Association of longitudinal changes in patient-reported health status with return to work in the first 2 years after traumatic injury:A prospective cohort study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic value of time driven changes in health status on return to work (RTW) in the first 2 years after traumatic injury. DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. All patient-reported outcomes were measured at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after injury. SETTING: Ten participating hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Employed adult clinical injury patients admitted to the hospital between August 2015 and November 2016 (N=1245 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data about (first) RTW were used from the patient-reported questionnaires (1=yes, 0=no). RTW was measured as the first time a patient started working after hospital admission. Time until RTW was calculated in weeks. Health status was measured with the EuroQol Five Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ5D) including a dimension to measure cognition. RESULTS: At 24 months, 88.5% (n=1102) of the patients had returned to work. The median time to RTW was 6.6 weeks (IQR: 2–13). Patients’ health status was found to be an independent prognostic factor for RTW: a 0.1-unit increase in EQ5D (scale 0–1) translated into RTW being four times more likely (95% CI 1.60 to 11.94). Patients who had moderate or severe problems (0=no problems, 1=moderate or severe problems) with mobility (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), anxiety/depression (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), usual activities (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98), self-care (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and cognition (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) were significantly less likely to RTW compared with patients with no problems. CONCLUSION: Increased self-reported health status over time is associated with a higher likelihood of RTW, independent of baseline risk factors, such as injury severity or education. Knowledge on patient-reported outcomes can contribute to the development of tailored RTW treatments. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes could be used as monitoring tool to guide postinjury care in the clinical setting and RTW process. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02508675; Results

Experiences of recovery and posthospital care needs of working-age adults after physical trauma:A qualitative focus group study

OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of recovery after physical trauma and identify long-term needs for posthospital care. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of seven online focus groups among working-age adults who sustained their injury between 9 months and 5 years ago. Trauma patients discharged from a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands were divided into three groups based on the type of their physical trauma (monotrauma, polytrauma and traumatic brain injury). Group interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Despite differences in type and severity of their injuries, participants all struggled with the impact that trauma had on various aspects of their lives. They experienced recovery as an unpredictable and inconstant process aimed at resuming a meaningful life. Work was often perceived as an important part of recovery, though the value attributed to work could change over time. Participants struggled to bring the difficulties they encountered in their daily lives and at work to the attention of healthcare professionals (HCPs). While posthospital care needs varied between and across groups, all people stressed the need for flexible access to person-centred, multidisciplinary care and support after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that people with a broad variety of injury experience recovery as a process towards resuming a meaningful life and report the need to expand trauma care to include comprehensive support to live well long term. Person-centred care might be helpful to enable HCPs to take people’s individual long-term needs and life situations into account. Furthermore, providing timely access to coordinated, multidisciplinary care after discharge is advocated. Integrated care models that span a network of multidisciplinary support around the person may help align existing services and may facilitate easy and timely access to the most suitable support for injured people and their loved ones

Association of longitudinal changes in patient-reported health status with return to work in the first 2 years after traumatic injury: A prospective cohort study in the Netherlands

Objectives: To determine the prognostic value of time driven changes in health status on return to work (RTW) in the first 2 years after traumatic injury. Design: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. All patient-reported outcomes were measured at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after injury. Setting: Ten participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants: Employed adult clinical injury patients admitted to the hospital between August 2015 and November 2016 (N=1245 patients). Main outcome measures: Data about (first) RTW were used from the patient-reported questionnaires (1=yes, 0=no). RTW was measured as the first time a patient started working after hospital admission. Time until RTW was calculated in weeks. Health status was measured with the EuroQol Five Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ5D) including a dimension to measure cognition. Results: At 24 months, 88.5% (n=1102) of the patients had returned to work. The median time to RTW was 6.6 weeks (IQR: 2–13). Patients’ health status was found to be an independent prognostic factor for RTW: a 0.1-unit increase in EQ5D (scale 0–1) translated into RTW being four times more likely (95% CI 1.60 to 11.94). Patients who had moderate or severe problems (0=no problems, 1=moderate or severe problems) with mobility (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), anxiety/depression (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), usual activities (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98), self-care (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and cognition (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) were significantly less likely to RTW compared with patients with no problems. Conclusion: Increased self-reported health status over time is associated with a higher likelihood of RTW, independent of baseline risk factors, such as injury severity or education. Knowledge on patient-reported outcomes can contribute to the development of tailored RTW treatments. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes could be used as monitoring tool to guide postinjury care in the clinical setting and RTW process

