Social determinants of health and disparities in pediatric trauma care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDH), including "the conditions in which individuals are born, grow, work, live and age" affect child health and well-being. Several studies have synthesized evidence about the influence of SDH on childhood injury risks and outcomes. However, there is no systematic evidence about the impact of SDH on accessing care and quality of care once a child has suffered an injury. We aim to evaluate the extent to which access to care and quality of care after injury are affected by children and adolescents' SDH. METHODS: Using Cochrane methodology, we will conduct a systematic review including observational and experimental studies evaluating the association between social/material elements contributing to health disparities, using the PROGRESS-Plus framework: place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and care received by children and adolescents (≤ 19 years of age) after injury. We will consult published literature using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier and grey literature using Google Scholar from their inception to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission for publication. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for included studies. The risk of bias will be assessed using the ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools respectively for observational and experimental study designs. We will analyze data to perform narrative syntheses, and if enough studies are identified, we will conduct a meta-analysis using random effects models. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on the association between SDH and pediatric trauma care (access to care and quality of care) that clinicians and policymakers can use to better tailor care systems and promote equitable access and quality of care for all children. We will share our findings through clinical rounds, conferences, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023408467.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our primary objectives were to identify clinical practice guideline recommendations for children with acute mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) presenting to an emergency department (ED), appraise their overall quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of included recommendations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and medical association websites from January 2012 to May 2023 for clinical practice guidelines with at least 1 recommendation targeting pediatric mTBI populations presenting to the ED within 48 hours of injury for any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the acute phase of care (ED and inhospital). Pairs of reviewers independently assessed overall clinical practice guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality of evidence on recommendations was synthesized using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 11 clinical practice guidelines, of which 6 (55%) were rated high quality. These included 101 recommendations, of which 34 (34%) were based on moderate- to high-quality evidence, covering initial assessment, initial diagnostic imaging, monitoring/observation, therapeutic interventions, discharge advice, follow-up, and patient and family support. We did not identify any evidence-based recommendations in high-quality clinical practice guidelines for repeat imaging, neurosurgical consultation, or hospital admission. Lack of strategies and tools to aid implementation and editorial independence were the most common methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 34 recommendations based on moderate- to high-quality evidence that may be considered for implementation in clinical settings. Our review highlights important areas for future research. This review also underlines the importance of providing strategies to facilitate the implementation of clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric mTBI.

Lack of association between four biomarkers and persistent post-concussion symptoms after a mild traumatic brain injury.

Approximately 15 % of individuals who sustained a mild Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) develop persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). We hypothesized that blood biomarkers drawn in the Emergency Department (ED) could help predict PPCS. The main objective of this project was to measure the association between four biomarkers and PPCS at 90 days post mild TBI. We conducted a prospective cohort study in seven Canadian EDs. Patients aged ≥ 14 years presenting to the ED within 24 h of a mild TBI who were discharged were eligible. Clinical data and blood samples were collected in the ED, and a standardized questionnaire was administered 90 days later to assess the presence of symptoms. The following biomarkers were analyzed: S100B protein, Neuron Specific Enolase (NSE), cleaved-Tau (c-Tau) and Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP). The primary outcome measure was the presence of PPCS at 90 days after trauma. Relative risks and Areas Under the Curve (AUC) were computed. A total of 595 patients were included, and 13.8 % suffered from PPCS at 90 days. The relative risk of PPCS was 0.9 (95 % CI: 0.5-1.8) for S100B ≥ 20 pg/mL, 1.0 (95 % CI: 0.6-1.5) for NSE ≥ 200 pg/mL, 3.4 (95 % CI: 0.5-23.4) for GFAP ≥ 100 pg/mL, and 1.0 (95 % CI: 0.6-1.8) for C-Tau ≥ 1500 pg/mL. AUC were 0.50, 0.50, 0.51 and 0.54, respectively. Among mild TBI patients, S100B protein, NSE, c-Tau or GFAP do not seem to predict PPCS. Future research testing of other biomarkers is needed to determine their usefulness in predicting PPCS.

