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.

The impact of psychological factors on recovery from injury: a multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Unintentional injuries have a significant long-term health impact in working age adults. Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common post-injury, but their impact on self-reported recovery has not been investigated in general injury populations. This study investigated the role of psychological predictors 1 month post-injury in subsequent self-reported recovery from injury in working-aged adults. METHODS: A multicentre cohort study was conducted of 668 unintentionally injured adults admitted to five UK hospitals followed up at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Logistic regression explored relationships between psychological morbidity 1 month post-injury and self-reported recovery 12 months post-injury, adjusting for health, demographic, injury and socio-legal factors. Multiple imputations were used to impute missing values. RESULTS: A total of 668 adults participated at baseline, 77% followed up at 1 month and 63% at 12 months, of whom 383 (57%) were included in the main analysis. Multiple imputation analysis included all 668 participants. Increasing levels of depression scores and increasing levels of pain at 1 month and an increasing number of nights in hospital were associated with significantly reduced odds of recovery at 12 months, adjusting for age, sex, centre, employment and deprivation. The findings were similar in the multiple imputation analysis, except that pain had borderline statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Depression 1 month post-injury is an important predictor of recovery, but other factors, especially pain and nights spent in hospital, also predict recovery. Identifying and managing depression and providing adequate pain control are essential in clinical care post-injury.

Psychological morbidity and health-related quality of life after injury: multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of psychological morbidity 1 month post-injury on subsequent post-injury quality of life (HRQoL) in a general injury population in the UK to inform development of trauma care and rehabilitation services. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of 16-70-year-olds admitted to 4 UK hospitals following injury. Psychological morbidity and HRQoL (EQ-5D-3L) were measured at recruitment and 1, 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. A reduction in EQ-5D compared to retrospectively assessed pre-injury levels of at least 0.074 was taken as the minimal important difference (MID). Multilevel logistic regression explored relationships between psychological morbidity 1 month post-injury and MID in HRQoL over the 12 months after injury. RESULTS: A total of 668 adults participated. Follow-up rates were 77% (1 month) and 63% (12 months). Substantial reductions in HRQoL were seen; 93% reported a MID at 1 month and 58% at 12 months. Problems with pain, mobility and usual activities were commonly reported at each time point. Depression and anxiety scores 1 month post-injury were independently associated with subsequent MID in HRQoL. The relationship between depression and HRQoL was partly explained by anxiety and to a lesser extent by pain and social functioning. The relationship between anxiety and HRQoL was not explained by factors measured in our study. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalised injuries result in substantial reductions in HRQoL up to 12 months later. Depression and anxiety early in the recovery period are independently associated with lower HRQoL. Identifying and managing these problems, ensuring adequate pain control and facilitating social functioning are key elements in improving HRQoL post-injury.

The advocacy in action study a cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce pedestrian injuries in deprived communities.

BACKGROUND: Road traffic-related injury is a major global public health problem. In most countries, pedestrian injuries occur predominantly to the poorest in society. A number of evaluated interventions are effective in reducing these injuries. Very little research has been carried out into the distribution and determinants of the uptake of these interventions. Previous research has shown an association between local political influence and the distribution of traffic calming after adjustment for historical crash patterns. This led to the hypothesis that advocacy could be used to increase local politicians knowledge of pedestrian injury risk and effective interventions, ultimately resulting in improved pedestrian safety. OBJECTIVE: To design an intervention to improve the uptake of pedestrian safety measures in deprived communities. SETTING: Electoral wards in deprived areas of England and Wales with a poor record of pedestrian safety for children and older adults. METHODS: Design mixedmethods study, incorporating a cluster randomized controlled trial. Data mixture of Geographical Information Systems data collision locations, road safety interventions, telephone interviews, and questionnaires. Randomization 239 electoral wards clustered within 57 local authorities. Participants 615 politicians representing intervention and control wards. Intervention a package of tailored information including maps of pedestrian injuries was designed for intervention politicians, and a general information pack for controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome number of road safety interventions 25 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes politicians interest and involvement in injury prevention cost of interventions. Process evaluation use of advocacy pack, facilitators and barriers to involvement, and success.

Understanding high traffic injury risks for children in low socioeconomic areas: a qualitative study of parents' views.

OBJECTIVE: To gain an in-depth qualitative understanding of parents' views about their children's exposure to road traffic injury risk in low socioeconomic areas. DESIGN: Focus groups facilitated by a moderator with content analysis of data. SETTING: Focus groups were conducted in 10 low socioeconomic English districts that also have high rates of child pedestrian injury. Research was conducted in community venues within each area. SUBJECTS: Parents of children aged 9-14 years living in low socioeconomic areas. RESULTS: Parents believe that children play in their local streets for the following reasons: they like playing out with friends near home; there are few safe, secure, and well-maintained public spaces for children; children are excluded from affordable leisure venues because of their costs; insufficient parental responsibility. For children that play in the street, the key sources of risk identified by parents were: illegal riding and driving around estates and on the pavements; the speed and volume of traffic; illegal parking; drivers being poorly informed about where children play; children's risk-taking behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention programs need to take into account multiple reasons why children in low socioeconomic areas become exposed to hazardous environments thereby increasing their risk of injury. Multi-agency partnerships involving the community are increasingly needed to implement traditional road safety approaches, such as education, engineering, and enforcement, and provide safe and accessible public space, affordable activities for children, and greater support for parents.