What can trauma patients' experiences and perspectives tell us about the perceived quality of trauma care? a qualitative study set within the UK National Health Service.

The global drive for improvements in the efficiency and quality of healthcare has led to the development of frameworks to assist in defining and measuring 'good quality care'. However, such frameworks lack a systematic or meaningful definition of what 'good quality care' means from the patients' perspective. The present research provides an in-depth analysis of patients' experiences in a hospital setting from a quality of care perspective. Forty-five adults (aged 16-70) hospitalised in one of four UK NHS trusts following an unintentional injury were interviewed about their experiences of care. The findings show variability in perceived quality of care within the same hospital episode which cannot be meaningfully captured by existing frameworks. The context of trauma care (e.g. distressing nature of injury, patient vulnerability, expectations of hospitalisation and participants' interaction with different service providers) defined the care experience and the value of being 'cared for'. Participants identified some aspects of good and care which related to holistic, person-centred and personalised care beyond the medical needs. Participants discussed the value of being understood, staff thinking of their needs beyond hospitalisation, staff trying 'their best' despite constrains of current care, having their emotional needs recognised and addressed and staff competence. Patients reported also poor quality of care and 'not being cared for' by specific staff groups which they expected to fulfil this role, rushed and unsympathetic care, lack of recognition for emotional impact of injury mapped onto existing quality frameworks e.g. safety, equity, accessibility and patient-centeredness as well as quality of interaction with providers, empathetic care which extended beyond medical needs, coordination of care, and the positivity of care delivery as important dimensions of quality care with implications for their recovery. The findings have implications for quality frameworks and theoretical definitions of quality of care; they demonstrate the importance of patient experience in addition to clinical effectiveness and safety as an essential dimension of quality care. In terms of practice, the findings support the need to incorporate knowledge and training of injured adults' psychological needs, and the value of interaction with professionals as a patient defined dimension of the quality of care.

Early risk factors for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress after hospital admission for unintentional injury: Multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify psychological morbidity and identify baseline factors associated with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress symptoms up to 12 months post-injury. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of 668 adults, aged 16 to 70, admitted to 4 UK NHS hospital trusts. Data on injury, socio-demographic characteristics and health status was collected at recruitment. Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress were measured at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Multilevel linear regression assessed associations between patient and injury characteristics and psychological outcomes over 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress scores were highest 1 month post-injury, and remained above baseline at 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Moderate or severe injuries, previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury depression and anxiety scores, middle age (45-64 years), greater deprivation and lower pre-injury quality of life (QoL) were associated with higher depression scores post-injury. Previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury depression and anxiety scores, middle age, greater deprivation and lower pre-injury QoL were associated with higher anxiety scores post-injury. Traffic injuries or injuries from being struck by objects, multiple injures (≥3), being female, previous psychiatric diagnoses, higher pre-injury anxiety scores and greater deprivation were associated with higher post-traumatic distress scores post-injury. CONCLUSION: A range of risk factors, identifiable shortly after injury, are associated with psychological morbidity occurring up to 12 months post-injury in a general trauma population. Further research is required to explore the utility of these, and other risk factors in predicting psychological morbidity on an individual patient basis.