Pediatric vs Adult or Mixed Trauma Centers in Children Admitted to Hospitals Following Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023. Study Selection: Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years). Data Extraction and Synthesis: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Results: A total of 56 studies with 286 051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Pediatric Orthopaedic Injury: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Lack of adherence to recommendations on pediatric orthopaedic injury care may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aimed to identify CPGs for pediatric orthopaedic injury care, appraise their quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of associated recommendations. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and websites of clinical organizations. CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric orthopaedic injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention developed in the last 15 years were eligible. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We synthesized recommendations from high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 13 eligible CPGs, of which 7 were rated high quality. Lack of stakeholder involvement and applicability (i.e., implementation strategies) were identified as weaknesses. We extracted 53 recommendations of which 19 were based on moderate or high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a synthesis of recommendations from high-quality CPGs that can be used by clinicians to guide treatment decisions. Future CPGs should aim to use a partnership approach with all key stakeholders and provide strategies to facilitate implementation. This study also highlights the need for more rigorous research on pediatric orthopaedic trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-therapeutic study.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric solid organ injury care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Observed variations in the management of pediatric solid organ injuries (SOIs) may be due to difficulty in finding and integrating recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with heterogeneous methodological approaches. We aimed to systematically review CPG recommendations for pediatric SOIs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric SOI populations, using Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Web of Science, and websites of clinical organizations. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. We synthesized recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified eight CPGs, including three rated moderate or high quality. Methodological weaknesses included lack of stakeholder involvement beyond surgeons, consideration of applicability (e.g., implementation tools), and clarity around the definition of pediatric populations. Five of the 15 recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs were based on moderate quality evidence or were rated as strong; these reflected nonoperative management and angioembolization for renal injuries and required length of stay for liver and spleen injuries. CONCLUSION: We identified 15 recommendations on pediatric SOI management from 3 moderate or high-quality CPGs, but only one third were based on at least moderate-quality evidence or were rated as strong. Our results prompt the following recommendations for future CPG development or updates: (1) include all types of clinicians involved in the care of pediatric SOIs and patient and family representatives in the process, (2) develop clear definitions of the target population, and (3) provide advice and tools to promote implementation. Results also underline the urgent need for more rigorous research to support strong evidence-based recommendations in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.

Injury outcomes across Canadian trauma systems: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Most North American trauma systems have designated trauma centres (TCs) including level I (ultraspecialized high-volume metropolitan centres), level II (specialized medium-volume urban centres), and/or level III (semirural or rural centres). Trauma system configuration varies across provinces and it is unclear how these differences influence patient distributions and outcomes. We aimed to compare patient case mix, case volumes, and risk-adjusted outcomes of adults with major trauma admitted to designated level I, II, and III TCs across Canadian trauma systems. METHODS: In a national historical cohort study, we extracted data from Canadian provincial trauma registries on major trauma patients treated between 2013 and 2018 in all designated level I, II, or III TCs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; level I and II TCs in New Brunswick; and four TCs in Ontario. We used multilevel generalized linear models to compare mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and competitive risk models for hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS). Ontario could not be included in outcome comparisons because there were no population-based data from this province. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 50,959 patients. Patient distributions in level I and II TCs were similar across provinces but we observed significant differences in case mix and volumes for level III TCs. There was low variation in risk-adjusted mortality and LOS across provinces and TCs but interprovincial and intercentre variation in risk-adjusted ICU admission was high. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that differences in the functional role of TCs according to their designation level across provinces leads to significant variations in the distribution of patients, case volumes, resource use, and clinical outcomes. These results highlight opportunities to improve Canadian trauma care and underline the need for standardized population-based injury data to support national quality improvement efforts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La plupart des systèmes de traumatologie nord-américains disposent de centres de traumatologie (CT) désignés, y compris de niveau I (centres métropolitains ultraspécialisés à volume élevé), de niveau II (centres urbains spécialisés à volume moyen) et/ou de niveau III (centres semi-ruraux ou ruraux). La configuration des systèmes de traumatologie varie d'une province à l'autre et nous ne savons pas comment ces différences influent sur la répartition de la patientèle et sur les issues. Notre objectif était de comparer le mélange de cas des patient·es, le volume de cas et les issues ajustées en fonction du risque des adultes ayant subi un traumatisme majeur admis·es dans des CT désignés de niveaux I, II et III dans l'ensemble des systèmes de traumatologie canadiens. MéTHODE: Dans une étude de cohorte historique nationale, nous avons extrait des données des registres provinciaux canadiens de traumatologie sur les patient·es ayant subi un traumatisme majeur traité·es entre 2013 et 2018 dans tous les CT désignés de niveau I, II ou III en Colombie-Britannique, en Alberta, au Québec et en Nouvelle-Écosse, les CT de niveau I et II au Nouveau-Brunswick, et dans quatre CT en Ontario. Nous avons utilisé des modèles linéaires généralisés à plusieurs niveaux pour comparer la mortalité, les admissions en unité de soins intensifs (USI) et les modèles de risque compétitif pour la durée du séjour à l'hôpital et à l'USI. L'Ontario n'a pas pu être inclus dans les comparaisons des devenirs parce qu'il n'y avait pas de données démographiques pour cette province. RéSULTATS: L'échantillon de l'étude comptait 50 959 patient·es. La répartition des patient·es dans les CT de niveaux I et II était similaire d'une province à l'autre, mais nous avons observé des différences significatives dans le mélange des cas et les volumes pour les CT de niveau III. Il y avait une faible variation de la mortalité ajustée en fonction du risque et des durées de séjour entre les provinces et les CT, mais la variation interprovinciale et intercentre des admissions à l'USI ajustées en fonction du risque était élevée. CONCLUSION: Nos résultats suggèrent que les différences dans le rôle fonctionnel des CT selon leur niveau de désignation d'une province à l'autre entraînent des variations importantes dans la répartition des patient·es, le nombre de cas, l'utilisation des ressources et les issues cliniques. Ces résultats mettent en évidence les possibilités d'amélioration des soins de traumatologie au Canada et soulignent la nécessité de disposer de données normalisées sur les blessures dans la population pour appuyer les efforts nationaux d'amélioration de la qualité.

Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations For Pediatric Multisystem Trauma Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for pediatric multisystem trauma, appraise their quality, synthesize the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence, and identify knowledge gaps. BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in children, who require a specific approach to injury care. Difficulties integrating CPG recommendations may cause observed practice and outcome variation in pediatric trauma care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials, and grey literature, from January 2007 to November 2022. We included CPGs targeting pediatric multisystem trauma with recommendations on any acute care diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using "Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II." RESULTS: We reviewed 19 CPGs, and 11 were considered high quality. Lack of stakeholder engagement and implementation strategies were weaknesses in guideline development. We extracted 64 recommendations: 6 (9%) on trauma readiness and patient transfer, 24 (38%) on resuscitation, 22 (34%) on diagnostic imaging, 3 (5%) on pain management, 6 (9%) on ongoing inpatient care, and 3 (5%) on patient and family support. Forty-two (66%) recommendations were strong or moderate, but only 5 (8%) were based on high-quality evidence. We did not identify recommendations on trauma survey assessment, spinal motion restriction, inpatient rehabilitation, mental health management, or discharge planning. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 5 recommendations for pediatric multisystem trauma with high-quality evidence. Organizations could improve CPGs by engaging all relevant stakeholders and considering barriers to implementation. There is a need for robust pediatric trauma research, to support recommendations.

Pediatric Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability in children. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have addressed pediatric TBI in the last decade but significant variability in the use of these guidelines persists. Here, we systematically review CPGs recommendations for pediatric moderate-to-severe TBI, evaluate the quality of CPGs, synthesize the quality of evidence and strength of included recommendations, and identify knowledge gaps. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Web sites of organizations publishing recommendations on pediatric injury care. We included CPGs developed in high-income countries from January 2012 to May 2023, with at least one recommendation targeting pediatric (≤ 19 years old) moderate-to-severe TBI populations. The quality of included clinical practice guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. We synthesized evidence on recommendations using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We identified 15 CPGs of which 9 were rated moderate to high quality using AGREE II. We identified 90 recommendations, of which 40 (45%) were evidence based. Eleven of these were based on moderate to high quality evidence and were graded as moderate or strong by at least one guideline. These included transfer, imaging, intracranial pressure control, and discharge advice. We identified gaps in evidence-based recommendations for red blood cell transfusion, plasma and platelet transfusion, thromboprophylaxis, surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, early diagnosis of hypopituitarism, and mental health mangement. Many up-to-date CPGs are available, but there is a paucity of evidence to support recommendations, highlighting the urgent need for robust clinical research in this vulnerable population. Our results may be used by clinicians to identify recommendations based on the highest level of evidence, by healthcare administrators to inform guideline implementation in clinical settings, by researchers to identify areas where robust evidence is needed, and by guideline writing groups to inform the updating of existing guidelines or the development of new ones.

Comparison of trauma care structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service and Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons across trauma systems are key to identifying opportunities to improve trauma care. We aimed to compare trauma service structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service (NHS) and the province of Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre cohort study including admissions of patients aged older than 15 years with major trauma to major trauma centres (MTCs) from 2014/15 to 2016/17. We compared structures descriptively, and time to MTC and time in the emergency department (ED) using Wilcoxon tests. We compared mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) using multilevel logistic regression with propensity score adjustment, stratified by body region of the worst injury. RESULTS: The sample comprised 36 337 patients from the NHS and 6484 patients from Quebec. Structural differences in the NHS included advanced prehospital medical teams (v. "scoop and run" in Quebec), helicopter transport (v. fixed-wing aircraft) and trauma team leaders. The median time to an MTC was shorter in Quebec than in the NHS for direct transports (1 h v. 1.5 h, p < 0.001) but longer for transfers (2.5 h v. 6 h, p < 0.001). Time in the ED was longer in Quebec than in the NHS (6.5 h v. 4.0 h, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of death were higher in Quebec for head injury (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.51) but lower for thoracoabdominal injuries (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90). The adjusted median hospital LOS was longer for spine, torso and extremity injuries in the NHS than in Quebec, and the median ICU LOS was longer for spine injuries. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences in the structure of trauma care, delays in access and risk-adjusted outcomes between Quebec and the NHS. Future research should assess associations between structures, processes and outcomes to identify opportunities for quality improvement.

Effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Addition to Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are frequent complications in hospitalized patients and a leading cause of preventable death in hospital. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is a standard of care to prevent VTE in patients at risk, the additional value of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis to prevent VTE in hospitalized adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to July 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of IPC in addition to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone in hospitalized adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Meta-analyses were performed to calculate risk ratio (RR) of VTE, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, Version 2 and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 17 trials enrolling 8,796 participants. The IPC was mostly applied up to the thigh and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was primarily low-molecular-weight heparin. Adjunctive IPC was associated with a decreased risk of VTE (15 trials, RR = 0.53; 95% CI [0.35-0.81]) and DVT (14 trials, RR = 0.52; 95% CI [0.33-0.81]) but not PE (seven trials, RR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.32-1.68]). The quality of evidence was graded low, downgraded by risk of bias and inconsistency. Moderate and very low-quality evidence, respectively, suggests that adjunctive IPC is unlikely to change the risk of all-cause mortality or adverse events. Subgroup analyses indicate a more evident apparent benefit in industry-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate low-quality evidence underpinning the additional use of IPC to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE and DVT. Further large high-quality randomized trials are warranted to support its use and to identify patient subgroups for whom it could be beneficial.

Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.

Importance: Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences. Objective: To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.

Post-Concussion Symptoms Rule: Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule for Early Prediction of Persistent Symptoms after a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common problem. Depending on diagnostic criteria, 13 to 62% of those patients develop persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). The main objective of this prospective multi-center study is to derive and validate a clinical decision rule (CDR) for the early prediction of PPCS. Patients aged ≥14 years were included if they presented to one of our seven participating emergency departments (EDs) within 24 h of an mTBI. Clinical data were collected in the ED, and symptom evolution was assessed at 7, 30 and 90 days post-injury using the Rivermead Post-Concussion Questionnaire (RPQ). The primary outcome was PPCS at 90 days after mTBI. A predictive model called the Post-Concussion Symptoms Rule (PoCS Rule) was developed using the methodological standards for CDR. Of the 1083 analyzed patients (471 and 612 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively), 15.6% had PPCS. The final model included the following factors assessed in the ED: age, sex, history of prior TBI or mental health disorder, headache in ED, cervical sprain and hemorrhage on computed tomography. The 7-day follow-up identified additional risk factors: headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, sensitivity to light, and RPQ ≥21. The PoCS Rule had a sensitivity of 91.4% and 89.6%, a specificity of 53.8% and 44.7% and a negative predictive value of 97.2% and 95.8% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The PoCS Rule will help emergency physicians quickly stratify the risk of PPCS in mTBI patients and better plan post-discharge resources.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric injury care: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care.

