Epidemiology and management of traumatic brain injury in a regional Queensland Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) data in Australia in the regional and rural context. This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology, severity, causes, and management of TBI in a regional north Queensland population to plan acute care, follow up, and prevention strategies. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed TBI patients presenting to Mackay Base Hospital Emergency Department (ED) in 2021. We identified patients using head injury SNOMED codes, and analysed patient characteristics with descriptive and multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 1120 head injury presentations, with an overall incidence of 909 per 100,000 people per year. The median (IQR) age was 18 (6-46) years. Falls were the most common injury mechanism (52.4% of presentations). 41.1% of patients had a Computed Tomography (CT) scan, while 16.5% of patients who met criteria had post traumatic amnesia (PTA) testing. Age, being male and Indigenous status were associated with higher odds of moderate to severe TBI. CONCLUSION: TBI incidence in this regional population was higher than metropolitan locations. CT scan was undertaken less frequently than in comparative literature, and low rates of PTA testing were undertaken. These data provide insight to assist in planning prevention and TBI-care services.

Emergency examination authorities in Queensland, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: In Queensland, where a person experiences a major disturbance in their mental capacity, and is at risk of serious harm to self and others, an emergency examination authority (EEA) authorises Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) to detain and transport the person to an ED. In the ED, further detention for up to 12 h is authorised to allow the examination to be completed. Little published information describes these critical patient encounters. METHODS: Queensland's Public Health Act (2005), amended in 2017, mandates the use of the approved EEA form. Data were extracted from a convenience sample of 942 EEAs including: (i) patient age, sex, address; (ii) free text descriptions by QPS and QAS officers of the person's behaviour and any serious risk of harm requiring urgent care; (iii) time examination period commenced; and (iv) outcome upon examination. RESULTS: Of 942 EEA forms, 640 (68%) were retrieved at three 'larger central' hospitals and 302 (32%) at two 'smaller regional' hospitals in non-metropolitan Queensland. QPS initiated 342 (36%) and QAS 600 (64%) EEAs for 486 (52%) males, 453 (48%) females and two intersexes (<1%), aged from 9 to 85 years (median 29 years, 17% aged <18 years). EEAs commonly occurred on weekends (32%) and between 2300 and midnight (8%), characterised by 'drug and/or alcohol issues' (53%), 'self-harm' (40%), 'patient aggression' (25%) and multiple prior EEAs (23%). Although information was incomplete, most patients (78%, n = 419/534) required no inpatient admission. CONCLUSIONS: EEAs furnish unique records for evaluating the impacts of Queensland's novel legislative reforms.

Improving domestic violence screening practices in the emergency department: an Australian perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Domestic violence (DV) is a major cause of morbidity worldwide. The ED is a location recommended for opportunistic screening. However, screening within EDs remains irregular. OBJECTIVE: To examine intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to routine screening in Australian EDs, while describing actions taken after identification of DV. METHODS: Emergency clinicians at nine public hospitals participated in an anonymous online survey. Factor analysis was performed to identify principal components around attitudes and beliefs towards screening. RESULTS: In total, 496 emergency clinicians participated. Universal screening was uncommon; less than 2% of respondents reported screening all adults or all women. Although willing, nearly half (45%) reported not knowing how to screen. High patient load and no single rooms were 'very or severely limiting' for 88% of respondents, respectively, while 24/7 social work and interpreter services, and online/written DV protocols were top enablers. Factor analysis identified four distinct intrinsic belief components: (1) screening is not futile and could be done in ED, (2) screening will not cause harm, (3) there is a duty to screen and (4) I am willing to screen. CONCLUSION: This study describes a culture of Queensland ED clinicians that believe DV screening in ED is important and interventions are effective. Most ED clinicians are willing to screen. In this setting, availability of social work and interpreter services are important mitigating resources. Clinician education focusing on duty to screen, coupled with a built-in screening tool, and e-links to a local management protocol may improve the uptake of screening and subsequently increase detection.