Severe isolated injuries have a high impact on resource use and mortality: a Dutch nationwide observational study.

PURPOSE: The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with the presence of physiological risk factors (PRFs). Severe isolated injuries (SII) are excluded from the BPD. This study describes the characteristics, resource use and outcomes of patients with SII according to their injured body region, and compares them with those included in the BPD. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Dutch National Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2019. SII patients were defined as those with an injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 4 in one body region, with at most minor additional injuries (AIS ≤ 2). We performed an SII subgroup analysis per AIS region of injury. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for SII subgroup patient outcomes, and resource needs. RESULTS: A total of 10.344 SII patients were included; 47.8% were ICU admitted, and the overall mortality was 19.5%. The adjusted risk of death was highest for external (2.5, CI 1.9-3.2) and for head SII (2.0, CI 1.7-2.2). Patients with SII to the abdomen (2.3, CI 1.9-2.8) and thorax (1.8, CI 1.6-2.0) had a significantly higher risk of ICU admission. The highest adjusted risk of disability was recorded for spine injuries (10.3, CI 8.3-12.8). The presence of ≥ 1 PRFs was associated with higher mortality rates compared to their poly-trauma counterparts, displaying rates of at least 15% for thoracic, 17% for spine, 22% for head and 49% for external SII. CONCLUSION: A severe isolated injury is a high-risk entity and should be recognized and treated as such. The addition of PRFs to the isolated anatomical injury criteria contributes to the identification of patients with SII at risk of worse outcomes.

Modification of the TRISS: simple and practical mortality prediction after trauma in an all-inclusive registry.

PURPOSE: Numerous studies have modified the Trauma Injury and Severity Score (TRISS) to improve its predictive accuracy for specific trauma populations. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple and practical prediction model that accurately predicts mortality for all acute trauma admissions. METHODS: This retrospective study used Dutch National Trauma Registry data recorded between 2015 and 2018. New models were developed based on nonlinear transformations of TRISS variables (age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS)), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), the sex-age interaction, the best motor response (BMR) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification. The models were validated in 2018 data and for specific patient subgroups. The models' performance was assessed based on discrimination (areas under the curve (AUCs)) and by calibration plots. Multiple imputation was applied to account for missing values. RESULTS: The mortality rates in the development and validation datasets were 2.3% (5709/245363) and 2.5% (1959/77343), respectively. A model with sex, ASA class, and nonlinear transformations of age, SBP, the ISS and the BMR showed significantly better discrimination than the TRISS (AUC 0.915 vs. 0.861). This model was well calibrated and demonstrated good discrimination in different subsets of patients, including isolated hip fractures patients (AUC: 0.796), elderly (AUC: 0.835), less severely injured (ISS16) (AUC: 878), severely injured (ISS ≥ 16) (AUC: 0.889), traumatic brain injury (AUC: 0.910). Moreover, discrimination for patients admitted to the intensive care (AUC: s0.846), and for both non-major and major trauma center patients was excellent, with AUCs of 0.940 and 0.895, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study presents a simple and practical mortality prediction model that performed well for important subgroups of patients as well as for the heterogeneous population of all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. Because this model includes widely available predictors, it can also be used for international evaluations of trauma care within institutions and trauma systems.

The Detrimental Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Major Trauma Outcomes in the Netherlands: A Comprehensive Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcome of major trauma patients in the Netherlands. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major trauma patients highly rely on immediate access to specialized services, including ICUs, shortages caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may influence their outcome. METHODS: A multi-center observational cohort study, based on the Dutch National Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcome of major trauma patients (injury severity score ≥16) treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first COVID-19 peak (March 23 through May 10) were compared with those treated from the same period in 2018 and 2019 (reference period). RESULTS: During the peak period, 520 major trauma patients were admitted, versus 570 on average in the pre-COVID-19 years. Significantly fewer patients were admitted to ICU facilities during the peak than during the reference period (49.6% vs 55.8%; P=0.016). Patients with less severe traumatic brain injuries in particular were less often admitted to the ICU during the peak (40.5% vs 52.5%; P=0.005). Moreover, this subgroup showed an increased mortality compared to the reference period (13.5% vs 7.7%; P=0.044). These results were confirmed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. In addition, a significant increase in observed versus predicted mortality was recorded for patients who had a priori predicted mortality of 50% to 75% (P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 peak had an adverse effect on trauma care as major trauma patients were less often admitted to ICU and specifically those with minor through moderate brain injury had higher mortality rates.

