Brain injury rehabilitation after road trauma in new South Wales, Australia - insights from a data linkage study

Identifying prehospital trauma patients from ambulance patient care records; comparing two methods using linked data in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Linked datasets for trauma system monitoring should ideally follow patients from the prehospital scene to hospital admission and post-discharge. Having a well-defined cohort when using administrative datasets is essential because they must capture the representative population. Unlike hospital electronic health records (EHR), ambulance patient-care records lack access to sources beyond immediate clinical notes. Relying on a limited set of variables to define a study population might result in missed patient inclusion. We aimed to compare two methods of identifying prehospital trauma patients: one using only those documented under a trauma protocol and another incorporating additional data elements from ambulance patient care records.

METHODS

We analyzed data from six routinely collected administrative datasets from 2015 to 2018, including ambulance patient-care records, aeromedical data, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, rehabilitation outcomes, and death records. Three prehospital trauma cohorts were created: an Extended-T-protocol cohort (patients transported under a trauma protocol and/or patients with prespecified criteria from structured data fields), T-protocol cohort (only patients documented as transported under a trauma protocol) and non-T-protocol (extended-T-protocol population not in the T-protocol cohort). Patient-encounter characteristics, mortality, clinical and post-hospital discharge outcomes were compared. A conservative p-value of 0.01 was considered significant RESULTS: Of 1 038 263 patient-encounters included in the extended-T-population 814 729 (78.5 %) were transported, with 438 893 (53.9 %) documented as a T-protocol patient. Half (49.6 %) of the non-T-protocol sub-cohort had an International Classification of Disease 10th edition injury or external cause code, indicating 79644 missed patients when a T-protocol-only definition was used. The non-T-protocol sub-cohort also identified additional patients with intubation, prehospital blood transfusion and positive eFAST. A higher proportion of non-T protocol patients than T-protocol patients were admitted to the ICU (4.6% vs 3.6 %), ventilated (1.8% vs 1.3 %), received in-hospital transfusion (7.9 vs 6.8 %) or died (1.8% vs 1.3 %). Urgent trauma surgery was similar between groups (1.3% vs 1.4 %).

CONCLUSION

The extended-T-population definition identified 50 % more admitted patients with an ICD-10-AM code consistent with an injury, including patients with severe trauma. Developing an EHR phenotype incorporating multiple data fields of ambulance-transported trauma patients for use with linked data may avoid missing these patients.

Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Around 500/100,000 Canadians experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) resulting in long-term disabilities and premature death. Physiotherapy is known to positively impact the prognosis of young adults following a TBI.

OBJECTIVE

This is a scoping review that aimed to identify research topics in physiotherapy interventions for seniors after a TBI, describe potential knowledge gaps, and uncover needs for future research.

METHODOLOGY

Ten databases were interrogated (January-March 2022). We included texts published after 2010, in English or French, scientific papers, guidelines, and gray literature sources targeting in-hospital, acute-to-subacute interventions for people aged ≥55 years old with a moderate-to-severe TBI. The outcomes sought were physical/functional capacities, injury severity, and quality of life.

RESULTS

From 1296 articles, 16 were selected. The number of participants from the studies altogether was 248,794. We identified eight retrospectives studies, three clinical trials, and five articles from the gray literature. Articles were classified according to the nature of their analysis and outcomes: (1) interventional studies including physiotherapy (at least 10 types of rehabilitative or preventive interventions were identified); (2) studies evaluating prognostic factors (five factors identified); and (3) recommendations from clinical practical guidelines and other sources (gray literature). Our results provide evidence that physiotherapy is effective in TBI acute rehabilitation for the elderly to prevent complications arising from the primary injury and to improve functional capacities.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity of our results does not allow us to infer the effectiveness of one intervention over another. However, we found that the elderly population benefits from physiotherapy interventions as much as adults, but the gap must be filled with higher-quality studies to make definite recommendations.

Three Es of linked injury data: Episodes, Encounters and Events

BACKGROUND

Treatment and recovery times following injury can be lengthy, comprising multiple interactions with the hospital system for initial acute care, subsequent rehabilitation and possible re-presentation due to complications.

AIMS

This article aims to promote the use of consistent terminology in injury data linkage studies, suggest important factors to consider when managing linked injury data, and encourage thorough documentation and a robust discourse around different approaches to data management to ensure reproducibility, consistency and comparability of analyses arising from linked injury data.

APPROACH

This paper is presented in sections describing: (1) considerations for identifying injury cohorts, (2) considerations for grouping Episodes into Encounters and (3) considerations for grouping Encounters into Events. Summary tools are provided to aid researchers in the management of linked injury data.

DISCUSSION

Careful consideration of decisions made when identifying injury cohorts and grouping data into units of analysis (Episodes/Encounters/Events) is essential when using linked injury data. Choices made have the potential to significantly impact the epidemiological and clinical findings derived from linked injury data studies, which ultimately affect the quality of injury prevention initiatives and injury management policy and practice. It is intended that this paper will act as a call to action for injury linkage methodologists, and those using linked data, to critique approaches, share tools and engage in a robust discourse to further advance the use of linked injury data, and ultimately enhance the value of linked injury data for clinicians and health and social policymakers.

A comparison of patients managed in specialist versus non-specialist inpatient rehabilitation units in Australia

Aim: To compare the rehabilitation of patients with brain and spinal cord injury in specialist rehabilitation units and non-specialist rehabilitation units in Australia over a 10-year period.Method: A retrospective cohort study design was used. Epidemiological descriptive analysis was used to examine inpatient rehabilitation data held in the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre Registry Database at four discrete time points: 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. Data sets included patient demographics, length of stay and the Functional Independence Measure. Data sets were examined for differences between specialist and non-specialist rehabilitation units.Results: Over the 10-year study period, compared to patients admitted to non-specialist rehabilitation units patients admitted to specialist rehabilitation units: (1) were younger and more likely to be male; (2) had a longer time between onset of illness/injury and rehabilitation admission; (3) had a longer median rehabilitation length of stay; (4) had a higher burden of care on admission to rehabilitation; however (5) had a greater functional gain. Patients in specialist rehabilitation units had a lower relative functional efficiency per day of rehabilitation, but higher percentage of Functional Independence Measure gain. In 2016, 66% of brain injury and 51% of spinal cord injury patients were not rehabilitated in specialist rehabilitation units.Conclusion: There are differences in the characteristics of patients admitted to specialist versus non-specialist rehabilitation units. Patients admitted to specialist rehabilitation units have greater functional gain. A noteworthy proportion of brain and spinal cord injury patients are not being rehabilitated in specialist rehabilitation units, particularly patients with non-traumatic injuries.Implications for rehabilitationPatients with a brain or spinal cord injury rehabilitated in specialist rehabilitation units achieve a greater functional gain than those in non-specialist units.Development of best practice admission guidelines would better enable the right care for the right patient in the right setting at the right time.There is a need for longitudinal examination of patient outcomes to better understand the long-term benefits of being rehabilitated in specialist rehabilitation units compared to non-specialist rehabilitation units.