50% (98) to MEUC (mean age 45 ± 16 years; 67% [66 of 98] women). In TOR, 24% (23 of 97) of patients were lost to follow-up, whereas in the MEUC, 17% (17 of 98) were lost. At 4 weeks, 78% (76 of 97) of patients in TOR and 95% (93 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments; by 12 weeks, 76% (74 of 97) of patients in TOR and 83% (81 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments (all participants were still included in the analysis consistent with an intention-to-treat approach). The TOR has four weekly video-administered sessions that teach pain coping skills. The MEUC is an educational pamphlet. Both were delivered in addition to usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (the percentage of patients who met study criteria and enrolled) and data collection, appropriateness of treatment (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), acceptability (the percentage of patients in TOR who attend at least three of four sessions), and treatment satisfaction (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale). Secondary outcomes included additional feasibility (including collecting data on narcotics and rescue medications and adverse events), fidelity (whether the intervention was delivered as planned) and acceptability metrics (patients and staff), pain (numeric rating scale), physical function (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire [SMFA], PROMIS), emotional function (PTSD [PTSD Checklist], depression [Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression]), and intervention targets (pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness). Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Several outcomes exceeded a priori benchmarks: feasibility of recruitment (89% [210 of 235] of eligible participants consented), appropriateness (TOR: 73% [66 of 90] scored > midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), data collection (79% [154 of 195] completed all surveys), satisfaction (TOR: 99% [75 of 76] > midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale), and acceptability (TOR: 73% [71 of 97] attended all four sessions). Participation in TOR, compared with the MEUC, was associated with improvement from baseline to postintervention and from baseline to follow-up in physical function (SMFA, baseline to post: -7 [95% CI -11 to -4]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -6 [95% CI -11 to -1]; p = 0.02), PROMIS (PROMIS-PF, baseline to follow-up: 2 [95% CI 0 to 4]; p = 0.045), pain at rest (baseline to post: -1.2 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.6]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -1 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.3]; p = 0.003), activity (baseline to post: -0.7 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.1]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -0.8 [95% CI -1.6 to -0.1]; p = 0.04), depressive symptoms (baseline to post: -6 [95% CI -9 to -3]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -2]; p < 0.002), and posttraumatic symptoms (baseline to post: -4 [95% CI -7 to 0]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -1]; p = 0.01). Improvements were generally clinically important and sustained or continued through the 3 months of follow-up (that is, above the minimum clinically important different [MCID] of 7 for the SMFA, the MCID of 3.6 for PROMIS, the MCID of 2 for pain at rest and pain during activity, the MCID of more than 10% change in depressive symptoms, and the MCID of 10 for posttraumatic symptoms). There were treatment-dependent improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness.

CONCLUSION

TOR was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing persistent pain among patients with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury. Using TOR in clinical practice may prevent persistent pain after orthopaedic traumatic injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Breaking the Disability Spiral: A Case Series Report Illustrating the Delivery of a Brief Skills Based Coaching Intervention to Prevent Chronic Dysfunction and Pain After Orthopedic Injury

Orthopedic traumas are common, costly, and burdensome - particularly for patients who transition from acute to chronic pain. Psychosocial factors, such as pain catastrophizing and pain anxiety, increase risk for poor outcomes after injury. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a novel multi-component mind-body intervention informed by the fear-avoidance model to promote re-engagement in daily activities and prevent transition toward chronic pain and physical dysfunction. The current case series aims to 1) describe the intervention and 2) showcase the treatment course of three TOR completers from diverse geographic locations in the U.S. with distinct injury types and varying personal identities to illustrate how the intervention can be delivered flexibly. Results indicate pre-to-post program improvement in physical function, pain severity, pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, and other relevant outcomes targeted by the intervention (i.e., depression, mindfulness, coping). Experiences of our three TOR completers suggest that integrating TOR with standard orthopedic care may promote physical recovery after injury.

Integrating Psychosocial Care into Orthopedic Settings: A Qualitative Study of Provider Perspectives

Introduction

Approximately 50% of persons with orthopedic injuries experience psychosocial distress (e.g., depression, anxiety), which can predict chronic pain and disability. Offering psychosocial services in orthopedic settings can promote patient recovery. This study explores health care professionals' perceptions of and recommendations regarding integrated psychosocial care for orthopedic settings.

Methods

We conducted 18 semi-structured focus groups with 79 orthopedic health care professionals (e.g., surgeons, residents, nurses) across three Level I Trauma Centers. This secondary data analysis used the evidence-based Rainbow Model of Integrated Care framework to structure hybrid inductive-deductive qualitative data analysis.

Results

Orthopedic health care professionals identified potential benefits to psychosocial service integration across all dimensions of integration (i.e., clinical, professional, organizational, system, functional, and normative). These benefits included increased patient satisfaction with care, decreased burden on medical providers to manage patient distress, and decreased healthcare utilization costs. They also identified barriers (e.g., fast-paced clinic flow, mental health stigma) and offered recommendations to address barriers across dimensions of integration.