Dutch trauma system performance: Are injured patients treated at the right place?

BACKGROUND: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS: Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC. RESULTS: Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% - 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements.

Evaluation of the Berlin polytrauma definition: A Dutch nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of ≥3 in ≥2 body regions (2AIS ≥3) combined with the presence of ≥1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODS: The evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS ≥3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of ≥16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS ≥3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of ≥16. RESULTS: The DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of ≥16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS ≥3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS ≥3 and ISS ≥16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS ≥16 and 2AIS ≥3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.

A comparison of the quality of care in accident and emergency departments in England and the Netherlands as experienced by patients.

BACKGROUND: Measuring patients' experiences to determine health-care performance and quality of care from their perspective can provide valuable evidence for international improvements in the quality of care. We compare patients' experiences in Accident & Emergency departments (A&E) in England and the Netherlands and discuss the usefulness of this comparison. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among patients attending A&Es aged 18 years and older. In England, 134 A&Es were surveyed. In the Netherlands, nine hospitals participated in the study. Main outcome measures were patients' experiences represented by six domain scores aggregated on the country level or on the A&E level. RESULTS: In England, 43 892 completed questionnaires were received (40%). In the Netherlands, 1865 completed questionnaires were received (42%). Three of six domain scores were significantly higher for patients in the Netherlands: 'waiting time' [mean scores of 73.8 (NL) versus 67.2 (ENG)], 'doctors and nurses' [mean scores of 85.7 (NL) versus 80.6 (ENG)] and 'your care and treatment' [mean scores of 82.6 (NL) and 80.2 (ENG)]. The variance among the English A&Es was large. The best and worst practices on five domains were English. CONCLUSIONS: The mean quality of care in the A&E appeared to be better in the Netherlands on three domains, but the best practices were English A&Es. The within-country differences between A&Es were much larger than differences between countries. Healthcare performance in the A&E can be compared between countries by surveying patients' experiences, and there seems much to learn across A&Es both within and among countries.

The Consumer Quality Index in an accident and emergency department: internal consistency, validity and discriminative capacity.

BACKGROUND: Patients' experiences are an indicator of health-care performance in the accident and emergency department (A&E). The Consumer Quality Index for the Accident and Emergency department (CQI A&E), a questionnaire to assess the quality of care as experienced by patients, was investigated. The internal consistency, construct validity and discriminative capacity of the questionnaire were examined. METHODS: In the Netherlands, twenty-one A&Es participated in a cross-sectional survey, covering 4883 patients. The questionnaire consisted of 78 questions. Principal components analysis determined underlying domains. Internal consistency was determined by Cronbach's alpha coefficients, construct validity by Pearson's correlation coefficients and the discriminative capacity by intraclass correlation coefficients and reliability of A&E-level mean scores (G-coefficient). RESULTS: Seven quality domains emerged from the principal components analysis: information before treatment, timeliness, attitude of health-care professionals, professionalism of received care, information during treatment, environment and facilities, and discharge management. Domains were internally consistent (range: 0.67-0.84). Five domains and the 'global quality rating' had the capacity to discriminate among A&Es (significant intraclass correlation coefficient). Four domains and the 'global quality rating' were close to or above the threshold for reliably demonstrating differences among A&Es. The patients' experiences score on the domain timeliness showed the largest range between the worst- and best-performing A&E. CONCLUSIONS: The CQI A&E is a validated survey to measure health-care performance in the A&E from patients' perspective. Five domains regarding quality of care aspects and the 'global quality rating' had the capacity to discriminate among A&Es.

