Performance of International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity measures used to predict in-hospital mortality and intensive care admission among traumatic brain-injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the main classification system used for population-based traumatic brain injury (TBI) surveillance activities but does not contain direct information on injury severity. International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity measures can be empirically derived or mapped to the Abbreviated Injury Scale, but no single approach has been formally recommended for TBI. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of different ICD-based injury severity measures for predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in TBI patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study. We identified all patients 16 years or older with a TBI diagnosis who received acute care between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2013, from the Quebec Hospital Discharge Database. The accuracy of five ICD-based injury severity measures for predicting mortality and ICU admission was compared using measures of discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration (calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). RESULTS: Of 31,087 traumatic brain-injured patients in the study population, 9.0% died in hospital, and 34.4% were admitted to the ICU. Among ICD-based severity measures that were assessed, the multiplied derivative of ICD-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS-Multiplicative) demonstrated the best discriminative ability for predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC, 0.858; 95% confidence interval, 0.852-0.864) and ICU admissions (AUC, 0.813; 95% confidence interval, 0.808-0.818). Calibration assessments showed good agreement between observed and predicted in-hospital mortality for ICISS measures. All severity measures presented high agreement between observed and expected probabilities of ICU admission for all deciles of risk. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-based injury severity measures can be used to accurately predict in-hospital mortality and ICU admission in TBI patients. The ICISS-Multiplicative generally outperformed other ICD-based injury severity measures and should be preferred to control for differences in baseline characteristics between TBI patients in surveillance activities or injury research when only ICD codes are available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Feasibility of emergency department point-of-care ultrasound for rib fracture diagnosis in minor thoracic injury.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of emergency department (ED) point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for rib fracture diagnosis in patients with minor thoracic injury (mTI). Secondary objectives were to 1) evaluate patients' pain during the PoCUS procedure, 2) identify the limitations of the use of PoCUS technique, and 3) compare the diagnosis obtained with PoCUS to radiography results. METHODS: Adult patients who presented with clinical suspicion of rib fractures after mTI were included. All patients underwent PoCUS performed by emergency physicians (EPs) prior to a rib view X-ray. A visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 was used to ascertain feasibility, patients' pain and clinicians' degree of certitude. Feasibility was defined as a score of more than 50 on the VAS. We documented the radiologists' interpretation of rib view X-ray. Radiologists were blinded to the PoCUS results. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included. A majority (65%) of EPs concluded that the PoCUS technique to diagnose rib fracture was feasible (VAS score > 50). Median score for feasibility was 63. Median score was 31 (Interquartile range [IQR] 5-57) for patients' pain related to the PoCUS. The main limiting factor of the PoCUS technique was pain during patient examination (15%). CONCLUSION: PoCUS examination appears to be a feasible technique for a rib fracture diagnosis in the ED.

Hospital length of stay following admission for traumatic brain injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of disability in children and young adults and costs CAD$3 billion annually in Canada. Stakeholders have expressed the urgent need to obtain information on resource use for TBI to improve the quality and efficiency of acute care in this patient population. We aimed to assess the components and determinants of hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on 11,199 adults admitted for TBI between 2007 and 2012 in an inclusive Canadian trauma system. Our primary outcome measure was index hospital LOS (admission to the hospital with the highest designation level). Index LOS was compared to total LOS (all consecutive admissions related to the injury). Expected LOS was calculated by matching TBI admissions to all-diagnosis hospital admissions by age, gender, and year of admission. LOS determinants were identified using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Geometric mean total LOS was 1day longer than geometric mean index LOS (12.6 versus 11.7 days). Observed index and ICU LOS were respectively 4.2days and 2.5days longer than that expected according to all-diagnosis admissions. The six most important determinants of LOS were discharge destination, severity of concomitant injuries, extracranial complications, GCS, TBI severity, and mechanical ventilation, accounting for 80% of explained variation. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multicenter retrospective cohort study suggest that hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions are 56% and 119% longer than expected according to all-diagnosis admissions, respectively. In addition, hospital LOS is underestimated when only the index visit is considered and is largely influenced by discharge destination and extracranial complications, suggesting that improvements could be achieved with better discharge planning and interventions targeting prevention of in-hospital complications. This study highlights the importance of considering TBI patients as a distinct population when allocating resources or planning quality improvement interventions.

Impact of socio-economic status on unplanned readmission following injury: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned readmissions cost the US economy approximately $17 billion in 2009 with a 30-day incidence of 19.6%. Despite the recognised impact of socio-economic status (SES) on readmission in diagnostic populations such as cardiovascular patients, its impact in trauma patients is unclear. We examined the effect of SES on unplanned readmission following injury in a setting with universal health insurance. We also evaluated whether additional adjustment for SES influenced risk-adjusted readmission rates, used as a quality indicator (QI). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter cohort study in an integrated Canadian trauma system involving 56 adult trauma centres using trauma registry and hospital discharge data collected between 2005 and 2010. The main outcome was unplanned 30-day readmission; all cause, due to complications of injury and due to subsequent injury. SES was determined using ecological indices of material and social deprivation. Odds ratios of readmission and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for covariates were generated using multivariable logistic regression with a correction for hospital clusters. We then compared a readmission QI validated previously (original QI) to a QI with additional adjustment for SES (SES-adjusted QI) using the mean absolute difference. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 52,122 trauma admissions of which 6.5% were rehospitalised within 30 days of discharge. Compared to patients in the lowest quintile of social deprivation, those in the highest quintile had a 20% increase in the odds of all-cause unplanned readmission (95% CI=1.06-1.36) and a 27% increase in the odds of readmission due to complications of injury (95% CI=1.04-1.54). No association was observed for material deprivation or for readmissions due to subsequent injuries. We observed a strong agreement between the original and SES-adjusted readmission (mean absolute difference= 0.04%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted for traumatic injury who suffer from social deprivation have an increased risk of unplanned rehospitalisation due to complications of injury in the 30 days following discharge. Better discharge planning or follow up for such patients may improve patient outcome and resource use for trauma admissions. Despite observed associations, results suggest that the trauma QI based on unplanned readmission does not require additional adjustment for SES.