Conclusion

Integrated psychosocial care for orthopedic trauma patients has the potential to improve patient recovery and long-term physical and mental health outcomes. This work identifies strategies to inform the development and implementation of initiatives to integrate psychosocial services within orthopedic settings.

Health-related quality of life after severe trauma and available PROMS: an updated review (part I)

Introduction

Throughout the years, a decreasing trend in mortality rate has been demonstrated in patients suffering severe trauma. This increases the relevance of documentation of other outcomes for this population, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this review was to summarize the results of the studies that have been conducted regarding HRQoL in severely injured patients (as defined by the articles’ authors). Also, we present the instruments that are used most frequently to assess HRQoL in patients suffering severe trauma.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles published from inception until the 1st of January 2022. Reference lists of included articles were reviewed as well. Studies were considered eligible when a population of patients with major, multiple or severe injury and/or polytrauma was included, well-defined by means of an ISS-threshold, and the outcome of interest was described in terms of (HR)QoL. A narrative design was chosen for this review.

Results

The search strategy identified 1583 articles, which were reduced to 113 after application of the eligibility criteria. In total, nineteen instruments were used to assess HRQoL. The SF-36 was used most frequently, followed by the EQ-5D and SF-12. HRQoL in patients with severe trauma was often compared to normative population norms or pre-injury status, and was found to be reduced in both cases, regardless of the tool used to assess this outcome. Some studies demonstrated higher scoring of the patients over time, suggesting improved HRQoL after considerable time after severe trauma.

Conclusion

HRQoL in severely injured patients is overall reduced, regardless of the instrument used to assess it. The instruments that were used most frequently to assess HRQoL were the SF-36 and EQ-5D. Future research is needed to shed light on the consequences of the reduced HRQoL in this population. We recommend routine assessment and documentation of HRQoL in severely injured patients.

What Are Orthopaedic Healthcare Professionals' Attitudes Toward Addressing Patient Psychosocial Factors? A Mixed-Methods Investigation

BACKGROUND

Integrating psychosocial resources into orthopaedic clinics can reduce psychological distress and opioid use after injury, enhance functional outcomes, and increase patient satisfaction with care. Establishing referral pathways for connecting orthopaedic patients with psychosocial resources requires the active collaboration and buy-in of orthopaedic healthcare professionals. Designing and disseminating psychosocial training materials for orthopaedic healthcare professionals requires a nuanced understanding of orthopaedic healthcare professionals' current attitudes toward addressing psychosocial factors, including any stigma and misconceptions about mental health that exist.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are orthopaedic healthcare professionals' attitudes toward addressing patient psychosocial factors, and how are they related? (2) How do orthopaedic healthcare professionals' beliefs, reasonings, and experiences help to explain these attitudes? (3) How do attitudes differ between physicians and nonphysician healthcare professionals?

METHODS

In this multisite, mixed-methods study (that is, a study collecting both quantitative and qualitative data), our team of psychology researchers conducted qualitative focus groups over secure live video with 79 orthopaedic healthcare professionals at three geographically diverse Level I trauma centers. We approached all orthopaedic healthcare professionals within the three trauma centers to participate in the study to collect as many diverse perspectives as possible. Eighty-four percent (79 of 94) of the professionals we approached participated in qualitative data collection (the group of professionals comprised 20 attending surgeons; 28 residents; 10 nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and physician assistants; 13 medical assistants; five physical therapists and social workers; and three research fellows). We also asked participants to complete self-report items that assessed their attitudes toward addressing patients' psychosocial factors (research question 1). The different attitudes identified through the quantitative measurement served as a priori defined themes within which our two independent coders organized the qualitative data and identified beliefs and experiences that explained attitudes (research question 2). We used both quantitative and qualitative data to assess differences between surgeons and residents and nonphysician healthcare professionals (research question 3).

RESULTS

We quantitatively identified six underlying attitudes toward addressing psychosocial factors: professional confidence, perceived resource availability, fear of offending patients, fear of negative patient reactions, blame toward patients, and professional role resistance. We observed a strong quantitative correlation between the attitudes of professional confidence and perceived resource availability, and qualitative data revealed how healthcare professionals' willingness to discuss psychosocial issues with patients is shaped by their perception of psychosocial resources available for orthopaedic patients, as well as their perception of their own skills and tools to navigate these conversations. Quantitative data suggested that surgeons and residents endorse higher blame toward patients for psychosocial factors (medium effect size; p = 0.04), which is a stigmatizing attitude that serves as a barrier to integrating psychosocial resources into orthopaedic settings.

CONCLUSION

The varying levels of confidence orthopaedic healthcare professionals reported with respect to the topic of discussing psychosocial factors and the misconceptions they endorse regarding psychosocial factors (such as blame toward patients) highlight the need for more specific education for orthopaedic healthcare professionals to help equip them with skills to raise and discuss psychosocial factors with patients in an empathic and destigmatizing manner.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The strong relationship observed between the attitudes of professional confidence and perceived resource availability suggests that expanding the provision of psychosocial resources in orthopaedic settings and establishing specific, efficient referral processes to connect patients with psychosocial resources will in turn increase orthopaedic healthcare professionals' confidence discussing psychosocial issues with patients.

Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of psychosocial care within orthopedic trauma centers: a qualitative study with multidisciplinary stakeholders from geographically diverse settings

Background

Psychosocial factors are pivotal in recovery after acute orthopedic traumatic injuries. Addressing psychosocial factors is an important opportunity for preventing persistent pain and disability. We aim to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of psychosocial care within outpatient orthopedic trauma settings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor’s taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and to provide implementation strategies derived from qualitative data and supplemented by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change.

Methods

We conducted live video qualitative focus groups, exit interviews and individual interviews with stakeholders within 3 geographically diverse level 1 trauma settings (N = 79; 20 attendings, 28 residents, 10 nurses, 13 medical assistants, 5 physical therapists/social workers, and 3 fellows) at 3 trauma centers in Texas, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. We used directed and conventional content analyses to derive information on barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies within 26 CFIR constructs nested within 3 relevant Proctor outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

Results

Stakeholders noted that implementing psychosocial care within their practice can be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Many perceived integrated psychosocial care as crucial for preventing persistent pain and reducing provider burden, noting they lack the time and specialized training to address patients’ psychosocial needs. Providers suggested strategies for integrating psychosocial care within orthopedic settings, including obtaining buy-in from leadership, providing concise and data-driven education to providers, bypassing stigma, and flexibly adapting to fast-paced clinics.

Conclusions

Results provide a blueprint for successful implementation of psychosocial care in orthopedic trauma settings, with important implications for prevention of persistent pain and disability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00208-8.

A Live Video Program to Prevent Chronic Pain and Disability in At-Risk Adults With Acute Orthopedic Injuries (Toolkit for Optimal Recovery): Protocol for a Multisite Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the pivotal role of psychosocial factors in pain and disability after orthopedic injury, there are no evidence-based preventive interventions targeting psychosocial factors in patients with acute orthopedic injuries. We developed the first mind-body intervention focused on optimizing recovery and improving pain and disability in patients with acute orthopedic injuries who exhibit high levels of catastrophic thinking about pain and/or pain anxiety (Toolkit for Optimal Recovery [TOR] after orthopedic injury). In a pilot single-site randomized controlled trial (RCT), the TOR met a priori set benchmarks for feasibility, acceptability, and satisfaction. The next step in developing TOR is to conduct a multisite feasibility RCT to set the stage for a scientifically rigorous hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to conduct a rigorous multisite feasibility RCT of TOR to determine whether the intervention and study methodology meet a priori set benchmarks necessary for the successful implementation of a future multisite hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial. In this paper, we describe the study design, manualized treatments, and specific strategies used to conduct this multisite feasibility RCT investigation.

METHODS

This study will be conducted at 3 geographically diverse level 1 trauma centers, anonymized as sites A, B, and C. We will conduct a multisite feasibility RCT of TOR versus the minimally enhanced usual care (MEUC) control (60 patients per site; 30 per arm) targeting a priori set feasibility benchmarks. Adult patients with acute orthopedic injuries who endorse high pain catastrophizing or pain anxiety will be recruited approximately 1-2 months after injury or surgery (baseline). Participants randomized to the TOR will receive a 4-session mind-body treatment delivered via a secure live video by trained clinical psychologists. Participants randomized to the MEUC will receive an educational booklet. Primary outcomes include feasibility of recruitment, appropriateness, feasibility of data collection, acceptability of TOR (adherence to sessions), and treatment satisfaction across all sites. We will also collect data on secondary implementation outcomes, as well as pain severity, physical and emotional function, coping skills, and adverse events. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and at the 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Enrollment for the RCT is estimated to begin in June 2021. The target date of completion of the feasibility RCT is April 2024. The institutional review board approval has been obtained (January 2020).

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation examines the multisite feasibility of TOR administered via live videoconferencing in adult patients with acute orthopedic injuries. If feasible, the next step is a multisite, hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial of TOR versus MEUC. Preventive psychosocial interventions can provide a new way to improve patient and provider satisfaction and decrease suffering and health care costs among patients with orthopedic injuries who are at risk for chronic pain and disability.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/28155.

The socioeconomic impact of orthopaedic trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The overall objective of this study was to determine the patient-level socioeconomic impact resulting from orthopaedic trauma in the available literature. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched in December 2019. Studies were eligible for inclusion if more than 75% of the study population sustained an appendicular fracture due to an acute trauma, the mean age was 18 through 65 years, and the study included a socioeconomic outcome, defined as a measure of income, employment status, or educational status. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Pooled estimates of the socioeconomic outcome measures were calculated using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Two-hundred-five studies met the eligibility criteria. These studies utilized five different socioeconomic outcomes, including return to work (n = 119), absenteeism days from work (n = 104), productivity loss (n = 11), income loss (n = 11), and new unemployment (n = 10). Pooled estimates for return to work remained relatively consistent across the 6-, 12-, and 24-month timepoint estimates of 58.7%, 67.7%, and 60.9%, respectively. The pooled estimate for mean days absent from work was 102.3 days (95% CI: 94.8–109.8). Thirteen-percent had lost employment at one-year post-injury (95% CI: 4.8–30.7). Tremendous heterogeneity (I²>89%) was observed for all pooled socioeconomic outcomes. These results suggest that orthopaedic injury can have a substantial impact on the patient’s socioeconomic well-being, which may negatively affect a person’s psychological wellbeing and happiness. However, socioeconomic recovery following injury can be very nuanced, and using only a single socioeconomic outcome yields inherent bias. Informative and accurate socioeconomic outcome assessment requires a multifaceted approach and further standardization.

Results of a feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR): a live video program to prevent chronic pain in at-risk adults with orthopedic injuries

Background

Orthopedic injuries are the leading cause of hospital admissions in the USA, and many of these patients transition into chronic pain. Currently, there are no evidence-based interventions targeting prevention of chronic pain in patients with orthopedic injuries. We iteratively developed a four-session intervention "The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery" (TOR) which we plan to subsequently test for efficacy in a phase III hybrid efficacy-effectiveness multi-site clinical trial. In order to prevent methodological weaknesses in the subsequent trial, we conducted a feasibility pilot to evaluate the TOR delivered via secure live video versus usual care (UC) in patients with orthopedic injuries from an urban, level I trauma clinic, who screen in as at risk for chronic pain and disability. We tested the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening, and randomization methods; acceptability of the intervention, treatment adherence, and treatment fidelity; satisfaction with the intervention; feasibility of the assessment process at all time points; acceptability of outcome measures for the definitive trial; and within-treatment effect sizes.

Methods

We aimed to recruit 50-60 participants, randomize, and retain them for ~ 4 months. Assessments were done electronically via REDCap at baseline, post-intervention (approximately 5 weeks after baseline), and 3 months later. We followed procedures we intend to implement in the full-scale hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial.

Results

We recruited 54 participants and found that randomization and data collection procedures were generally acceptable. The majority of participants were white, educated, and employed. Warm hand-off referrals were more effective than research assistants directly approaching patients for participation without their providers' engagement. Feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening, and randomization were good. Satisfaction with the program, adherence to treatment sessions, and treatment fidelity were all high. There were no technical issues associated with the live video delivery of the TOR. There was minimal missing data and outcome measures were deemed appropriate. Effect sizes for improvement after participation in TOR were moderate to large. There were many lessons learned for future trials.

Conclusions

This study provided evidence of the feasibility of the planned hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial design when implemented at our home institution. Establishing feasibility of the intervention and study procedures at other trauma centers with more diverse patient populations and different clinical practices is required before a multi-site phase III efficacy-effectiveness trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03405610. Registered on January 28, 2018-retrospectively registered.

Does prehospital management by doctors affect outcome in major trauma? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is substantial variation worldwide in prehospital management of trauma and the role of doctors is controversial. The objective of this review was to determine whether prehospital management by doctors affects outcomes in major trauma, including the prespecified subgroup of severe traumatic brain injuries when compared with management by other advanced life support providers.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE(R), PubMed, SciELO, Trip, Web of Science, and Zetoc were searched for published articles. HSRProj, OpenGrey, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for unpublished data. Relevant reference lists were hand-searched. There were no limits on publication year, but articles were limited to the English language. Authors were contacted for further information as required. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black criteria. Mortality was the primary outcome, and disability was the secondary outcome of interest. Studies were subjected to a descriptive analysis alone without a meta-analysis due to significant study heterogeneity. All searches, quality assessment, data abstraction, and data analysis was performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

Two thousand thirty-seven articles were identified, 49 full-text articles assessed and eight studies included. The included studies consisted of one randomized controlled trial with 375 participants and seven observational studies with over 4,451 participants. All included studies were at a moderate to high risk of bias. Six of the eight included studies showed an improved outcome with prehospital management by doctors, five in terms of mortality and one in terms of disability. Two studies found no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be an association between prehospital management by doctors and improved survival in major trauma. There may also be an association with improved survival and better functional outcomes in severe traumatic brain injury. Further high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

A preliminary RCT of a mind body skills based intervention addressing mood and coping strategies in patients with acute orthopaedic trauma

OBJECTIVE

To test the acceptability and feasibility of a mind body skills-based intervention (RRCB) and estimate its preliminary effect in reducing disability and pain intensity as compared to standard care (SC) in patients with acute musculoskeletal trauma.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Level I trauma centre.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with acute fractures at risk for chronic pain and disability based on scores on two coping with pain measures who presented to an orthopedic trauma center and met inclusion and exclusion criteria.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomied to either RRCB with SC or SC alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Disability (short musculoskeletal functional assessment, SMFA) and pain (Numerical Analogue Scale).

