Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831]. Study sample: Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample). Outcome measures: Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D). Methods: Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample. Results: Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference $23.86 per patient; 95$106, $153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference$341.78 per patient; 95%CI − $58,$742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference $138.20 per patient; 95$135, $141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference$169.89 per patient; 95%CI $43,$297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference $505.06; 95$96, $915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of$1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA ($169.89/0.1363; Fieller’s 95$525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial. CONCLUSION: While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and—as delivered in the trial—is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831, date registered 12 December 2012

Implementing evidence-based recommended practices for the management of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries in Australian emergency care departments: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Mild head injuries commonly present to emergency departments. The challenges facing clinicians in emergency departments include identifying which patients have traumatic brain injury, and which patients can safely be sent home. Traumatic brain injuries may exist with subtle symptoms or signs, but can still lead to adverse outcomes. Despite the existence of several high quality clinical practice guidelines, internationally and in Australia, research shows inconsistent implementation of these recommendations. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed implementation intervention to increase the uptake of three key clinical recommendations regarding the emergency department management of adult patients (18 years of age or older) who present following mild head injuries (concussion), compared with passive dissemination of these recommendations. The primary objective is to establish whether the intervention is effective in increasing the percentage of patients for which appropriate post-traumatic amnesia screening is performed. / Methods/design: The design of this study is a cluster randomised trial. We aim to include 34 Australian 24-hour emergency departments, which will be randomised to an intervention or control group. Control group departments will receive a copy of the most recent Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the acute management of patients with mild head injuries. The intervention group will receive an implementation intervention based on an analysis of influencing factors, which include local stakeholder meetings, identification of nursing and medical opinion leaders in each site, a train-the-trainer day and standardised education and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders during a 3 month period of time. Clinical practice outcomes will be collected retrospectively from medical records by independent chart auditors over the 2 month period following intervention delivery (patient level outcomes). In consenting hospitals, eligible patients will be recruited for a follow-up telephone interview conducted by trained researchers. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation using mixed-methods will be conducted. Sample size calculations are based on including 30 patients on average per department. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. / Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831 (date registered 12 December 2012)

The Glasgow Outcome Scale -- 40 years of application and refinement

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was first published in 1975 by Bryan Jennett and Michael Bond. With over 4,000 citations to the original paper, it is the most highly cited outcome measure in studies of brain injury and the second most-cited paper in clinical neurosurgery. The original GOS and the subsequently developed extended GOS (GOSE) are recommended by several national bodies as the outcome measure for major trauma and for head injury. The enduring appeal of the GOS is linked to its simplicity, short administration time, reliability and validity, stability, flexibility of administration (face-to-face, over the telephone and by post), cost-free availability and ease of access. These benefits apply to other derivatives of the scale, including the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and the GOS paediatric revision. The GOS was devised to provide an overview of outcome and to focus on social recovery. Since the initial development of the GOS, there has been an increasing focus on the multidimensional nature of outcome after head injury. This Review charts the development of the GOS, its refinement and usage over the past 40 years, and considers its current and future roles in developing an understanding of brain injury

Effects of acute substance use and pre-injury substance abuse on traumatic brain injury severity in adults admitted to a trauma centre

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aims of this study were to describe the occurrence of substance use at the time of injury and pre-injury substance abuse in patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Effects of acute substance use and pre-injury substance abuse on TBI severity were also investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective study of 111 patients, aged 16-55 years, injured from May 2005 to May 2007 and hospitalised at the Trauma Referral Centre in Eastern Norway with acute TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 3-12). Based on structural brain damages shown on a computed tomography (CT) scan, TBI severity was defined by modified Marshall classification as less severe (score <3) and more severe (score ≥3). Clinical definition of substance use (alcohol and/or other psychoactive substances) was applied when hospital admission records reflected blood alcohol levels or a positive drug screen, or when a physician verified influence by examining the patient. Pre-injury substance abuse (alcohol and drug problems) was screened by using the CAGE questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-seven percent of patients were positive for substance use on admission to hospital. Significant pre-injury substance abuse was reported by 26% of patients. Substance use at the time of injury was more frequent in the less severe group (p = 0.01). The frequency of pre-injury substance abuse was higher in the more severe group (30% vs. 23%). In a logistic regression model, acute substance use at time of injury tended to decrease the probability of more severe intracranial injury, but the effect was not statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender, education, cause of injury and substance abuse, OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.11-1.35, p = 0.14. Patients with positive screens for pre-injury substance abuse (CAGE ≥2) were more likely to have more severe TBI in the adjusted regression analyses, OR = 4.05; 95% CI 1.10-15.64, p = 0.04.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Acute <b>s</b>ubstance use was more frequent in patients with less severe TBI caused by low-energy events such as falls, violence and sport accidents. Pre-injury substance abuse increased the probability of more severe TBI caused by high-energy trauma such as motor vehicle accidents and falls from higher levels. Preventive efforts to reduce substance consumption and abuse in at-risk populations are needed.</p

Gender differences in self reported long term outcomes following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The majority of research on health outcomes after a traumatic brain injury is focused on male participants. Information examining gender differences in health outcomes post traumatic brain injury is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences in symptoms reported after a traumatic brain injury and to examine the degree to which these symptoms are problematic in daily functioning.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary data analysis of a retrospective cohort study of 306 individuals who sustained a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury 8 to 24 years ago. Data were collected using the Problem Checklist (PCL) from the Head Injury Family Interview (HIFI). Using Bonferroni correction, group differences between women and men were explored using Chi-square and Wilcoxon analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Chi-square analysis by gender revealed that significantly more men reported difficulty setting realistic goals and restlessness whereas significantly more women reported headaches, dizziness and loss of confidence. Wilcoxon analysis by gender revealed that men reported sensitivity to noise and sleep disturbances as significantly more problematic than women, whereas for women, lack of initiative and needing supervision were significantly more problematic in daily functioning.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides insight into gender differences on outcomes after traumatic brain injury. There are significant differences between problems reported by men compared to women. This insight may facilitate health service planners and clinicians when developing programs for individuals with brain injury.</p

Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

Background Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost. Methods and findings Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831]. Study sample: Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample). Outcome measures: Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D). Methods: Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample. Results: Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference $23.86 per patient; 95$106, $153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference$341.78 per patient; 95%CI − $58,$742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference $138.20 per patient; 95$135, $141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference$169.89 per patient; 95%CI $43,$297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference $505.06; 95$96, $915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of$1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA ($169.89/0.1363; Fieller’s 95$525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial. Conclusions While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and—as delivered in the trial—is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes

Achieving optimal functional outcomes in community-based rehabilitation following acquired brain injury: a qualitative investigation of therapists' perspectives

The aim of this study was to explore therapists' opinions about the rehabilitation approaches that they perceived contributed to positive outcomes for people with acquired brain injury in community-based rehabilitation settings in order to develop a set of practice principles for clinicians working in this area. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight Australian and three British therapists, with a mean of 5.2 years' experience of working with people with acquired brain injury in community-based rehabilitation settings. The interviews were analysed thematically. A summary of the themes was presented to a larger group of acquired brain injury service providers (n = 35) for validation. The participants emphasised the importance of environmental factors, such as collaboration with and inclusion of others in rehabilitation, especially those in the person's support network. Strategy use, client-centred goal setting, the provision of education and the development of a therapeutic relationship were identified as facilitators in community-based rehabilitation. Problems with self-awareness and motivation, drug and alcohol use, and behavioural difficulties were commonly identified barriers to optimal outcomes. The key practice principles derived from the findings were the need for community-based rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury to be (1) environment focused and contextually appropriate, (2) collaborative and (3) goal directed and client centred