Long-term Impact of Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

The thesis showed that a large percentage (43%) of patients, despite the severity of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), is able to perform work related activities after ten years, and has a normal Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) after three and ten years. Emotional status and cognitive performance after ten years were also found to be reasonably optimistic. However, there are subgroups that perform worse in the long-term, for example 12% of the patients was not able to perform the total cognitive test battery, and 20% showed symptoms of depression. At hospital discharge the cognitive status is predictive for long-term outcome with respect to employment and cognitive function after ten years. Depressive symptoms at hospital discharge or during follow-up have important negative impact on overall outcome, but most off all on HRQoL. Taking the severity of TBI into account, these findings are relatively positive and should be taken considered in clinical decision making in both acute and subacute care settings

Modeling community integration in workers with delayed recovery from mild traumatic brain injury

Background: Delayed recovery in persons after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is poorly understood. Community integration (CI) is endorsed by persons with neurological disorders as an important outcome. We aimed to describe CI and its associated factors in insured Ontario workers with delayed recovery following mTBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study of insured workers in the chronic phase following mTBI was performed at a rehabilitation hospital in Ontario, Canada. Sociodemographic, occupational, injury-related, clinical, and claim-related data were collected from self-reports, medical assessments, and insurers’ referral files. Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) scores were compared using analysis of variance or Spearman’s correlation tests. Stepwise multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations with CI. Results: Ninety-four workers with mTBI (45.2 ± 9.9 years old, 61.2 % male) at 197 days post-injury (interquartile range, 139–416 days) were included. The CIQ total and subscale scores were similar to those reported in more severe TBI samples. The CIQ scores were moderately to strongly correlated with various sociodemographic, claim-related, and clinical variables. In the multivariable regression analysis, several covariates accounted for 36.4 % of the CIQ variance in the final fully adjusted model. Discussion: This study evaluated CI in workers with mTBI, and analyzed its associated variables. Analysis revealed insomnia, head or neck pain, being married or in a relationship, time since injury, and a diagnosis of possible/probable malingering were independently associated with limited CI. Conclusions: Workers with delayed recovery from mTBI experience difficulty with CI. Insomnia is a particularly relevant covariate, explaining the greater part of its variance. To enhance participation, care should focus on clinical and non-clinical covariates

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury

BackgroundWe aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.MethodsA preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.ResultsThe expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).ConclusionsThis Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future