A national study of 23 major trauma centres to investigate the effect of a geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes in older people admitted with serious injury in England (FiTR 2): a multicentre observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Older people are at the greatest risk of poor outcomes after serious injury. Evidence is limited for the benefit of assessment by a geriatrician in trauma care. We aimed to determine the effect of geriatrician assessment on clinical outcomes for older people admitted to hospital with serious injury. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 2), we extracted prospectively collected data on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted to the 23 major trauma centres in England over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. We examined the effect of a geriatrician assessment within 72 h of admission on the primary outcome of inpatient mortality in older people admitted to hospital with serious injury, with patients censored at discharge. We analysed data using a multi-level Cox regression model and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records held by TARN, of whom 35 490 were included in these analyses. Median age was 81·4 years (IQR 74·1-87·6), 19 468 (54·9%) were female, and 16 022 (45·1%) were male. 28 208 (79·5%) patients had experienced a fall from less than 2 m. 16 504 (46·5%) people received a geriatrician assessment. 4419 (12·5%) patients died during hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 6 days (IQR 2-14). Of those who died, 1660 (37·6%) had received a geriatrician assessment and 2759 (62·4%) had not (aHR 0·43 [95% CI 0·40-0·46]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Geriatrician assessment was associated with a reduced risk of death for seriously injured older people. These data support routine provision of geriatrician assessment in trauma care. Future research should explore the key components of a geriatrician assessment paired with a health economic evaluation. FUNDING: None.

Imputation strategies for missing baseline neurological assessment covariates after traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study.

Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial covariates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However, it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score-extended) using different imputation strategies on the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. While model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy, this effect was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: the pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.

Social deprivation and adult blunt chest trauma: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between socioeconomic status and various components of health is well established. Research has also highlighted that social deprivation can affect patterns of injury and outcome after trauma. The interaction between outcomes following blunt chest trauma and socioeconomic status has received limited attention in trauma research. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic factors, mechanisms of injury and outcomes following blunt chest trauma using deprivation measures calculated on the basis of domicile postcodes. METHODS: A retrospective study design was used in order to examine the medical notes of all blunt chest wall trauma patients who presented to the ED of a large regional trauma centre in South West Wales in 2012 and 2013. Baseline characteristics were presented as median and interquartile range or numbers and percentages. Differences between the baseline characteristics were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were presented from the univariable analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors for the development of complications. RESULTS: Patients in the 'more deprived' group were more likely to be the victims of assault (p < 0.001) and were more likely to have an unplanned re-attendance at the Emergency Department than the patients in the 'less deprived' group (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, social deprivation was not a risk factor for the development of complications, but it was a significant risk factor for prolonged length of stay (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which social deprivation has been investigated as a risk factor for complications following isolated blunt chest wall trauma. Residing in a 'more deprived' area in South West Wales is not associated with the development of complications following isolated blunt chest wall trauma.

Applying composite performance measures to trauma care.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the association between a number of hospital level composite index methodologies developed from trauma indicators with inhospital mortality. METHODS: Data from January 2001 to December 2006 were extracted from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (Australia) and the Trauma Audit and Research Network (United Kingdom). Three composite methods were explored, including two denominator-based weight approaches and a factor analysis technique. The association between the composite measures and the count of inhospital mortality was investigated using Poisson regression models adjusting for expected deaths per hospital using the Trauma Injury Severity Score methodology. RESULTS: Composite scores were calculated per hospital, per year. The composite score was entered in statistical models as a raw score, and the mortality difference across the central 50% of the composite index was ascertained. In total, 9,218 patients were included and were distributed across 14 hospitals. Composite scores demonstrated an inverse relationship with risk-adjusted inhospital mortality. From the 25th to the 75th percentile of each composite, mortality decreased by 11.99%, 13.58%, and 16.13% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Trauma composite indices demonstrate construct validity when used as measures of hospital level process and represent potentially useful methods of analyzing and reporting quality indicators.