Search

Background: As many as half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive the recommended care, with variance in preventable mortality reported across the globe. This variance highlights the need for a comprehensive process for monitoring and reviewing patient care, central to which is a consistent peer-review process that includes trauma system safety and human factors. There is no published, evidence-informed standardised tool that considers these factors for use in adult or paediatric trauma case peer-review. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a trauma case review tool to facilitate clinical review of paediatric trauma patient care in extracting information to facilitate monitoring, inform change and enable loop closure. Methods: Development of the trauma case review tool was multi-faceted, beginning with a review of the trauma audit tool literature. Data were extracted from the literature to inform iterative tool development using a consensus approach. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for both the pilot and finalised versions of the tool. Results: The final trauma case review tool contained ten sections, including patient factors (such as pre-existing conditions), presenting problem, a timeline of events, factors contributing to the care delivery problem (including equipment, work environment, staff action, organizational factors), positive aspects of care and the outcome of panel discussion. After refinement, the inter-rater reliability of the human factors and outcome components of the tool improved with an average 86% agreement between raters. Discussion: This research developed an evidence-informed tool for use in paediatric trauma case review that considers both system safety and human factors to facilitate clinical review of trauma patient care. Conclusions: This tool can be used to identify opportunities for improvement in trauma care and guide quality assurance activities. Validation is required in the adult population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Being the parent of a severely injured child involves many stressors throughout the trauma journey. Internationally, little is known about the experiences or levels of emotional distress, parenting stress, quality of life, and resilience for parents of injured children. The aim of this study is to investigate the experiences, unmet needs and outcomes of parents of physically injured children 0-12 years over the 2 year period following injury.Methods/design: This is a prospective longitudinal study using an embedded mixed methods design. This design has a primary qualitative strand which incorporates supplementary quantitative data on child quality of life, and parental quality of life, parenting stress, emotional distress, and resilience at four time points; the acute hospitalisation phase, and at 6, 12 and 24 months following injury. The primary sample are parents of injured children 0-12 years hospitalised in the Australian states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. Primary data sources are child and parent demographic data; survey data; and semi-structured interview data across a 24 month period.Discussion: This study aims to address the existing gap in knowledge on the experiences and unmet support needs of parents in the 2 years following child injury to provide guidance for care provision for these families. There is a lack of evidence-based recommendations for supporting parents and families of injured children and strengthening their capacity to address the challenges they face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In NSW Australia, a formal trauma system including the use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) has existed for over 20 years. Despite providing many advantages in NSW, HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged; leading to financial implications for major trauma centres that receive HEMS patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the financial implications of HEMS over-triage from the perspective of major trauma centres in NSW. Methods: The study sample included all trauma patients transported via HEMS to 12 major trauma centres in NSW during the period: 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Clinical data were gathered from individual hospital trauma registries and merged with financial information obtained from casemix units at respective hospitals. HEMS over-triage was estimated based on the local definition of minor to moderate trauma (ISS⩽12) and hospital length of stay of less than 24 hrs. The actual treatment costs were determined and compared to state-wide peer group averages to obtain estimates of potential funding discrepancies. Results: A total of 707 patients transported by HEMS were identified, including 72% pre-hospital (PH; n=507) and 28% inter-hospital (IH; n=200) transports. Over-triage was estimated at 51% for PH patients and 29% for IH patients. Compared to PH patients, IH patients were more costly to treat on average (IH: $42,604; PH: $25,162), however PH patients were more costly overall ($12,329,618 [PH]; $8,265,152 [IH]). When comparing actual treatment costs to peer group averages we found potential funding discrepancies ranging between 4% and 32% across patient groups. Using a sensitivity analysis, the potential funding discrepancy increased with increasing levels of over-triage. Conclusions: HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged in NSW, leading to funding implications for major trauma centres. In general, HEMS patient treatment costs are higher than the peer group average and the potential funding discrepancy varies by injury severity and the type of transport performed. Although severely injured HEMS patients are more costly to treat, HEMS patients with minor injuries make up the majority of HEMS transports and have larger relative potential funding discrepancies. Future episode funding models need to account for the variability of trauma patients and the proportion of patients transported via HEMS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to assist health service planning, understanding factors that influence higher trauma treatment costs is essential. The majority of trauma costing research reports the cost of trauma from the perspective of the receiving hospital. There has been no comprehensive synthesis and little assessment of the drivers of cost variation, such as country, trauma, subgroups and methods. The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of research reporting the trauma treatment costs and factors associated with higher treatment costs in high income countries. Methods: A systematic search for articles relating to the cost of acute trauma care was performed and included studies reporting injury severity scores (ISS), per patient cost/charge estimates; and costing methods. Cost and charge values were indexed to 2011 cost equivalents and converted to US dollars using purchasing power parities. Results: A total of twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Eighty-one percent of these studies were conducted in high income countries including USA, Australia, Europe and UK. Studies either reported a cost (74.1%) or charge estimate (25.9%) for the acute treatment of trauma. Across studies, the median per patient cost of acute trauma treatment was $22,448 (IQR: $11,819-$33,701). However, there was variability in costing methods used with 18% of studies providing comprehensive cost methods. Sixty-three percent of studies reported cost or charge items incorporated in their cost analysis and 52% reported items excluded in their analysis. In all publications reviewed, predictors of cost included Injury Severity Score (ISS), surgical intervention, hospital and intensive care, length of stay, polytrauma and age. Conclusion: The acute treatment cost of trauma is higher than other disease groups. Research has been largely conducted in high income countries and variability exists in reporting costing methods as well as the actual costs. Patient populations studied and the cost methods employed are the primary drivers for the treatment costs. Targeted research into the costs of trauma care is required to facilitate informed health service planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Facial nerve weakness is most commonly due to Bell's palsy or cerebrovascular accidents. Rarely, middle ear tumor presents with facial nerve dysfunction.Case Presentation: We report a very unusual case of middle ear osteoma in a 49-year-old Caucasian woman causing progressive facial nerve deficit. A subtle middle ear lesion was observed on otoscopy and computed tomographic images demonstrated an osseous middle ear tumor. Complete surgical excision resulted in the partial recovery of facial nerve function.Conclusions: Facial nerve dysfunction is rarely caused by middle ear tumors. The weakness is typically due to a compressive effect on the middle ear portion of the facial nerve. Early recognition is crucial since removal of these lesions may lead to the recuperation of facial nerve function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]