From numbers to meaningful change:Minimal important change by using PROMIS in a cohort of fracture patients

Introduction: use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is slowly increasing in patients with a fracture. Yet, minimal important change of PROMIS in patients with fractures has been addressed in a very limited number of studies. As the minimal important change (MIC) is important to interpret PROMIS-scores, the goal is to estimate the MIC for PROMIS physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI) and PROMIS ability to participate in social roles and activities (APSRA) in patients with a fracture. Secondly, the smallest detectable change was determined. Materials and methods: A longitudinal cohort study on patients ≥ 18 years receiving surgical or non-surgical care for fractures was conducted. Patients completed PROMIS PF V1.1, PROMIS PI V1.1 and PROMIS APSRA V2.0. For follow-up, patients completed three additional anchor questions evaluating patient-reported improvement on a seven point rating scale. The predictive modeling method was used to estimate the MIC value of all three PROMIS questionnaires. Results: Hundred patients with a mean age of 55.4 ± 12.6 years were included of which sixty (60%) were female. Seventy-two (72%) patients were recovering from a surgical procedure. PROMIS-CAT T-scores of all PROMIS measures showed significant correlations with their anchor questions. The predictive modeling method showed a MIC value of +2.4 (n = 98) for PROMIS PF, -2.9 (n = 96) for PROMIS PI and +3.2 (n = 91) for PROMIS APSRA. Conclusion: By using the anchor based predictive modeling method, PROMIS MIC-values for improvement of respectively +2.4 points on a T-score metric for PROMIS-PF, -2.9 for PROMIS-PI and +3.2 for PROMIS APSRA give the impression of being meaningful to patients. These values can be used in clinical practice for managing patient expectations; to inform on treatment results; and to assess if patients experience significant change. This in order to encourage patient centered care.</p

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

High prevalence of non-accidental trauma among deceased children presenting at Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands

PURPOSE: Between 0.1—3% of injured children who present at a hospital emergency department ultimately die as a result of their injuries. These events are typically reported as unnatural causes of death and may result from either accidental or non-accidental trauma (NAT). Examples of the latter include trauma that is inflicted directly or resulting from neglect. Although consultation with a forensic physician is mandatory for all deceased children, the prevalence of fatal inflicted trauma or neglect among children is currently unclear. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included children (0–18 years) who presented and died at one of the 11 Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect team or those of forensic pathologists and/or the court in cases referred for legally mandated autopsies. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of death were reviewed by an expert panel. RESULTS: The study included 175 cases of childhood death. Seventeen (9.7%) of these children died due to inflicted trauma (9.7%), 18 (10.3%) due to neglect, and 140 (80%) due to accidents. Preschool children (< 5 years old) were significantly more likely to present with injuries due to inflicted trauma and neglect compared to older children (44% versus 6%, p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66–12.65). Drowning accounted for 14 of the 18 (78%) pediatric deaths due to neglect, representing 8% of the total cases. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed on 37 (21%) of all cases of childhood death. CONCLUSION: One of every five pediatric deaths in our nationwide Level I trauma center study was attributed to NAT; 44% of these deaths were the result of trauma experienced by preschool-aged children. A remarkable number of fatal drownings were due to neglect. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed in only one-fifth of all deceased children. The limited use of postmortem investigations may have resulted in missed cases of NAT, which will result in an overall underestimation of fatal NAT experienced by children. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12024-021-00416-7

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

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

The prevalence of non-accidental trauma among children with polytrauma: A nationwide level-I trauma centre study

Objective: We aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of non-accidental trauma (NAT) in children with polytrauma treated at level-I trauma centres (TC). Summary of background: Data 6–10% Of children who present at the emergency department with injuries, sustain polytrauma. Polytrauma may result from either accidental (AT) or NAT, i.e. inflicted or neglect. The prevalence of NAT among children with polytrauma is currently unclear. Methods: This is a retrospective study that included children (0–18 years) with an Injury Severity Score >15, who presented at one of the 11 Level-I trauma centers (TC) in the Netherlands between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2016. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect-team. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of injuries were reviewed by an expert panel. Results: The study included 1623 children, 1452 (89%) were classified as AT, 171 (11%) as NAT; 39 (2,4%) inflicted and 132 (8,1%) neglect. Of pre-school aged children (<5 years) 41% sustained NAT (OR26.73, 95%CI 17.70–40.35), 35/342 (10%) inflicted and 104/342 (31%) neglect. Admission due to ‘cardiopulmonary arrest’ was the result of inflicted trauma (30% vs 0%,p < 0.001). NAT had a higher mortality rate (16% vs 10%, p = 0.006). Indicators of NAT were: (near-)drowning (OR10.74, 95%CI 5.94–19.41), burn (OR8.62, 95%CI 4.08–18.19) and fall from height (OR2.18, 95%CI 1.56–3.02). Conclusions: NAT was the cause of polytrauma in 11% of children in our nationwide level-I TC study; 41% of these polytrauma were the result of NAT experienced by preschool-aged children. Our data show the importance of awareness for NAT