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

coping strategies (Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS and Pain Anxiety Scale, PAS) and mood (CESD Depression and PTSD checklist).

RESULTS

Among the 50 patients consented, two did not complete the initial assessment. Of these, the first four received the intervention as part of an open pilot and the next 44 were randomised (24 RRCBT and 20 UC) and completed initial assessment. We combined the patients who received RRCB into one group, N=28. Of the entire sample, 34 completed time two assessments (24 RRCBT and 10 SC). The RRCB proved to be feasible and accepted (86% retention, 28 out of 24 completers). Analyses of covariance ANCOVA showed a significant (p<05) improvement and large effect sizes for all time two main study variables (.2-.5) except pain with activity where the effect size was medium (.08). Improvement for pain at rest was not significantly higher in the RRCB as compared to the control, for a small effect size (.03).

CONCLUSION

The RRCB is feasible, acceptable and potentially efficacious.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1 prognostic.

Determinants of limitations in unpaid work after major trauma: a prospective cohort study with 15 months follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To identify determinants of limitations in unpaid work (household work, shopping, caring for children and odd jobs around the house) in patients who had suffered major trauma (ISS≥16) and who were in full-time employment (≥80%) at the time of injury.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

University Medical Centre Utrecht, a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands.

METHOD

All severely injured (ISS≥16) adult (age≥16) trauma survivors admitted from January 1999 to December 2000 who were full-time employed at time of the injury were invited for follow-up (n=214). Outcome was assessed with the 'Health and Labour Questionnaire' (HLQ) at a mean of 15 months (SD=1.5) after injury. The HLQ was completed by 211 patients.

RESULTS

Response rate was 93%. Logistic regression analyses identified the percentage of permanent impairment (% PI), level of participation (RtW), co-morbidity, lower extremity injury (LEI) and female gender as determinants of limitations in unpaid work. Patients with a post-injury status of part-time or no return to work experienced more limitations in unpaid work than those who returned to full-time employment.

CONCLUSIONS

Resuming paid work after major trauma is not associated with reductions in unpaid activities. To assess the long-term outcome of rehabilitation programmes, we recommend a measure that combines patient's satisfaction in their post-injury jobs with a satisfactory level of activities in their private lives.

Longer term health of young and middle-aged adults following unintentional falls at home resulting in hospitalisation

Unintentional falls at home are a common cause of admissions to hospital amongst young and middle-aged adults. This population-based study investigated the longer-term health, physical and psychological outcomes following such injuries, and the predictors of these sequelae.

METHOD

Individuals aged 25-60 years admitted to hospital in the Auckland region between July 2005 and June 2006 following an unintentional fall at home were interviewed soon after the injury (baseline) and 15-months following the injury. Information collected at baseline on pre-injury status was analysed in relation to changes in general health and functioning, psychological outcomes, and role limitations at follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 328 participants eligible for study, 251 (77%) completed the follow-up interview. Reductions in general health and overall functioning (compared with pre-injury status) were reported by 25% and 43% of participants, respectively. In multivariate analyses, predictors of specific adverse outcomes at follow-up included increasing age (reduction in functioning), lower limb injuries (reductions in general health and functioning); female gender (psychological sequelae); injury severity score ≥9 (anxiety and depression); and length of hospital stay (fear of falling and post-traumatic stress symptoms).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant longer-term reductions in health and levels of functioning reveal the importance of strengthening efforts to prevent falls amongst young and middle-aged adults, and identifying groups at increased risk of longer-term disability who could benefit from targeted interventions.

Validity of outcome measures used to assess one and six month outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the validity of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA) for use in an orthopaedic trauma population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective validation trial was completed at a Level 1 adult trauma centre in Melbourne, Australia. One hundred and fifty four patients with orthopaedic trauma managed or followed-up by an orthopaedic unit were prospectively recruited. Patients with pathological fractures related to metastatic disease and/or an isolated orthopaedic injury, a documented history of mental illness or dementia or those for whom follow-up was likely to be difficult were excluded. The SF-12, SIP and SMFA were administered by a trained interviewer at one and six months. Each questionnaire was scored for the physical and mental components and then compared for content and construct validity at each time point.

RESULTS

Complete data were collected for 134 patients at one and six months. The one and six month component scores correlated strongly between the SF-12 physical, SIP physical (r=0.513-0.669) and SMFA dysfunction (r=0.529-0.778); the SF-12 mental, SIP mental (r=0.643-0.719) and SMFA bother (r=0.564-0.602) components. The strength of association was greater for the six month time point compared to the one month measure. The SF-12 demonstrated no ceiling or floor effects, and provided a lower time burden on participants and researchers when compared to the SIP and SMFA.

CONCLUSIONS

For large population-based surveillance research into orthopaedic injury the SF-12 provides a valid and versatile tool.

Twelve-month outcomes of serious orthopaedic sport and active recreation-related injuries admitted to Level 1 trauma centers in Melbourne, Australia

OBJECTIVE

To describe and identify predictors of 12-month outcomes of serious orthopaedic injuries due to sport and active recreation.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with 12-month follow-up.

SETTING

Two Level 1 adult trauma centers in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 366 adults admitted to two Level 1 trauma centers for an orthopaedic sport and active recreation injury between August 2003 and March 2006. Patients were captured by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR), followed up at 12 months, and were free of moderate to severe disability prior to injury.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS

Independent variables assessed for predictors of outcome were sporting group, age, sex, marital status, education level, Injury Severity Score, injury patterns, and head injury status.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The 12-item Short Form Health Survey and maximum pain scores.

RESULTS

At 12 months postinjury, 22.8% of patients reported moderate to severe physical disability, 12.1% reported moderate to severe mental health disability, and 11.1% reported moderate to severe pain. There were significant differences in physical outcomes between sporting groups, with motor and equestrian sports reporting the worst physical outcomes. Multivariate analysis indentified increasing age (P = 0.010) and patterns of injury (P = 0.040) as significant predictors of a poor physical outcome at 12 months. No significant independent predictors of outcome for mental health and maximum pain at 12 months were identified.

CONCLUSION

Almost one-quarter of participants reported moderate to severe physical disability at 12 months postinjury. Increasing age and patterns of injury were found to be significant predictors of a poor physical outcome at 12 months.

Life beyond severe traumatic injury: an integrative review of the literature

It is only recently that recognition of the serious and debilitating sequelae of trauma has prompted exploration of outcomes beyond survival, such as disability, health status and quality of life. This paper aims to review the literature describing outcomes following severe traumatic injury to provide clinicians with a greater understanding of the recovery trajectory following severe trauma and highlight the issues faced by those recovering from such injury. Electronic databases, published reference lists and the Internet were searched to identify relevant literature. The heterogeneous nature of published literature in this area prohibited a systematic approach to inclusion of papers in this review. Trauma survivors report significant sequelae that influence functional status, psychological wellbeing, quality of life and return to productivity following severe injury. Key themes that emerge from the review include: current trauma systems which provide inadequate support along the recovery trajectory; rehabilitation referral which is affected by geographical location and provider preferences; a long-term loss of productivity in both society and the workplace; a high incidence of psychological sequelae; a link between poor recovery and increased drug and alcohol consumption; and valued social support which can augment recovery. Future research to evaluate interventions which target the recovery needs of the severely injured patients is recommended. Particular emphasis is required to develop systematic, sustainable and cost-effective follow-up to augment the successes of existing acute trauma services in providing high quality acute resuscitation and definitive trauma management.

The relationship between compensable status and long‐term patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between compensable status in a "no-fault" compensation scheme and long-term outcomes after orthopaedic trauma.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study within two adult Level 1 trauma centres in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Blunt trauma patients aged 18-64 years, admitted between September 2003 and August 2004 with orthopaedic injuries and funded by the no-fault compensation scheme for transport-related injury, or deemed non-compensable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and return to work or study at 12 months after injury.

RESULTS

Of 1033 eligible patients, 707 (68.8%) provided follow-up data; 450 compensable and 247 non-compensable patients completed the study. After adjusting for differences across the groups (age, injury severity, head injury status, injury group, and discharge destination) using multivariate analyses, compensable patients were more likely than non-compensable patients to report moderate to severe disability at follow-up for the physical (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9), and mental (AOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5) summary scores of the SF-12. Compensable patients were less likely than non-compensable patients to have returned to work or study, even after adjusting for injury severity, age, head injury status and discharge destination (AOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients covered by the no-fault compensation system for transport-related injuries in Victoria had worse outcomes than non-compensable patients.

Determinants of long-term functional consequences after major trauma

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the long-term functional consequences from major trauma and to quantify the effect of sociodemographic, injury-related, and physical determinants of its outcome.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed at the University Medical Center Utrecht (Level I trauma center) in the Netherlands during 1999 and 2000. All severely (injury severity score [ISS] >or=16) injured adult (age >or=16) trauma survivors (n = 359) were selected for follow-up. Between 12 and 18 months after trauma, outcome was assessed by means of Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and cognitive complaints.

RESULTS

Follow-up assessments (overall response rate 93%) were obtained of 335 patients (249 men, 86 women) with a mean age of 38 years (SD = 17) and a mean ISS of 25 (SD = 10.6). The mean visual analog scale score on the EuroQol (EQvas) was 73.5 (SD = 17.8) and the mean utility score (EQus) was 69.1 (SD = 29.9), both below the norm. Patients reported limitations of mobility (48%); self-care (18%); daily activities (55%); pain and discomfort (63%); anxiety or depression (28%); and cognitive complaints (65%). In multivariate analyses, injury localization (spinal cord injury, lower extremity injury, or brain injury) was significantly associated with EQvas, EQus, and other outcome measures. Educational level was significantly associated with EQvas, anxiety/depression, and cognitive complaints. Comorbidity was significantly associated with EQvas, EQus, all dimensions of the EQ-5D (except anxiety/depression), and cognitive complaints.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the injury localization, educational level and comorbidity were identified as important independent predictors of long-term functional consequences after major trauma. These determinants need further attention in outcome research and clinical practice.