The Consumer Quality index (CQ-index) in an accident and emergency department: development and first evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patients' views are essential to provide a patient-centred health service and to evaluating quality of care. As no standardized and validated system for measuring patients' experiences in accident and emergency departments existed, we have developed the Consumer Quality index for the accident and emergency department (CQI A&E). METHODS: Qualitative research has been undertaken to determine the content validity of the CQI A&E. In order to assess psychometric characteristics an 84-item questionnaire was sent to 653 patients who had attended a large A&E in the Netherlands. Also, fifty importance questions were added to determine relevance of the questions and for future calculations of improvement scores. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to detect the domains of the questionnaire. RESULTS: Survey data of 304 (47%) patients were used for the analysis. The first exploratory factor analysis resulted in three domains based on 13 items: 'Attitude of the healthcare professionals', 'Environment and impression of the A&E' and 'Respect for and explanation to the patient'. The first two had an acceptable internal consistency. The second analysis, included 24 items grouped into 5 domains: 'Attitude of the healthcare professionals', 'Information and explanation', 'Environment of the A&E','Leaving the A&E' and 'General information and rapidity of care'. All factors were internal consistent. According to the patients, the three most important aspects in healthcare performance in the A&E were: trust in the competence of the healthcare professionals, hygiene in the A&E and patients' health care expectations. In general, the highest improvement scores concerned patient information. CONCLUSIONS: The Consumer Quality index for the accident and emergency department measures patients' experiences of A&E healthcare performance. Preliminary psychometric characteristics are sufficient to justify further research into reliability and validity.

Safety and efficiency of triaging low urgent self-referred patients to a general practitioner at an acute care post: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficiency of triaging low urgent self-referred patients at the emergency department (ED) to a general practitioner (GP) based on the Manchester triage system (MTS). METHODS: All self-referred patients in the evening, night and weekends were included in this prospective observational study. Patients were triaged by an ED nurse according to the MTS and allocated to a GP or the ED according to a predefined care scheme. For patients treated by the GP, assessments were made of safety as measured by hospitalisation and return to the ED within 2 weeks, and efficiency as measured by referral to the ED. RESULTS: In 80% of cases allocation of the self-referrals to the ED or GP was according to a predefined scheme. Of the 3129 low urgent self-referred patients triaged to the GP, 2840 (90.8%) were sent home, 202 (6.5%) were directly referred to the ED, 36 (1.2%) were hospitalised. Within a random sample of low urgent patients sent home by the GP (222 of 2840), 8 (3.6%) returned to the ED within 2 weeks. Against the agreed MTS scheme, the ED also directly treated 664 low urgent patients, mainly for extremity problems (n=512). Despite the care agreements, 227 urgent patients were treated by the GP, with a referral rate to the ED of 18.1%, a hospitalisation rate of 4.0% and a 4.5% return rate to the ED within 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Low urgent self-referrals, with the exception of extremity problems, were shown to be treated efficiently and safely by a GP. A selected group of more urgent patients also seem to be handled adequately by the GP. Triage of low urgent patients with extremity problems and reasons for nurses not following a predefined triage allocation scheme need further elaboration.

Pain assessments at triage with the Manchester triage system: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is one of the six general discriminators of the Manchester triage system (MTS). The frequency of pain assessments conducted at triage with the MTS, and patient, nurse and triage characteristics associated with pain assessments were studied. Also, nurses' reasons for not assessing pain at triage were studied. METHODS: The study consisted of two parts. In part 1, nurses from two emergency departments (ED) registered patient characteristics and the process of triage for every presenting patient during 1 week in May 2009. The characteristics of triage nurses were registered on a second form. In part 2 of the study, 13 nurses were interviewed about reasons for not assessing pain at triage. RESULTS: According to the MTS guidelines, pain assessments should have been conducted in 86.1% of the patient presentations. It was only assessed in 32.2% of these patients. Characteristics associated with conducting pain assessments were children under 12 years of age, patients referred by others than a general practitioner or ambulance service, intake of medication before an ED visit, experience of the nurse with the MTS and the duration of triage. Reasons for not assessing pain according to the guidelines included the thought of triage nurses that pain assessments result in overtriage. CONCLUSIONS: Pain assessments at triage are conducted infrequently because of insufficient education, conducting activities at triage that are not necessary for estimating urgency and a lack of clarity in the MTS guidelines. Changes in these areas are necessary to improve the reliability and validity of pain assessments and the MTS.

