‘Major trauma’: now two separate diseases?

Across the developed world, demographic change is having a profound impact on emergency care, with recognition that older people have different needs, and may need different services. The article by Hawley et al in this edition, and the recent publication of a report on major trauma in older people from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), suggest that we may also need to think differently about our major trauma systems. In England and Wales, recent improvements in data collection from trauma units (hospitals that are not major trauma centres) means that in 2016 the ‘typical’ case of major trauma is no longer a young male admitted after a road traffic accident, but is an older male admitted after a fall of less than 2 metres

Computational analysis of factors affecting the probability of survival in trauma injuries

A preliminary computational analysis of a number of factors affecting the probability of survival in trauma injuries was carried out. The study examined the manner the types and extent of body injuries, specific body regions affected by the injuries, pre-exiting medical conditions, physiological parameters (e.g. heart rate, blood pressure and respiration rate), age, gender and Glasgow Comma Score contribute to the probability of survival. A more in depth analysis of these factors are currently ongoing to develop a model for the probability of survival

Fuzzy logic to determine the likelihood of survival for trauma injury patients

Abstract. A system to determine the likelihood of survival for trauma injury patients is being developed. It uses a fuzzy logic approach that can model complex processes without reliance on sophisticated mathematical formulations and may have the potential to be more accurate than the existing approaches. The outline operation of the system that is currently in a prototype stage is described

A review of injury epidemiology in the UK and Europe: some methodological considerations in constructing rates

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Serious injuries have been stated as a public health priority in the UK. However, there appears to be a lack of information on population-based rates of serious injury (as defined by a recognised taxonomy of injury severity) at national level from either official statistics or research papers. We aim to address this through a search and review of literature primarily focused within the UK and Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The review summarizes research papers on the subject of population based injury epidemiology published from 1970 to 2008. We examined critically methodological approaches in measuring injury incident rates including data sources, description of the injury pyramid, matching numerator and denominator populations as well as the relationship between injury and socioeconomic status.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>National representative rates come from research papers using official statistics sources, often focusing on mortality data alone. Few studies present data from the perspective of an injury pyramid or using a standardized measure of injury severity, i.e. Injury Severity Score (ISS). The population movement that may result in a possible numerator – denominator mismatch has been acknowledged in five research studies and in official statistics. The epidemiological profile shows over the past decades in UK and Europe a decrease in injury death rates. No major trauma population based rates are available within well defined populations across UK over recent time periods. Both fatal and non-fatal injury rates occurred more frequently in males than females with higher rates in males up to 65 years, then in females over 65 years. Road traffic crashes and falls are predominant injury mechanisms. Whereas a straightforward inverse association between injury death rates and socio-economic status has been observed, the evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in non-fatal injuries rates has not been wholly consistent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>New methodological approaches should be developed to deal with the study design inconsistencies and the knowledge gaps identified across this review. Trauma registries contain injury data from hospitals within larger regions and code injury by Abbreviated Injury Scale enabling information on severity; these may be reliable data sources to improve understanding of injury epidemiology.</p

Report of a Consensus Meeting on Human Brain Temperature After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Its Measurement and Management During Pyrexia

Temperature disturbances are common in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. The possibility of an adaptive, potentially beneficial role for fever in patients with severe brain trauma has been dismissed, but without good justification. Fever might, in some patients, confer benefit. A cadre of clinicians and scientists met to debate the clinically relevant, but often controversial issue about whether raised brain temperature after human traumatic brain injury (TBI) should be regarded as “good or bad” for outcome. The objective was to produce a consensus document of views about current temperature measurement and pyrexia treatment. Lectures were delivered by invited speakers with National and International publication track records in thermoregulation, neuroscience, epidemiology, measurement standards and neurocritical care. Summaries of the lectures and workshop discussions were produced from transcriptions of the lectures and workshop discussions. At the close of meeting, there was agreement on four key issues relevant to modern temperature measurement and management and for undergirding of an evidence-based practice, culminating in a consensus statement. There is no robust scientific data to support the use of hypothermia in patients whose intracranial pressure is controllable using standard therapy. A randomized clinical trial is justified to establish if body cooling for control of pyrexia (to normothermia) vs moderate pyrexia leads to a better patient outcome for TBI patients

