Connecting With Trauma Patients After Discharge: A Phone Call Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is sudden and unexpected. It may lead to long-standing physical and physiological consequences. Approximately 10% of the world's disease burden is attributable to traumatic injuries. At the commencement of the study, there was limited information regarding civilian trauma patients' recovery following discharge from the hospital. There are several reasons for this including lack of available resources for follow-up by clinical staff and often trauma patients have multiple injuries, which can result in fragmented care. This limits the ability to assess a patient's recovery following discharge from the hospital. OBJECTIVE: This phone call follow-up study was conducted to assess the number of trauma patients who may be showing symptoms of physical and psychological distress after traumatic injury. METHODS: The study was carried out in New South Wales (Australia) Metropolitan major (Level 1) trauma center. Consented patients were contacted at 72 hr, 1 month, and 3 months after discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Many patients at all time points had difficulty coping with activities of daily living from pain (183 patients [64%], 121 patients [43%], and 58 patients [23%]), fatigue and sleep disturbance (110 patients [38%], 79 patients [28%], and 49 patients [20%]), as well as anxiety and frustration (38 patients [13%], 79 patients [28%], and 98 patients [39%]) regarding their recovery and returning to their preinjury activities. CONCLUSION: The research indicates that some trauma patients do not recover quickly physically or emotionally. These patients require identification and appropriate management of the consequences of trauma to enable them to return to their preinjury quality of life.

Development of an expert based ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM map to AIS 2005 update 2008.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes how maps were developed from the clinical modifications of the 9th and 10th revisions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005 Update 2008 (AIS08). The development of the mapping methodology is described, with discussion of the major assumptions used in the process to map ICD codes to AIS severities. There were many intricacies to developing the maps, because the 2 coding systems, ICD and AIS, were developed for different purposes and contain unique classification structures to meet these purposes. METHODS: Experts in ICD and AIS analyzed the rules and coding guidelines of both injury coding schemes to develop rules for mapping ICD injury codes to the AIS08. This involved subject-matter expertise, detailed knowledge of anatomy, and an in-depth understanding of injury terms and definitions as applied in both taxonomies. The official ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM versions (injury sections) were mapped to the AIS08 codes and severities, following the rules outlined in each coding manual. The panel of experts was composed of coders certified in ICD and/or AIS from around the world. In the process of developing the map from ICD to AIS, the experts created rules to address issues with the differences in coding guidelines between the 2 schemas and assure a consistent approach to all codes. RESULTS: Over 19,000 ICD codes were analyzed and maps were generated for each code to AIS08 chapters, AIS08 severities, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) body regions. After completion of the maps, 14,101 (74%) of the eligible 19,012 injury-related ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes were assigned valid AIS08 severity scores between 1 and 6. The remaining 4,911 codes were assigned an AIS08 of 9 (unknown) or were determined to be nonmappable because the ICD description lacked sufficient qualifying information for determining severity according to AIS rules. There were also 15,214 (80%) ICD codes mapped to AIS08 chapter and ISS body region, which allow for ISS calculations for patient data sets. CONCLUSION: This mapping between ICD and AIS provides a comprehensive, expert-designed solution for analysts to bridge the data gap between the injury descriptions provided in hospital codes (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) and injury severity codes (AIS08). By applying consistent rules from both the ICD and AIS taxonomies, the expert panel created these definitive maps, which are the only ones endorsed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM). Initial validation upheld the quality of these maps for the estimation of AIS severity, but future work should include verification of these maps for MAIS and ISS estimations with large data sets. These ICD-AIS maps will support data analysis from databases with injury information classified in these 2 different systems and open new doors for the investigation of injury from traumatic events using large injury data sets.

Development and validation of a complementary map to enhance the existing 1998 to 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale map.

INTRODUCTION: Many trauma registries have used the Abbreviated Injury Scale 1990 Revision Update 98 (AIS98) to classify injuries. In the current AIS version (Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005 Update 2008 - AIS08), injury classification and specificity differ substantially from AIS98, and the mapping tools provided in the AIS08 dictionary are incomplete. As a result, data from different AIS versions cannot currently be compared. The aim of this study was to develop an additional AIS98 to AIS08 mapping tool to complement the current AIS dictionary map, and then to evaluate the completed map (produced by combining these two maps) using double-coded data. The value of additional information provided by free text descriptions accompanying assigned codes was also assessed. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, a panel of expert AIS coders established plausible AIS08 equivalents for the 153 AIS98 codes which currently have no AIS08 map. A series of major trauma patients whose injuries had been double-coded in AIS98 and AIS08 was used to assess the maps; both of the AIS datasets had already been mapped to another AIS version using the AIS dictionary maps. Following application of the completed (enhanced) map with or without free text evaluation, up to six AIS codes were available for each injury. Datasets were assessed for agreement in injury severity measures, and the relative performances of the maps in accurately describing the trauma population were evaluated. RESULTS: The double-coded injuries sustained by 109 patients were used to assess the maps. For data conversion from AIS98, both the enhanced map and the enhanced map with free text description resulted in higher levels of accuracy and agreement with directly coded AIS08 data than the currently available dictionary map. Paired comparisons demonstrated significant differences between direct coding and the dictionary maps, but not with either of the enhanced maps. CONCLUSIONS: The newly-developed AIS98 to AIS08 complementary map enabled transformation of the trauma population description given by AIS98 into an AIS08 estimate which was statistically indistinguishable from directly coded AIS08 data. It is recommended that the enhanced map should be adopted for dataset conversion, using free text descriptions if available.

External injury documentation in major trauma victims is inadequate: grounds for routine photography in the emergency department?

OBJECTIVE: There is no widely accepted measure of clinical documentation quality in the ED. The present study creates a measure for comparing the quality of clinical documentation of external injuries with autopsy reports. This is used to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of introducing routine photography to improve clinical documentation of injuries. METHODS: This retrospective case series addressed all non-surviving major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score > or =15) presenting to St. Vincent's Hospital ED, Sydney, within the 5 year period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2007. Comparison between clinical and autopsy documentation of external injuries was completed for each major trauma patient. RESULTS: Of the 48 major trauma patients, there were an average of 11.6 injuries missed in documentation per patient (P < 0.001, 95% CI 8.6-14.6). ED documentation recorded on average 29% (95% CI 26%-32%) of the external injuries that appeared in the autopsy report. We call this percentage the external injury documentation rate. The external injury documentation rate was influenced by injury count and body region, but was not influenced by age, sex, severity (using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score), or whether the clinician used a trauma survey or standard progress notes or not, and there was no visible trend over time. CONCLUSION: Clinical documentation of external injuries in major trauma is poor. This is presumably because of many factors, including time pressures and high-stress environments. A possible strategy to improve this documentation is routine photography, which should offer both clinical and legal benefits.

Establishing inter-rater reliability scoring in a state trauma system.

Trauma systems rely on accurate Injury Severity Scoring (ISS) to describe trauma patient populations. Twenty-seven (27) Trauma Nurse Coordinators and Data Managers across the state of New South Wales, Australia trauma network were instructed in the uses and techniques of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) from the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. The aim is to provide accurate, reliable and valid data for the state trauma network. Four (4) months after the course a coding exercise was conducted to assess inter-rater reliability. The results show that inter-rater reliability is with accepted international standards.