Implementation of major trauma app: usability and data completeness.

BACKGROUND: The current UK standard for major trauma patients is to record notes in a paper trauma booklet. Through an innovative collaboration between a major trauma centre and a digital transformation industry partner, a TraumaApp was developed. Electronic notes have been shown to have fewer errors, granular data collection and enable time stamped contemporaneous record keeping. Implementation of digital clinical records presents a challenge within the context of trauma multidisciplinary trauma resuscitation. Data can be easily accessible and shared for quality improvement, audit and research purposes. This study compared paper and electronic notes for completeness and for acceptability data following the implementation of the TraumaApp. METHODS: Trauma team members who performed scribe function attended training for the newly launched TraumaApp. Two staff members acted as scribe, using either the paper trauma booklet or TraumaApp, and attended major trauma calls. A framework for comparison of paper and electronic notes was created and used for a retrospective review of major trauma patients' notes. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t-test. Staff using the TraumaApp completed a System Usability Score questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 37 data points for collection per case. The mean numbers collected were paper notes 24.1 of 37 (65.1%) and electronic notes, 25.7 of 37 (69.5%). There was no statistical significance between the completeness of paper and electronic notes. The mean System Usability Score was 68.4. DISCUSSION: Recording accurate patient information during a major trauma call can be challenging and the role of the scribe to accurately record events is critical for immediate and future care. There was no statistically significant difference in completeness of paper and electronic notes, however the mean System Usability Score was 68.4, which is greater than the internationally validated standard of acceptable usability. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to introduce digital data collection tools enabling accurate record keeping during trauma resuscitation and improve information sharing between clinicians.

Usability of novel major TraumaApp for digital data collection.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of major trauma care is complex and often fast paced. Clear and comprehensive documentation is paramount to support effective communication during complex clinical care episodes, and to allow collection of data for audit, research and continuous improvement. Clinical events are typically recorded on paper-based records that are developed for individual centres or systems. As one of the priorities laid out by the Scottish Trauma Network project was to develop an electronic data collection system, the TraumaApp was created as a data collection tool for major trauma that could be adopted worldwide. METHODS: The study was performed as a service evaluation based at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Emergency Department. Fifty staff members were recruited in pairs and listened to five paired major trauma standby and handover recordings. Participants were randomised to input data to the TraumaApp and one into the existing paper proforma. The time taken to input data add into was measured, along with time for clarifications and any errors made. Those using the app completed a System Usability Score. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between times taken for data entry for the digital and paper documentation, apart from the Case 5 Handover (p < 0.05). Case 1 showed a significantly higher time for clarifications and number of errors with digital data collection (p = 0.01 and p = 1.79E-05 respectively). There were no other differences between data for the app and the proforma. The mean System Usability score for this cohort was 75 out of 100, with a standard deviation of 17 (rounded to nearest integer). CONCLUSION: Digital real-time recording of clinical events using a tool such as the TraumaApp is comparable to completion of paper proforma. The System Usability Score for the TraumaApp was above the internationally validated standard of acceptable usability. There was no evidence of improvement in use over time or familiarity, most likely due to the brevity of the assessments and the refined user interface. This would benefit from further research, exploring data completeness and a potential mixed methods approach to explore training requirements for use of the TraumaApp.

Epidemiology of major trauma in older adults within Scotland: A national perspective from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group (STAG).

BACKGROUND: Major trauma in older adults (MTOA) poses distinctive health and social care challenges, further underlined by the unique socioeconomic and geographical environment of Scotland. This study provides epidemiological trends of MTOA, to provide insight into areas where further evaluation and research are required. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pseudonymised aggregated demographic, injury and outcome data from 2011 to 2020 were obtained from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group (STAG) Database, covering 28 hospitals across Scotland. Only individuals age ≥ 70 with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 were included. RESULTS: There was an average of 216 annual cases of MTOA, with a 259 % rise in incidence from 2011 to 2020. This was predominantly driven by a rise in low velocity trauma (fall <2 m height; 287 % increase). The proportion of all major trauma attributable to those aged ≥70 rose from 18.5 % in 2011 to 34.6 % in 2020. Death censored median (IQR) acute hospital length of stay was 18 days (9-30). Overall, 30-day survival was 65.3 %, with no improvement seen between 2011 and 2020 (p = 0.50). Independent predictors of improved 30-day survival included Ages 70-79 & 80-89 [compared to reference ≥ 90] (OR 3.12; 95 %CI 2.24,4.31; p < 0.001 and OR 1.66; 95 %CI 1.21,2.29; p = 0.002 respectively), and Extremity injury (OR 1.89; 95 %CI 1.48,2.41; p < 0.001). Head injury (OR 0.72; 95 %CI 0.54,0.96; p = 0.027) and increasing ISS score (OR 0.88, 95 %CI 0.86,0.89; p < 0.001) were associated with lower likelihood of 30-day survival. A further model also including the admission ward (from eSTAG data November 2017 onwards) demonstrated an association with reduced 30-day survival with admission to General Surgery (OR 0.42; 95 %CI 0.19,0.93; p = 0.033), Intensive Care (OR 0.25; 95 %CI 0.10,0.60; p = 0.002) and Medical Specialities (OR 0.33; 95 %CI 0.15,0.73; p = 0.007) compared to the reference (Major Trauma). Exponential Smoothing predictions revealed a further potential 184 % rise in incidence of MTOA from 2021 to 2030 (3657 per 100,000 population at risk to 10,392 per 100,000 population at risk). CONCLUSION: MTOA is likely to be a rising health care burden, requiring larger quantities of health and social care resource. Urgent preventative strategies are required to reduce low velocity trauma (standing height falls), as well as the high mortality and morbidity of MTOA.

Long-term outcomes of major trauma without head injury in the West of Scotland: pilot case-control study.

The aim of this study was to identify the outcomes of survivors of blunt major trauma (without head injury) 2 years or more following injury. The study uses a case-control design, is set in the West of Scotland and includes trauma patients treated in Greater Glasgow NHS Board hospitals. Participants consisted of patients who had sustained major trauma (injury severity score >15) with little or no head injury at least 2 years before assessment, identified from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group database, and age and sex-matched controls nominated by the index case's general practitioner. Nineteen cases and seven controls completed the study from 223 potential cases and 39 potential controls. Participants and non-participants had comparable injury severity score, probability of survival (Ps) and length of stay. American Medical Association impairment scores show survivors were more impaired than controls (25.9 vs 7.4%, P=0.043). No differences were observed in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) or Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) scores, although a type II error is possible. Short-form 36 (SF36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores of survivors showed no difference compared with controls although survivors' PCS scores were below UK and US means (P=0.008). SF36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of survivors were below those of controls (45.07 vs 56.65, P=0.004) and normal values of the UK population (P=0.036). No differences in work status were noted, but small sample sizes were used. Non-head-injured survivors of major trauma in the West of Scotland have poorer health status (SF36), physically and mentally, than the UK population. They have greater impairment, but have an employment status comparable to that of the controls. The lack of differences in FIM and CIQ scores between survivors and controls may be due to small sample sizes.