Importance: The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. Objective: To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. Results: Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Accuracy of Prehospital Trauma Triage to Select Older Adults Requiring Urgent and Specialized Trauma Care.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the sensitivity and specificity of a 5-step prehospital trauma triage protocol to identify older adults who require urgent and specialized trauma care using different age cut-offs to define an older adult (≥55, ≥65, and ≥75 y old). METHODS: Prehospital and in-hospital medical records were reviewed for injured patients transported by an ambulance to an emergency department (ED) between November 11, 2016 and March 3, 2017 in Quebec City, Canada. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated to assess the accuracy of our prehospital trauma triage protocol to identify patients who required at least one urgent in-hospital trauma intervention. RESULTS: A total of 822 patients were included of which 62.9% were ≥55 y old and 56.3% were female. Fall (65.8%) was the main trauma mechanism. Seventy-six (9.2%) patients required urgent trauma care. This proportion was similar regardless of age (8.9%-9.5%). The proportion of patients who needed to be transported to the level-1 trauma center as per the triage protocol tended to decrease with increasing age (20.6% [whole cohort], 15.3% [≥55 y old], 11.4% [≥65 y old], and 9.0% [≥75 y old]). The sensitivity of the protocol for steps 1, 2, and 3 was 56.6% (whole cohort) and 30.0% for patients aged ≥75 y. The specificity ranged between 83.1% (whole cohort) and 93.1% (≥75 y old). CONCLUSIONS: Our prehospital trauma triage protocol has insufficient sensitivity to identify patients with urgent trauma care needs, particularly in older adults.

Intensity of hospital resource use following traumatic brain injury: a multicentre cohort study, 2013-2016.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge gap regarding acute care resource use for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) impedes efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of the care of these patients. Our objective was to evaluate interhospital variation in resource use for patients with TBI, identify determinants of high resource use and assess the association between hospital resource use and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study including patients aged 16 years and older admitted to the inclusive trauma system of Quebec following TBI, between 2013 and 2016. We estimated resource use using activity-based costs. Clinical outcomes included mortality, complications and unplanned hospital readmission. Interhospital variation was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Correlations between hospital resource use and clinical outcomes were evaluated using correlation coefficients on weighted, risk-adjusted estimates with 95% CIs. RESULTS: We included 6319 patients. We observed significant interhospital variation in resource use for patients discharged alive, which was not explained by patient case mix (ICC 0.052, 95% CI 0.043 to 0.061). Adjusted mean resource use for patients discharged to long-term care was more than twice that of patients discharged home. Hospitals with higher resource use tended to have a lower incidence of mortality (r -0.347, 95% CI -0.559 to -0.087) and unplanned readmission (r -0.249, 95% CI -0.481 to 0.020) but a higher incidence of complications (r 0.491, 95% CI 0.255 to 0.666). CONCLUSION: Resource use for TBI varies significantly among hospitals and may be associated with differences in mortality and morbidity. Negative associations with mortality and positive associations with complications should be interpreted with caution but suggest there may be a trade-off between adverse events and survival that should be evaluated further.

The Use of Virtual Reality in Back Pain Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the existing evidence of extended reality (XR) on pain and motor function outcomes in patients with back pain. Following the Cochrane guidelines, relevant articles of any language were selected by 2 independent reviewers from CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and Web of Knowledge databases. Of 2,050 unique citations, 24 articles were included in our review. These studies included a total of 900 back pain patients. Despite broader XR search, all interventions were virtual reality (VR) based and involved physical exercises (n = 17, 71%), hippotherapy (n = 4, 17%), motor imagery (n = 1, 4%), distraction (n = 1, 4%), and cognitive-behavior therapy (n = 1, 4%). Sixteen controlled studies were included in a meta-analysis which suggested that VR provides a significant improvement in terms of back pain intensity over control interventions (Mean Difference: -0.67; 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.23; I2 = 85%). Almost all included studies presented high risk of bias, highlighting the need to improve methodology in the examination of VR interventions. While the specific set of studies showed high heterogeneity across several methodological factors, a tentative conclusion could be drawn that VR was effective improving back pain intensity and tends to have a positive effect on improving other pain outcomes and motion function. PERSPECTIVE: Extended reality technologies have appeared as interesting nonpharmacological options for the treatment of back pain, with the potential to minimise the need for opioid medications. Our systematic review summarised existing applications of extended reality for back pain and proposed a few recommendations to direct further studies in the field.