Evaluation of the necessity of clinical observation of high-energy trauma patients without significant injury after standardized emergency room stabilization

Background: Patients involved in a high-energy trauma (HET) are usually admitted for clinical observation, even when no significant injury is found after standard care in the emergency room (ER). The necessity of this observation period is not evidence based. The goal of this study was to identify patients who revealed an initially undiagnosed injury during the observation period. Methods: A retrospective study of consecutive HET patients was conducted in two Level I trauma centers. Patients after a HET with two minor injuries or less, diagnosed during the standard ER care, were included. Data were abstracted from patients' medical records. Results: Five hundred three patients were included. None of the patients developed any complications during the clinical observation period or were readmitted to their own hospital within a week after the trauma. Conclusion: There is no evidence for the necessity of clinical observation of HET patients with minimal or no injuries diagnosed after standard ER stabilization and evaluatio

Experiences of recovery and posthospital care needs of working-age adults after physical trauma: A qualitative focus group study

Objective: To explore experiences of recovery after physical trauma and identify long-term needs for posthospital care. Design, participants and setting: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of seven online focus groups among working-age adults who sustained their injury between 9 months and 5 years ago. Trauma patients discharged from a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands were divided into three groups based on the type of their physical trauma (monotrauma, polytrauma and traumatic brain injury). Group interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Despite differences in type and severity of their injuries, participants all struggled with the impact that trauma had on various aspects of their lives. They experienced recovery as an unpredictable and inconstant process aimed at resuming a meaningful life. Work was often perceived as an important part of recovery, though the value attributed to work could change over time. Participants struggled to bring the difficulties they encountered in their daily lives and at work to the attention of healthcare professionals (HCPs). While posthospital care needs varied between and across groups, all people stressed the need for flexible access to person-centred, multidisciplinary care and support after hospital discharge. Conclusions: This study reveals that people with a broad variety of injury experience recovery as a process towards resuming a meaningful life and report the need to expand trauma care to include comprehensive support to live well long term. Person-centred care might be helpful to enable HCPs to take people’s individual long-term needs and life situations into account. Furthermore, providing timely access to coordinated, multidisciplinary care after discharge is advocated. Integrated care models that span a network of multidisciplinary support around the person may help align existing services and may facilitate easy and timely access to the most suitable support for injured people and their loved ones

Health status and psychological outcomes after trauma: A prospective multicenter cohort study.

IntroductionSurvival after trauma has considerably improved. This warrants research on non-fatal outcome. We aimed to identify characteristics associated with both short and long-term health status (HS) after trauma and to describe the recovery patterns of HS and psychological outcomes during 24 months of follow-up.MethodsHospitalized patients with all types of injuries were included. Data were collected at 1 week 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-trauma. HS was assessed with the EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 (HUI2/3). For the screening of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, the Impact of Event Scale (IES) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) subscale anxiety (HADSA) and subscale depression (HADSD) were used. Recovery patterns of HS and psychological outcomes were examined with linear mixed model analyses.ResultsA total of 4,883 patients participated (median age 68 (Interquartile range 53-80); 50% response rate). The mean (Standard Deviation (SD)) pre-injury EQ-5D-3L score was 0.85 (0.23). One week post-trauma, mean (SD) EQ-5D-3L, HUI2 and HUI3 scores were 0.49 (0.32), 0.61 (0.22) and 0.38 (0.31), respectively. These scores significantly improved to 0.77 (0.26), 0.77 (0.21) and 0.62 (0.35), respectively, at 24 months. Most recovery occurred up until 3 months. At long-term follow-up, patients of higher age, with comorbidities, longer hospital stay, lower extremity fracture and spine injury showed lower HS. The mean (SD) scores of the IES, HADSA and HADSD were respectively 14.80 (15.80), 4.92 (3.98) and 5.00 (4.28), respectively, at 1 week post-trauma and slightly improved over 24 months post-trauma to 10.35 (14.72), 4.31 (3.76) and 3.62 (3.87), respectively.DiscussionHS and psychological symptoms improved over time and most improvements occurred within 3 months post-trauma. The effects of severity and type of injury faded out over time. Patients frequently reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02508675