Preinjury status: are orthopaedic trauma patients different than the general population?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the preinjury health-related quality of life (HRQL) of orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to Level I trauma centers relative to the general population.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study using retrospectively collected preinjury HRQL measures.

SETTING

Two Level I adult trauma centers in Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2388 admitted orthopaedic trauma patients aged > or = 18 years were included, captured by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) between October 2003 and January 2006. Patients with a significant head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale severity score >2), dementia, mental illness, mental disability, who were non-English speakers, or who were postoperatively confused were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).

RESULTS

The preinjury SF-12 was obtained for 1839 patients [median (interquartile range) of 6 (3-12) days postinjury]. The VOTOR population reported mean physical SF-12 scores above population norms (50.9 vs. 48.9, P < 0.001). The differences were predominant in men and confined to patients aged 18 to 54 years. The mean mental SF-12 scores of the VOTOR population were also greater than population norms (54.5 vs. 52.4, P < 0.001) and this was most apparent for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing the preinjury HRQL of trauma patients is important for evaluating the quality of orthopaedic trauma patient outcomes. Reliance on population norms for this purpose may lead to an underestimation of the impact of injury in particular age and sex subgroups, but given the size of the differences seen, any underestimation would be small. Where individual preinjury data cannot be collected, population norms could be used as a reasonable estimate of preinjury patient status for assessing quality of recovery.

Long-term functional health status of severely injured patients

BACKGROUND

Studies of the consequences of major trauma have traditionally focused on mortality rates. The aims of this study were, firstly, to investigate the long-term functional health status in a large, unselected group of severely injured patients and to compare this with normative data, and secondly, to explore relations between functional health status and personal and injury characteristics.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed at the University Medical Centre Utrecht (a level-1 trauma centre) in The Netherlands. Consecutive survivors of major trauma (ISS>or=16; >16 years of age) were included from January 1999 until December 2000. After an average of 15 months (range 12-18 months), 335 of the 359 eligible persons (response rate 93%) participated. Demographic and injury characteristics were retrieved from a hospital-based registration system. Functional health status was measured using the 136-item Sickness impact profile (SIP). Co-morbidity was assessed at the follow-up examination using a standard list of 26 conditions.

RESULTS

Subjects were 249 men and 86 women, mean age 37.7 years, mean ISS was 24.9 (S.D.=10.6). Almost, three quarters were traffic victims. Mean hospital stay was 25 days (S.D.=23.4). Discharge destination was home in 70% of all subjects. At follow-up, the mean overall SIP score was 9.3 (S.D.=10.1), which means mild to moderate disability. The mean score on the physical function dimension was 7.2 (S.D.=9.8) and that on psychosocial function was 8.7 (S.D.=12.0). Most problems were experienced in the categories of Work, Ambulation, Home Management, Recreation and Pastimes, and Alertness Behaviour. Scores of younger subjects deviated more strongly from the norm scores than those of elderly patients. Type of injury, especially lesions of traumatic brain and spinal cord and extremity injuries, was a predictor of both psychosocial and physical functioning after more than 1 year. The most important predictors, however, were age and co-morbidity.

Return to work and quality of life in severely injured patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the long-term consequences of severe injuries in terms of return to productivity and quality of life.

METHODS

In this study we focused on the return to work status and quality of life in 53 severely injured patients (AIS/ISS > or = 16, mean ISS 24, range 16 - 54), mean age 37 years, one to two years after the injury. Questions were asked concerning employment in the past and at present. Quality of life was measured by means of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) questionnaire. Injury-related parameters were analysed in order to study their relation with disablement.

RESULTS

Of those patients who survived their injuries, 87% had resumed their former work. Only 10% of the patients received disability benefits. A mean SIP-total score of 6.7 was found, the mean SIP-physical score was 5.9 and the mean SIP-psychosocial score was 6.9. "No disability" (SIP score < or = 3) was found in 55% of the patients, whereas 11% of the patients reported "severe disability" (SIP score > or = 20). Age was a significant predictor of disablement (odds ratio 1.07). The Injury Severity Score (ISS), the length of hospital stay and the number of diagnoses did not predict disablement.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results were obtained in a relatively small sample size, the return to work rate in the surviving severely injured patients appears to be excellent. The quality of life is good; the majority of patients are not disabled. Age (and not the ISS) seems to be a significant predictor of disablement.

Return to Work After Severe Multiple Injuries: A Multidimensional Approach on Status 1 and 2 Years Postinjury

BACKGROUND

The assessment of factors associated with return to work (RTW) after multiple trauma is important in trauma research. Goals in rehabilitation should comprise RTW. The purpose of this study was to examine the RTW rate and which factors predicted RTW for patients with severe multiple injuries using a prospective cohort design.

METHODS

In all, 100 patients with a New Injury Severity Score (NISS) >15, aged 18 to 67 years and admitted to a trauma referral center, were included starting January 2002 through June 2003. Outcomes were assessed 6 weeks after discharge and 1 and 2 years postinjury. Instruments were the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire, Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, Short Form-36, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II, and a cognitive function scale (COG).

RESULTS

Mean age was 34.5 years (SD 13.5), 83% were male, and 66% were blue-collar workers. Mean NISS was 35.1 (SD 12.7). At 1 year, 28% achieved complete RTW, 43% at 2 years. Mean time back to work was 12.8 months (SD 5.9). Differences between the RTW and not complete RTW (NRTW) groups concerned personal and demographic variables, and physical and psychosocial functioning. Survival analysis showed that risk factors for NRTW were lower education, length of stay in hospital/rehabilitation >20 weeks, and low social functioning shortly after the return home.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the patients had not completely returned to work 2 years postinjury. Demographic and injury related factors and social functioning were significant predictors of RTW status.

Routine Follow Up of Major Trauma Patients From Trauma Registries: What are the Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Routine measurement of outcomes other than mortality in trauma is needed to monitor trauma care, benchmark trauma hospitals and systems, and to guide resource provision. Trauma registries are ideally placed to capture morbidity outcomes such as functional loss, disability, and handicap. This study aimed to provide a broad description of the 6-month outcomes of major trauma patients captured by a population-based trauma registry, establish the follow-up rate of registry patients, and determine any biases associated with loss to follow up.

METHODS

The Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) is a population-based registry in Victoria, Australia. Major trauma patients captured by the VSTR with a date of injury from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004 were followed up at 6 months postinjury by telephone to collect information about their living status, functional levels, and return to work.

RESULTS

Of the 1,102 eligible patients, 67% were successfully followed up at 6 months postinjury. Eighteen patients had died since discharge. Patients lost to follow up were less severely injured (p = 0.004) and younger (p = 0.010) at baseline than those followed up. The vast majority of major trauma patients are independent with respect to locomotion (78%), feeding (93%), and expression (93%) by 6 months postinjury. Of those working before injury, 60% had returned to work.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that follow up of registry patients is feasible, results in few biases in the follow-up population, and reports similar findings to individual studies of trauma populations.

Outcomes of patients with orthopaedic trauma admitted to level 1 trauma centres

BACKGROUND

Although orthopaedic trauma results in significant disability and substantial financial cost, there is a paucity of large cohort studies that collectively describe the functional outcomes of a variety of these injuries. The current study aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients admitted with a range of orthopaedic injuries to adult Level 1 trauma centres.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR), which included all patients with orthopaedic trauma admitted to the two adult Level 1 trauma centres in Victoria (Australia). Patients were categorised into three groups; isolated orthopaedic injuries, multiple orthopaedic injuries and orthopaedic and other injuries. Demographic and injury data were collected from the medical record and hospital/trauma databases, and functional outcome instruments were given at 6 months post-injury.

RESULTS

Of the 1303 patients recruited for VOTOR over a 12-month period, 1181 patients were eligible for the study and a response rate of 75.6% was obtained at 6 months post-injury. Patients reported ongoing pain (moderate-severe: 37.2%), disability (79.5%) and inability to return to work (35.2%). Poorer outcomes were evident in patients with orthopaedic and other injuries than those with single or multiple orthopaedic injuries alone.

CONCLUSION

A large percentage of patients have ongoing pain and disability and a reduced capacity to return to work 6 months after orthopaedic trauma. Further research into the long-term outcomes of patients with orthopaedic injuries is required to identify patient subgroups and specific injuries and procedures that result in high morbidity.

Characterisation of orthopaedic trauma admitted to adult level 1 trauma centres

BACKGROUND

Despite the vast number of traumatic injuries that are orthopaedic in nature, comprehensive epidemiological data that characterise orthopaedic trauma are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the nature of orthopaedic trauma admitted to adult Level 1 Trauma Centres.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR), which includes all patients with orthopaedic trauma admitted to the two adult Level 1 Trauma Centres in Victoria (Australia). Information was collected from the medical record and hospital databases on patients' demographics and injury event, diagnoses and management.

RESULTS

Data were analysed on 784 patients recruited between August 2003 and March 2004. Patients were mainly young (<65 years) (70.7%), male (59.1%) and injured in a transport collision (51.3%). Fractures of the femur (23.7%) and spine (23.5%) were the most common injuries and were predominately managed with operative (87.6%) and conservative (78.8%) methods, respectively. Differences in most parameters were evident between younger (<65 years) and older (> or =65 years) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents epidemiological data on patients with orthopaedic trauma who were admitted to adult Level 1 Trauma Centres. This information is critical for the future monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes of orthopaedic trauma.