Search

The use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trauma is limited. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate qualitative responses and factors affecting planned return to work following significant trauma, for which there is currently a poor evidence base. National ethical approval was obtained for routine prospective PROMs data collection, including EQ-5D, between Sept 2013 and March 2015 for trauma patients admitted to the Sussex Major Trauma Centre (n=92). 84 trauma patients disclosed their intended return to work at discharge. Additional open questions asked 'things done well' and 'things to be improved'. EQ-5D responses were valued using the time trade-off method. Statistical analysis between multiple variables was completed by ANOVA, and with categorical categories by Chi squared analysis. Only 18/68 of patients working at admission anticipated returning to work within 14days post-discharge. The injury severity scores (ISS) of those predicting return to work within two weeks and those predicting return to work longer than two weeks were 14.17 and 13.59, respectively. Increased physicality of work showed a trend towards poorer return to work outcomes, although non-significant in Chi-squared test in groups predicting return in less than or greater than two weeks (4.621, p=0.2017ns). No significant difference was demonstrated in the comparative incomes of patients with different estimated return to work outcomes (ANOVA r2=0.001, P=0.9590ns). EQ-5D scores were higher in those predicting return to work within two weeks when compared to greater than two weeks. Qualitative thematic content analysis of open responses was possible for 66/92 of respondents. Prominent positive themes were: care, staff, professionalism, and communication. Prominent negative themes were: food, ward response time, and communication. This pilot study highlights the importance of qualitative PROMs analysis in leading patient-driven improvements in trauma care. We provide standard deviations for ISS scores and EQ-5D scores in our general trauma cohort, for use in sample size calculations for further studies analysing factors affecting return to work after trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Afghanistan conflict has resulted in a large number of service personnel sustaining amputations. Whilst obvious differences exist between military and civilian trauma-related amputations both settings result in life changing injuries. Comparisons offer the potential of advancement and protection of the knowledge gained during the last 12 years. This paper compares the military and civilian trauma-related amputee cohorts' demographics, management and rehabilitation outcomes measures. The UK military Joint Theatre Trauma Registry and a civilian major trauma centre database of trauma-related amputees were analysed. 255 military and 24 civilian amputees were identified. A significant difference (p>0.05) was seen in median age (24, range 18-43, vs. 48, range 24-87 years), mean number of amputations per casualty (1.6±SD 0.678 vs. 1±SD 0.0), mean ISS (22±SD 12.8 vs. 14.7±SD 15.7) and gender (99% males vs. 78%). Rehabilitation outcome measures recorded included the Special Interest Group in Amputee Medicine score where the military group demonstrated significantly better scores (91% Grade E+ compared to 19%). Differences in patients underlying physiology and psychology, the military trauma system and a huge sustained investment in rehabilitation are all contributing factors for these differing outcomes. However the authors also believe that the use of a consultant-led MDT and central rehabilitation have benefited the military cohort in the acute rehabilitation stage and is reflected in the good short-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]