A comparison between the clinical frailty scale and the hospital frailty risk score to risk stratify older people with emergency care needs

Background. Older adults living with frailty who require treatment in hospitals are increasingly seen in the Emergency Departments (EDs). One quick and simple frailty assessment tool¿the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)¿has been embedded in many EDs in the United Kingdom (UK). However, it carries time/training and cost burden and has significant missing data. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) can be automated and has the potential to reduce costs and increase data availability, but has not been tested for predictive accuracy in the ED. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between and the ability of the CFS at the ED and HFRS to predict hospital-related outcomes. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study using data from Leicester Royal Infirmary hospital during the period from 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2019. We included individuals aged + 75 years as the HFRS has been only validated for this population. We assessed the correlation between the CFS and HFRS using Pearson's correlation coefficient for the continuous scores and weighted kappa scores for the categorised scores. We developed logistic regression models (unadjusted and adjusted) to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and Confidence Intervals (CIs), so we can assess the ability of the CFS and HFRS to predict 30-day mortality, Length of Stay (LOS) > 10 days, and 30-day readmission. Results. Twelve thousand two hundred thirty seven individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 84.6 years (SD 5.9) and 7,074 (57.8%) were females. Between the CFS and HFRS, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.36 and weighted kappa score was 0.15. When comparing the highest frailty categories to the lowest frailty category within each frailty score, the ORs for 30-day mortality, LOS > 10 days, and 30-day readmission using the CFS were 2.26, 1.36, and 1.64 and for the HFRS 2.16, 7.68, and 1.19. Conclusion. The CFS collected at the ED and the HFRS had low/slight agreement. Both frailty scores were shown to be predictors of adverse outcomes. More research is needed to assess the use of historic HFRS in the ED

Traumatic brain injury probability of survival assessment in adults using iterative random comparison classification

Trauma brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of death and disability in young adults. A method to determine probability of survival (Ps) in trauma called Iterative Random Comparison Classification (IRCC) was developed and its performance was evaluated in TBI. IRCC operates by iteratively comparing the test case with randomly chosen subgroups of cases from a database of known outcomes (survivors and not survivors) and determines the overall percentage match. The performance of IRCC to determine Ps in TBI was compared with two existing methods. One was Ps14 that uses regression and the other was predictive statistical diagnosis (PSD) that is based on Bayesian statistic. The TBI database contained 4124 adult cases (mean age 67.9 years, standard deviation 21.6) of which 3553 (86.2%) were survivors and 571 (13.8%) were not survivors. IRCC determined Ps for the survivors and not survivors with an accuracy of 79.0% and 71.4% respectively while the corresponding values for Ps14 were 97.4% (survivors) and 40.2% (not survivors) and for PSD were 90.8% (survivors) and 50% (not survivors). IRCC could be valuable for determining Ps in TBI and with a suitable database in other traumas

Management of the anticoagulated trauma patient in the emergency department: A survey of current practice in England and Wales

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate current management of the anticoagulated trauma patient in the emergency departments (EDs) in England and Wales. Methods A survey exploring management strategies for anticoagulated trauma patients presenting to the ED was developed with two patient scenarios concerning assessment of coagulation status, reversal of international normalised ratio (INR), management of hypotension and management strategies for each patient. Numerical data are presented as percentages of total respondents to that particular question. Results 106 respondents from 166 hospitals replied to the survey, with 24% of respondents working in a major trauma unit with a specialist neurosurgical unit. Variation was reported in the assessment and management strategies of the elderly anticoagulated poly-trauma patient described in scenario one. Variation was also evident in the responses between the neurosurgical and non-neurosurgical units for the headinjured, anticoagulated trauma patient in scenario two. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the similarities and variation in the management strategies used in the EDs in England and Wales for the elderly, anticoagulated trauma patient. The variations in practice reported may be due to the differences evident in the available guidelines for these patients