An observational study of patients triaged in category 5 of the Emergency Severity Index.

OBJECTIVE: Patients triaged in category 5 of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) do not need any resources before discharge from the emergency department (ED). We studied the characteristics of these patients and focused on those who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department after their ED visit. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 117 740 patient presentations. Patients were included in the study when they were triaged with the ESI and presented to one of the two EDs under study between 1 September 2004 and 1 June 2006. RESULTS: Overall, 22.2% of the patients were triaged in ESI 5. Patients aged less than 40 years, women, and self-referred patients were most likely triaged in ESI 5, as well as patients presenting with complaints such as 'checkup appointments at the ED' and 'complaints of the skin'. Patients triaged in ESI 5 who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department were most likely elderly (aged above 65 years) and referred patients. They were also more likely to present with complaints such as 'postoperative complications, wound care problems, and plaster problems' and 'complaints of the genitourinary system'. CONCLUSION: Although younger patients and women were more likely triaged in ESI 5, patients within this category who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department were more likely elderly and referred patients. Being admitted or sent to the outpatient department and triaged in ESI 5 indicates undertriage. Revision of the system is required to properly account for these patient groups.

Prehospital identification of major trauma patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prehospital triage is aimed at getting the right patient to the right hospital. Evaluations on the performance of prehospital triage tools are scarce. This study examines the ability of the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) triage guidelines to identify major trauma patients in a European trauma system. Furthermore, this study evaluates the predictive power of other prehospital measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prehospital data of 151 minor (Injury Severity Score (ISS) 1-15) and 151 major trauma patients, (ISS > 15) treated at a Dutch trauma center, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of major trauma patients. RESULTS: The major trauma patients particularly incurred severe head injuries (45.7%) and severe thorax injuries (21.9%). The ACSCOT guidelines had a sensitivity of 84.1% and a specificity of 77.5%. A new prehospital trauma triage model was constructed including nine predictors of major trauma. This model identified more major trauma patients than the ACSCOT (sensitivity 92.1%, p = 0.023) and resulted in a comparable specificity (79.5%; p = 0.711). CONCLUSION: The new triage model outperforms the ACSCOT triage guidelines in identifying major trauma patients in the prehospital setting. The new triage guidelines may improve patient outcomes but needs to be validated in a prospective study.

Prehospital triage and survival of major trauma patients in a Dutch regional trauma system: relevance of trauma registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 1999, the Dutch trauma care has been regionalized into ten trauma systems. This study is the first to review such a trauma system. The aim was to examine the sensitivity of prehospital triage criteria [triage revised trauma score (T-RTS)] in identifying major trauma patients and to evaluate the current level of trauma care of a regionalized Dutch trauma system for major trauma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Major trauma patients (n=511) (June 2001-December 2003) were selected from a regional trauma registry database. The prehospital T-RTS was computed and standardized W scores (Ws) were generated to compare observed vs expected survival based on contemporary US- and UK-norm databases. RESULTS: The T-RTS showed low sensitivity for the prehospital identification of major trauma patients [34.1% (T-RTS< or =10)]. Nevertheless, 78.0% of all major trauma patients were directly managed by the trauma center. These patients were more severely injured than their counterparts at non-trauma-center hospitals (p<0.001). No significant difference emerged between the mortality rates of both groups. The Ws {-0.46 calculated on the US model [95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from -1.99 to 1.07]} [0.60 calculated on the UK model (95% CI ranging from -1.25 to 2.44)] did not differ significantly from zero. CONCLUSION: The trauma center managed most of the major trauma patients in the trauma system but the triage criteria need to be reconsidered. The level of care of the regional trauma system was shown to measure up to US and UK benchmarks.

A prospective study on paediatric traffic injuries: health-related quality of life and post-traumatic stress.