Developing mHealth to the context and valuation of injured patients and professionals in hospital trauma care: Qualitative and quantitative formative evaluations

Background: Trauma care faces challenges to innovating their services, such as with mobile health (mHealth) app, to improve the quality of care and patients’ health experience. Systematic needs inquiries and collaborations with professional and patient end users are highly recommended to develop and prepare future implementations of such innovations. Objective: This study aimed to develop a trauma mHealth app for patient information and support in accordance with the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management road map and describe experiences of unmet information and support needs among injured patients with trauma, barriers to and facilitators of the provision of information and support among trauma care professionals, and drivers of value of an mHealth app in patients with trauma and trauma care professionals. Methods: Formative evaluations were conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Ten semistructured interviews with patients with trauma and a focus group with 4 trauma care professionals were conducted for contextual inquiry and value specification. User requirements and value drivers were applied in prototyping. Furthermore, a complementary quantitative discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 109 Dutch trauma surgeons, which enabled triangulation on value specification results. In the DCE, preferences were stated for hypothetical mHealth products with various attributes. Panel data from the DCE were analyzed using conditional and mixed logit models. Results: Patients disclosed a need for more psychosocial support and easy access to more extensive information on their injury, its consequences, and future prospects. Health care professionals designated workload as an essential issue; a digital solution should not require additional time. The conditional logit model of DCE results suggested that access to patient app data through electronic medical record integration (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% CI 2.55-4.34; P<.001) or a web viewer (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.64-3.31; P<.001) was considered the most important for an mHealth solution by surgeons, followed by the inclusion of periodic self-measurements (OR 2, 95% CI 1.64-2.46; P<.001), the local adjustment of patient information (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.42-2.33; P<.001), local hospital identification (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.31-2.10; P<.001), complication detection (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21-1.84; P<.001), and the personalization of rehabilitation through artificial intelligence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13-1.62; P=.001). Conclusions: In the context of trauma care, end users have many requirements for an mHealth solution that addresses psychosocial functioning; dependable information; and, possibly, a prediction of how a patient’s recovery trajectory is evolving. A structured development approach provided insights into value drivers and facilitated mHealth prototype enhancement. The findings imply that iterative development should move on from simple and easily implementable mHealth solutions to those that are suitable for broader innovations of care pathways that most—but plausibly not yet all—end users in trauma care will value. This study could inspire the trauma care community

Demographic Patterns and Outcomes of Patients in Level i Trauma Centers in Three International Trauma Systems

Introduction: Trauma systems were developed to improve the care for the injured. The designation and elements comprising these systems vary across countries. In this study, we have compared the demographic patterns and patient outcomes of Level I trauma centers in three international trauma systems. Methods: International multicenter prospective trauma registry-based study, performed in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, the Netherlands, John Hunter Hospital (JHH), Newcastle, Australia, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC), Seattle, the United States. Inclusion: patients ≥18 years, admitted in 2012, registered in the institutional trauma registry. Results: In UMCU, JHH, and HMC, respectively, 955, 1146, and 4049 patients met the inclusion criteria of which 300, 412, and 1375 patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Mean ISS was higher in JHH (13.5; p 15: JHH = 0.507 (95 % CI 0.300-0.857) and HMC = 0.451 (95 % CI 0.297-0.683) compared to UMCU. HMC = 0.931 (95 % CI 0.608-1.425) compared to JHH. TRISS analysis: UMCU: Ws = 0.787, Z = 1.31, M = 0.87; JHH, Ws = 3.583, Z = 6.7, M = 0.89; HMC, Ws = 3.902, Z = 14.6, M = 0.84. Conclusion: This study demonstrated substantial differences across centers in patient characteristics and mortality, mainly of neurological cause. Future research must investigate whether the outcome differences remain with nonfatal and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we must focus on the development of a more valid method to compare systems