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

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

Evaluation of the impact of the NICE head injury guidelines on inpatient mortality from traumatic brain injury : an interrupted time series analysis

Objective To evaluate the impact of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) head injury guidelines on deaths and hospital admissions caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI). Setting All hospitals in England between 1998 and 2017. Participants Patients admitted to hospital or who died up to 30 days following hospital admission with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding indicating the reason for admission or death was TBI. Intervention An interrupted time series analysis was conducted with intervention points when each of the three guidelines was introduced. Analysis was stratified by guideline recommendation specific age groups (0–15, 16–64 and 65+). Outcome measures The monthly population mortality and admission rates for TBI. Study design An interrupted time series analysis using complete Office of National Statistics cause of death data linked to hospital episode statistics for inpatient admissions in England. Results The monthly TBI mortality and admission rates in the 65+ age group increased from 0.5 to 1.5 and 10 to 30 per 100 000 population, respectively. The increasing mortality rate was unaffected by the introduction of any of the guidelines. The introduction of the second NICE head injury guideline was associated with a significant reduction in the monthly TBI mortality rate in the 16–64 age group (-0.005; 95% CI: −0.002 to −0.007). In the 0–15 age group the TBI mortality rate fell from around 0.05 to 0.01 per 100 000 population and this trend was unaffected by any guideline. Conclusion The introduction of NICE head injury guidelines was associated with a reduced admitted TBI mortality rate after specialist care was recommended for severe TBI. The improvement was solely observed in patients aged 16–64 years. The cause of the observed increased admission and mortality rates in those 65+ and potential treatments for TBI in this age group require further investigation

Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively rule out' and rule in' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is feasible. Methods Patients presenting to two EDs with suspected cardiac chest pain were randomised to receive care guided by the MACS decision rule (intervention group) or standard care (controls). The primary efficacy outcome was a successful discharge from the ED, defined as a decision to discharge within 4 hours of arrival providing that the patient did not have a missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or develop a major adverse cardiac event (MACE: death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates. Results In total, 138 patients were included between October 2013 and October 2014, of whom 131 (95%) were randomised (66 to intervention and 65 controls). Nine (7%) patients had prevalent AMI and six (5%) had incident MACE within 30 days. All 131 patients completed 30-day follow-up and were included in the final analysis with no missing data for the primary analyses. Compared with standard care, a significantly greater proportion of patients whose care was guided by the MACS rule were successfully discharged within 4 hours (26% vs 8%, adjusted OR 5.45, 95% CI 1.73 to 17.11, p=0.004). No patients in either group who were discharged within 4 hours had a diagnosis of AMI or incident MACE within 30 days (0.0%, 95% CI 0% to 20.0% in the intervention group). Conclusions In this pilot trial, use of the MACS rule led to a significant increase in safe discharges from the ED but a larger, fully powered trial remains necessary. Our findings seem to support the feasibility of that trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN 86818215. Research Ethics Committee reference 13/NW/0081. UKCRN registration ID 14334

Survival Trends After Surgery for Acute Subdural Hematoma in Adults Over a 20-year Period.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine 30-day survival trends and prognostic factors following surgery for acute subdural hematomas (ASDHs) in England and Wales over a 20-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASDHs are still considered the most lethal type of traumatic brain injury. It remains unclear whether the adjusted odds of survival have improved significantly over time. METHODS: Using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database, we analyzed ASDH cases in the adult population (>16 yrs) treated surgically between 1994 and 2013. Two thousand four hundred ninety-eight eligible cases were identified. Univariable and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed, using multiple imputation for missing data. RESULTS: The cohort was 74% male with a median age of 48.9 years. Over half of patients were comatose at presentation (53%). Mechanism of injury was due to a fall (2 m 24%), road traffic collision (25%), and other (17%). Thirty-six per cent of patients presented with polytrauma. Gross survival increased from 59% in 1994 to 1998 to 73% in 2009 to 2013. Under multivariable analysis, variables independently associated with survival were year of injury, Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, age, and pupil reactivity. The time interval from injury to craniotomy and direct admission to a neurosurgical unit were not found to be significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in survival over the last 20 years was observed after controlling for multiple prognostic factors. Prospective trials and cohort studies are expected to elucidate the distribution of functional outcome in survivors.AGK is supported by a Royal College of Surgeons of England Research Fellowship, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellowship, and a Raymond and Beverly Sackler Studentship. PJH is supported by a NIHR Research Professorship and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Wolters Kluwer

Using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes to classify Computed Tomography (CT) features in the Marshall System

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is to code various types of Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) based on their anatomical location and severity. The Marshall CT Classification is used to identify those subgroups of brain injured patients at higher risk of deterioration or mortality. The purpose of this study is to determine whether and how AIS coding can be translated to the Marshall Classification</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Initially, a Marshall Class was allocated to each AIS code through cross-tabulation. This was agreed upon through several discussion meetings with experts from both fields (clinicians and AIS coders). Furthermore, in order to make this translation possible, some necessary assumptions with regards to coding and classification of mass lesions and brain swelling were essential which were all approved and made explicit.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The proposed method involves two stages: firstly to determine all possible Marshall Classes which a given patient can attract based on allocated AIS codes; via cross-tabulation and secondly to assign one Marshall Class to each patient through an algorithm.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This method can be easily programmed in computer softwares and it would enable future important TBI research programs using trauma registry data.</p

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients. METHODS Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter. RESULTS Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of-0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI,-0.27 to-0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies. CONCLUSION Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients

Comparison of Mortality Following Hospitalisation for Isolated Head Injury in England and Wales, and Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend transfer of severe TBI cases to neurosurgical centres, irrespective of the need for neurosurgery. This observational study investigated the risk-adjusted mortality of isolated TBI admissions in England/Wales, and Victoria, Australia, and the impact of neurosurgical centre management on outcomes. METHODS: Isolated TBI admissions (>15 years, July 2005-June 2006) were extracted from the hospital discharge datasets for both jurisdictions. Severe isolated TBI (AIS severity >3) admissions were provided by the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) and Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) for England/Wales, and Victoria, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted mortality between jurisdictions. FINDINGS: Mortality was 12% (749/6256) in England/Wales and 9% (91/1048) in Victoria for isolated TBI admissions. Adjusted odds of death in England/Wales were higher compared to Victoria overall (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.6, 2.5), and for cases <65 years (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.51, 3.69). For severe TBI, mortality was 23% (133/575) for TARN and 20% (68/346) for VSTR, with 72% of TARN and 86% of VSTR cases managed at a neurosurgical centre. The adjusted mortality odds for severe TBI cases in TARN were higher compared to the VSTR (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 0.96, 2.19), but particularly for cases <65 years (OR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.07, 3.90). Neurosurgical centre management modified the effect overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.74) and for cases <65 years (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 0.77, 3.03). CONCLUSION: The risk-adjusted odds of mortality for all isolated TBI admissions, and severe TBI cases, were higher in England/Wales when compared to Victoria. The lower percentage of cases managed at neurosurgical centres in England and Wales was an explanatory factor, supporting the changes made to the NICE guidelines

Harnessing inter-disciplinary collaboration to improve emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): results of research prioritisation setting exercise

Background More than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions. Methods The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings. Results The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care – all within LMICs. Conclusions Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities