Injuries to older users of buses in the UK

This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence.The increasing age of the United Kingdom (UK) population coupled with enhanced life expectancy impacts on transport-user demographics and will affect transport planning in the years ahead. Whilst passenger car use is the ultimate means of personal independence, at some point the physiological and psychological impact of age-related conditions will inevitably shift people out of their vehicles and onto public transport systems. Overall, public transport is seen to be vital for social inclusion (Lucas et al 2008) and it is considered a safe means of mobility. However, it is important that the public and, in particular, the elderly perceive it to be so. Injuries (across a spectrum of severities) do occur during public transport use from time to time. In fact, over 5,000 people are injured on UK buses each year alone with over 300 bus-users killed/seriously injured (Department for Transport, 2012). This study was designed to examine the nature of injuries and their causes to older bus-users with the aim being to establish where design countermeasures may be indicated. The study uses descriptive statistics to analyse linked (accident and injury) data involving a sample of older bus-users. Most incidents in the linked dataset were non-collisions (62 per cent) resulting in 1,381 recorded injuries in those aged 60+ years, of which 46 per cent were 'slight' and 54 per cent 'serious'

Tertiary Survey Performance in a Regional Trauma Hospital Without a Dedicated Trauma Service

Background: Initial management of trauma patients is focused on identifying life- and limb-threatening injuries and may lead to missed injuries. A tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries and involves a physical re-examination and review of all investigations within 24 h of admission. There is little information on current practice of tertiary survey performance in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service. We aimed to determine the rate of tertiary survey performance and the detail of documentation as well as the baseline rate of missed injuries. Methods: We performed a retrospective, descriptive study of all multitrauma patients who presented to an Australian level II regional trauma centre without a dedicated trauma service between May 2008 and February 2009. A medical records review was conducted to determine tertiary survey performance and missed injury rate. Results: Of 252 included trauma patients, 20% (n = 51) had a tertiary survey performed. A total of nine missed injuries were detected in eight patients (3.2%). Of the multiple components of the tertiary survey, most were poorly documented. Documentation was more comprehensive in the subgroup of patients who did have a formal tertiary survey. Conclusions: Tertiary survey performance was poor, as indicated by low documentation rates. The baseline missed injury rate was comparable to previous that of retrospective studies, although in this study an underestimation of true missed injury rates is likely. Implementing a formal, institutional tertiary survey may lead to improved tertiary survey performance and documentation and therefore improved trauma care in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service

The effect of tertiary surveys on missed injuries in trauma: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trauma tertiary surveys (TTS) are advocated to reduce the rate of missed injuries in hospitalized trauma patients. Moreover, the missed injury rate can be a quality indicator of trauma care performance. Current variation of the definition of missed injury restricts interpretation of the effect of the TTS and limits the use of missed injury for benchmarking. Only a few studies have specifically assessed the effect of the TTS on missed injury. We aimed to systematically appraise these studies using outcomes of two common definitions of missed injury rates and long-term health outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review was performed. An electronic search (without language or publication restrictions) of the Cochrane Library, Medline and Ovid was used to identify studies assessing TTS with short-term measures of missed injuries and long-term health outcomes. ‘Missed injury’ was defined as either: Type I) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and detected by the TTS; or Type II) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey <it>and</it> missed by the TTS, detected during hospital stay. Two authors independently selected studies. Risk of bias for observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten observational studies met our inclusion criteria. None was randomized and none reported long-term health outcomes. Their risk of bias varied considerably. Nine studies assessed Type I missed injury and found an overall rate of 4.3%. A single study reported Type II missed injury with a rate of 1.5%. Three studies reported outcome data on missed injuries for both control and intervention cohorts, with two reporting an increase in Type I missed injuries (3% <it>vs.</it> 7%, <it>P</it><0.01), and one a decrease in Type II missed injuries (2.4% vs. 1.5%, <it>P</it>=0.01).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Overall Type I and Type II missed injury rates were 4.3% and 1.5%. Routine TTS performance increased Type I and reduced Type II missed injuries. However, evidence is sub-optimal: few observational studies, non-uniform outcome definitions and moderate risk of bias. Future studies should address these issues to allow for the use of missed injury rate as a quality indicator for trauma care performance and benchmarking.</p