OBJECTIVES: To examine children's reports of their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following paediatric traffic injury, to explore child and parental post-traumatic stress, and to identify children and parents with adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. ASSESSMENTS: shortly after the injury, three months and six months post injury. SETTING: Department of Traumatology, University Hospital. SUBJECTS: Fifty-one young traffic injury victims aged 8-15 years. MAIN MEASURES: TNO-AZL Children's Quality of Life questionnaire and the Impact of Event Scale. RESULTS: Short-term adverse changes in the child's HRQoL were observed for the child's motor functioning and autonomy. At three months, 12% of the children and 16% of the parents reported serious post-traumatic stress symptoms. Increased stress at three months, or across follow-up, was observed among hospitalized children, children with head injuries, and children injured in a motor vehicle accident. Parental stress was related to low socioeconomic status and the seriousness of the child's injury and accident (hospitalization, head injury, serious injury, motor vehicle involved, others injured). CONCLUSIONS: The children reported only temporary effects in their motor functioning and autonomy. Post-traumatic stress symptoms following paediatric traffic injury were not only experienced by the children, but also by their parents.

Young traffic victims' long-term health-related quality of life: child self-reports and parental reports.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by young traffic injury victims and to assess the child-parent agreement on the child's HRQOL. DESIGN: Cohort study with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years. SETTING: Traumatology department in a university hospital in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: All traffic injury victims treated at the traumatology department in 1996-1997 and aged 8 to 15 years at follow-up (N = 254). The data of 157 child-parent pairs were available for analysis (mean follow-up age, 12+/-2.4 y; 57% boys; 24% hospitalized). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: TNO-AZL Children's Quality of Life parent and child questionnaires. RESULTS: Young traffic injury victims reported a significantly lower HRQOL in the motor and autonomy scales compared with contemporaries in the reference group. The child-parent agreement ranged from low to moderate (intraclass correlations,.35-.67). A comparison made between the children and their parents found that the children were more negative regarding the physical complaints and the motor, autonomy, and positive-emotion scales. CONCLUSIONS: Young traffic injury victims reported a reasonably good long-term HRQOL, and, surprisingly, few psychologic problems were revealed. Physicians who rely only on parental reports may overestimate the child's HRQOL, especially when assessing the physical functioning. The child's own reports should not be neglected in the assessment of a comprehensive picture of the child's HRQOL.

Characteristics of injured children attending the emergency department: patients potentially in need of rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an epidemiological overview of the characteristics of injured children and to compare hospitalized and nonhospitalized injured children to identify predictors of hospitalization and, with that, possible predictors of disablement. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data obtained from a computerized trauma registration system and medical records. SETTING: Department of Traumatology, University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Children (0-19 years) injured in 1996 and 1997 (n = 5,057). RESULTS: The majority of children were injured in home and leisure accidents (53%) and sustained minor injuries. Only 55 (1%) children were severely injured (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 16). Overall, 512 (10%) patients required hospitalization, 19 children were referred to a rehabilitation centre, and 24 children died due to their injuries. The majority of these patients were injured in traffic. Compared with the group of nonhospitalized patients, the group of hospitalized patients consisted of more males and traffic victims, were more severely injured and sustained more head/neck, spine, and thorax and abdomen injuries. Nonhospitalized patients incurred proportionally more upper and lower extremity injuries. The ISS, the body region of most severe injury, and injury cause (traffic accidents) were significant predictors of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Young traffic victims, severely injured children in terms of high ISS scores, and children with injuries affecting the head/neck/face or thorax/abdomen carry the highest risk of hospitalization.

The health-related quality of life of pediatric traffic victims.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of young traffic victims and to identify those children who are at high risk of a reduced HRQoL. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data obtained from a registration system and from questionnaires completed by 211 parents of young traffic victims who attended the department of traumatology in 1996 and 1997. RESULTS: The overall group of young traffic victims experienced a lower HRQoL sumscore compared with the reference population (p = 0.001). A total of 48 parents (23%) attributed their child's reduced HRQoL specifically to the traffic accident. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the father (p = 0.018) and the Injury Severity Score (p < 0.001) emerged as significant predictors of traffic-related HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Children of low SES parents and severely injured children are at particularly high risk of a reduced HRQoL following a traffic accident. However, not solely severely injured and hospitalized young traffic victims may suffer a diminished HRQoL but traffic-related injuries of minor or moderate severity may cause substantial problems as well.