Evaluating mild traumatic brain injury management at a regional emergency department

Concussion in facial trauma patients: a retrospective analysis of 100 patients from a UK major trauma centre

Concussion is a common and potentially debilitating condition. Research has shown that one-third of patients admitted with facial trauma have concurrent concussion. This study aimed to investigate the burden and management of concussion in patients presenting with acute facial trauma, and to identify potential risk factors within this population. A retrospective observational study was conducted at a UK major trauma centre between 1 January 2019 and 1 February2020. One hundred randomly selected patients who attended the acute clinic responsible for managing facial trauma were identified. No parametric data were included. The Mann-Whitney test was used to detect differences for continuous data, the X2 test for categorical data. Clinical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Forty of 100 patients (40%) had evidence of concussion, of which only 4/40 (10%) had evidence that head injury advice had been given. There was no statistically significant difference between the non-concussed and concussed groups for age (p = 0.145), gender (p = 0.921), mechanism of injury (p = 0.158), or location of facial injury (p = 0.451). Clinical features of concussion were found in 40% of patients suffering from facial injury. Despite this, we found that head injury advice was rarely given. In addition, we identified no risk factors for concussion within this population, highlighting the need to screen all patients who present with facial injury. To improve the identification and management of concussion in these patients, future work should focus on the development of simple screening tools for use in clinic, and the signposting of patients to existing written and online concussion resources.

Concussion in the UK: a contemporary narrative review

Concussion has been receiving an increasing amount of media exposure following several high-profile professional sports controversies and multimillion-dollar lawsuits. The potential life-changing sequalae of concussion and the rare, but devasting, second impact syndrome have also gained much attention. Despite this, our knowledge of the pathological processes involved is limited and often extrapolated from research into more severe brain injuries. As there is no objective diagnostic test for concussion. Relying on history and examination only, the diagnosis of concussion has become the rate-limiting step in widening research into the disease. Clinical study protocols therefore frequently exclude the most vulnerable groups of patients such as those with existing cognitive impairment, concurrent intoxication, mental health issues or learning difficulties. This up-to-date narrative review aims to summarize our current concussion knowledge and provides an insight into promising avenues for future research.

Vascular headache an traumatic brain injury

In a medical emergency, the most urgent patients at significant risk of death are those witha cerebrovascular accident and those with traumatic brain injury. Many are admitted withdiminished conscience status (coma) and focal neurological deficits. In the evaluation ofthese patients, neuroimaging is indispensable in order to identify the type of lesion andthe location of the brain where it is located.In the case of stroke, we can subdivide it into hemorrhagic and ischemic. Among hemorrhagic hemorrhages, we can mention (1) spontaneous intracerebral hematomasand (2) hemorrhages due to rupture of an intracranial aneurysm, with subarachnoidhemorrhage leading.Patients with head trauma are critical; even those who arrive at the hospital alert andoriented can decrease their level of consciousness in a few hours due to an intracranialhematoma, edema, or cerebral contusion.Thus, the availability of performing neuroimaging evaluations, using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, or even digital angiography, is vital for continuoussupervision of this type of patient. The exams often require repetition several times due tothe rate of evolution of vascular lesions and after head trauma.A warning sign in these types of patients is headache. In the intracranial aneurysmal rupture, we classically have the thunderclap headache, an explosive, sudden pain mentionedas the worst pain the individual has suffered in his or her life. The pericranium and someintracranial structures are sensitive to nociceptive stimuli, such as the dura mater, largearteries, and venous sinuses. The brain is relatively insensitive to painful stimuli.This narrative review aims to inform the importance of neuroimaging assessment of patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury in an emergency department. In conclusion,a neuroimaging evaluation is paramount in addition to a neurological and physicalexamination of the critically ill patient with cerebrovascular disease or who has suffereda traumatic brain injury

Equity and Disparities in Diagnosis, Management, and Research of Post-Traumatic Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are notable health disparities and inequities in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and concussion by race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography. This review will evaluate these disparities and inequities and assess the social determinants of health that drive outcomes for post-traumatic headache. Interventions for achieving this are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant disparities and inequities exist in TBI and concussion among people of different races, socioeconomic status, and geographic locations. Migraine is a common symptom post-concussion, for which disparities and social determinants of health are also discussed. Overall, multi-level interventions to reduce these disparities and inequities are reviewed for post-traumatic headache but require further investigation. Interventions are needed to reduce disparities and inequities including public health initiatives, improvements in clinical care, diversity/inclusion training, and research efforts. As literature expands, we can form guidance to identify solutions for eliminating disparities in care of diverse populations.

Variability in the indication of brain CT scan after mild traumatic brain injury. A transnational survey

PURPOSE

Clinical guidelines have been developed to standardize the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency room, in particular the indication of brain CT scan and the use of blood biomarkers. The objective of this study was to determine the degree of adherence to guidelines in the management of these patients across four countries of Southern Europe.

METHODS

An electronic survey including structural and general management of mTBI patients and six clinical vignettes was conducted. In-charge physicians from France, Spain, Greece and Portugal were contacted by telephone and email. Differences among countries were searched using an unconditional approach test on contingency tables.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty eight physicians from 131 Hospitals (78 Spain, 36 France, 12 Greece and 5 Portugal) completed the questionnaire. There were differences regarding the in-charge specialist across these countries. There was variability in the use of guidelines and their adherence. Spain was the country with the least guideline adherence. There was a global agreement in ordering a brain CT for patients receiving anticoagulation or platelet inhibitors, and for patients with seizures, altered consciousness, neurological deficit, clinical signs of skull fracture or signs of facial fracture. Aging was not an indication for CT in French centres. Loss of consciousness and posttraumatic amnesia were considered as indications for CT more frequently in Spain than in France. These findings were in line with the data from the 6 clinical vignettes. The estimated use of CT reached around 50% of mTBI cases. The use of S100B is restricted to five French centres.

CONCLUSIONS

There were large variations in the guideline adherence, especially in the situations considered to order brain CT after mTBI.

Do healthcare providers assess for risk factors and talk to patients about return to driving after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)? Findings from the 2020 DocStyles Survey

BACKGROUND

There is a dearth of information and guidance for healthcare providers on how to manage a patient's return to driving following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

METHODS

Using the 2020 DocStyles survey, 958 healthcare providers were surveyed about their diagnosis and management practices related to driving after an mTBI.

RESULTS

Approximately half (52.0%) of respondents reported routinely (more than 75% of the time) talking with patients with mTBI about how to safely return to driving after their injury. When asked about how many days they recommend their patients with mTBI wait before returning to driving after their injury: 1.0% recommended 1 day or less; 11.7% recommended 2-3 days; 24.5% recommended 4-7 days and 45.9% recommended more than 7 days. Many respondents did not consistently screen patients with mTBI for risk factors that may affect their driving ability or provide them with written instructions on how to safely return to driving (59.7% and 62.6%, respectively). Approximately 16.8% of respondents reported they do not usually make a recommendation regarding how long patients should wait after their injury to return to driving.

CONCLUSIONS

Many healthcare providers in this study reported that they do not consistently screen nor educate patients with mTBI about driving after their injury. In order to develop interventions, future studies are needed to assess factors that influence healthcare providers behaviours on this topic.

Concussion and Mild-Traumatic Brain Injury in Rural Settings: Epidemiology and Specific Health Care Considerations

Background  Mild-traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and concussions cause significant morbidity. To date, synthesis of specific health care disparities and gaps in care for rural mTBI/concussion patients remains needed. Methods  A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed database for English articles with keywords "rural" and ("concussion" or "mild traumatic brain injury") from 1991 to 2019. Eighteen articles focusing on rural epidemiology ( n = 5), management/cost ( n = 5), military ( n = 2), and concussion prevention/return to play ( n = 6) were included. Results  mTBI/concussion incidence was higher in rural compared with urban areas. Compared with urban patients, rural patients were at increased risk for vehicular injuries, lifetime number of concussions, admissions for observation without neuroimaging, and injury-related costs. Rural patients were less likely to utilize ambulatory and mental health services following mTBI/concussion. Rural secondary schools had decreased access to certified personnel for concussion evaluation, and decreased use of standardized assessment instruments/neurocognitive testing. While school coaches were aware of return-to-play laws, mTBI/concussion education rates for athletes and parents were suboptimal in both settings. Rural veterans were at increased risk for postconcussive symptoms and posttraumatic stress. Telemedicine in rural/low-resource areas is an emerging tool for rapid evaluation, triage, and follow-up. Conclusions  Rural patients are at unique risk for mTBI/concussions and health care costs. Barriers to care include lower socioeconomic status, longer distances to regional medical center, and decreased availability of neuroimaging and consultants. Due to socioeconomic and distance barriers, rural schools are less able to recruit personnel certified for concussion evaluation. Telemedicine is an emerging tool for remote triage and evaluation.