The prevalence of non-accidental trauma among children with polytrauma:A nationwide level-I trauma centre study

Objective: We aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of non-accidental trauma (NAT) in children with polytrauma treated at level-I trauma centres (TC). Summary of background: Data 6-10% Of children who present at the emergency department with injuries, sustain polytrauma. Polytrauma may result from either accidental (AT) or NAT, i.e. inflicted or neglect. The prevalence of NAT among children with polytrauma is currently unclear. Methods: This is a retrospective study that included children (0-18 years) with an Injury Severity Score > 15, who presented at one of the 11 Level-I trauma centers (TC) in the Netherlands between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2016. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect-team. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of injuries were reviewed by an expert panel. Results: The study included 1623 children, 1452 (89%) were classified as AT, 171 (11%) as NAT; 39 (2,4%) inflicted and 132 (8,1%) neglect. Of pre-school aged children (< 5 years) 41% sustained NAT (OR26.73, 95%CI 17.70-40.35), 35/342 (10%) inflicted and 104/342 (31%) neglect. Admission due to 'cardiopulmonary arrest' was the result of inflicted trauma (30% vs 0%,p < 0.001). NAT had a higher mortality rate (16% vs 10%, p = 0.006). Indicators of NAT were: (near-)drowning (OR10.74, 95%CI 5.94-19.41), burn (OR8.62, 95%CI 4.08-18.19) and fall from height (OR2.18, 95%CI 1.56-3.02). Conclusions: NAT was the cause of polytrauma in 11% of children in our nationwide level-I TC study; 41% of these polytrauma were the result of NAT experienced by preschool-aged children. Our data show the importance of awareness for NAT

Prevalence of inflicted and neglectful femur shaft fractures in young children in national level I trauma centers

Background The prevalence of inflicted femur fractures in young children varies (1.5-35.2%), but these data are based on small retrospective studies with high heterogeneity. Age and mobility of the child seem to be indicators of inflicted trauma. Objective This study describes other factors associated with inflicted and neglectful trauma that can be used to distinguish inflicted and neglectful from accidental femur fractures. Materials and methods This retrospective study included children (0-6 years) who presented with an isolated femur fracture at 1 of the 11 level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 2010 and January 2016. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect teams or the court. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause were reviewed by an expert panel. Results The study included 328 children; 295 (89.9%) cases were classified as accidental trauma. Inflicted trauma was found in 14 (4.3%), while 19 (5.8%) were cases of neglect. Indicators of inflicted trauma were age 0-5 months (29%, positive likelihood ratio [LR +] 8.35), 6-12 months (18%, LR +5.98) and 18-23 months (14%, LR +3.74). Indicators of neglect were age 6-11 months (18%, LR +4.41) and age 18-23 months (8%, LR + 1.65). There was no difference in fracture morphology among groups. Conclusion It is unlikely that an isolated femur fracture in ambulatory children age > 24 months is caused by inflicted trauma/ neglect. Caution is advised in children younger than 24 months because that age is the main factor associated with inflicted trauma/neglect and inflicted femur fractures

High prevalence of non-accidental trauma among deceased children presenting at Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands

Purpose: Between 0.1—3% of injured children who present at a hospital emergency department ultimately die as a result of their injuries. These events are typically reported as unnatural causes of death and may result from either accidental or non-accidental trauma (NAT). Examples of the latter include trauma that is inflicted directly or resulting from neglect. Although consultation with a forensic physician is mandatory for all deceased children, the prevalence of fatal inflicted trauma or neglect among children is currently unclear. Methods: This is a retrospective study that included children (0–18 years) who presented and died at one of the 11 Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect team or those of forensic pathologists and/or the court in cases referred for legally mandated autopsies. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of death were reviewed by an expert panel. Results: The study included 175 cases of childhood death. Seventeen (9.7%) of these children died due to inflicted trauma (9.7%), 18 (10.3%) due to neglect, and 140 (80%) due to accidents. Preschool children (< 5 years old) were significantly more likely to present with injuries due to inflicted trauma and neglect compared to older children (44% versus 6%, p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66–12.65). Drowning accounted for 14 of the 18 (78%) pediatric deaths due to neglect, representing 8% of the total cases. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed on 37 (21%) of all cases of childhood death. Conclusion: One of every five pediatric deaths in our nationwide Level I trauma center study was attributed to NAT; 44% of these deaths were the result of trauma experienced by preschool-aged children. A remarkable number of fatal drownings were due to neglect. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed in only one-fifth of all deceased children. The limited use of postmortem investigations may have resulted in missed cases of NAT, which will result in an overall underestimation of fatal NAT experienced by children