Minor injuries as a risk factor for venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND: Injuries increase the risk of venous thrombosis. So far, most research has focused on major injuries that are accompanied by other risk factors for venous thrombosis, such as plaster casts and surgery. We studied the association of venous thrombosis with common minor injuries, such as minor sural muscle ruptures and ankle sprains.\ud \ud METHODS: We performed a large, population-based, case-control study (the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of risk factors for venous thrombosis [MEGA] study), including consecutive patients with a first deep venous thrombosis of the leg or pulmonary embolism and control subjects. Participants with malignant neoplasms, those who underwent surgery, and those who had a plaster cast or extended bed rest were excluded.\ud \ud RESULTS: Of 2471 patients, 289 (11.7%), and of 3534 controls, 154 (4.4%) had a minor injury in the 3 months preceding the venous thrombosis (patients) or completion of the questionnaire (controls). Venous thrombosis was associated with previous minor injury (odds ratio adjusted for sex and age, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-3.8). The association was strongest for injuries that occurred in the 4 weeks before thrombosis and was not apparent before 10 weeks. Thrombosis was more strongly associated with minor injuries located in the leg (odds ratio adjusted for sex and age, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-6.7), while those located in other body parts were not associated. A 50-fold increased risk was found in factor V Leiden carriers with a leg injury compared with noncarriers without injury (odds ratio, 49.7; 95% confidence interval, 6.8-362.7).\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: Minor injuries in the leg are associated with greater risk of venous thrombosis. Because minor injuries are common, they could be major contributors to the occurrence of venous thrombosis\u

Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting:A Scoping Review

Assessment of (digital) health literacy in the hospital can raise staff awareness and facilitate tailored communication, leading to improved health outcomes. Assessment tools should ideally address multiple domains of health literacy, fit to the complex hospital context and have a short administration time, to enable routine assessment. This review aims to create an overview of tools for measuring (digital) health literacy in hospitals. A search in Scopus, PubMed, WoS and CINAHL, following PRISMA guidelines, generated 7252 hits; 251 studies were included in which 44 assessment tools were used. Most tools (57%) were self-reported and 27% reported an administration time of &lt;5 min. Almost all tools addressed the domain ‘understanding’ (98%), followed by ‘access’ (52%), ‘apply’ (50%), ‘appraise’ (32%), ‘numeracy’ (18%), and ‘digital’ (18%). Only four tools were frequently used: the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults ((S)TOFHLA), the Brief Health Literacy Screener (BHLS), and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). While the NVS and BHLS have a low administration time, they cover only two domains. HLQ covers the most domains: access, understanding, appraise, and apply. None of these four most frequently used tools measured digital skills. This review can guide health professionals in choosing an instrument that is feasible in their daily practice, and measures the required domains.</p

Trauma team activation varies across Dutch emergency departments: a national survey

Background Tiered trauma team response may contribute to efficient in-hospital trauma triage by reducing the amount of resources required and by improving health outcomes. This study evaluates current practice of trauma team activation (TTA) in Dutch emergency departments (EDs). Methods A survey was conducted among managers of all 102 EDs in the Netherlands, using a semi-structured online questionnaire. Results Seventy-two questionnaires were analysed. Most EDs use a one-team system (68 %). EDs with a tiered-response receive more multi trauma patients (p < 0.01) and have more trauma team alerts per year (p < 0.05) than one-team EDs. The number of trauma team members varies from three to 16 professionals. The ED nurse usually receives the pre-notification (97 %), whereas the decision to activate a team is made by an ED nurse (46 %), ED physician (30 %), by multiple professionals (20 %) or other (4 %). Information in the pre-notification mostly used for trauma team activation are Airway-Breathing-Circulation (87 %), Glasgow Coma Score (90 %), and Revised Trauma Score (85 %) or Paediatric Trauma Score (86 %). However, this information is only available for 75 % of the patients or less. Only 56 % of the respondents were satisfied with their current in-hospital trauma triage system. Conclusions Trauma team activation varies across Dutch EDs and there is room for improvement in the trauma triage system used, size of the teams and the professionals involved. More direct communication and more uniform criteria could be used to efficiently and safely activate a specific trauma team. Therefore, the implementation of a revised national consensus guideline is recommende