Comparing the responsiveness of functional outcome assessment measures for trauma registries.
ABSTRACT Measuring long-term disability and functional outcomes after major trauma is not standardized across trauma registries. An ideal measure would be responsive to change but not have significant ceiling effects. The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), GOS-Extended (GOSE), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and modified FIM in major trauma patients, with and without significant head injuries.
Patients admitted to two adult Level I trauma centers in Victoria, Australia, who survived to discharge from hospital, were aged 15 years to 80 years with a blunt mechanism of injury, and had an estimated Injury Severity Score >15 on admission, were recruited for this prospective study. The instruments were administered at baseline (hospital discharge) and by telephone interview 6 months after injury. Measures of responsiveness, including effect sizes, were calculated. Bootstrapping techniques, and floor and ceiling effects, were used to compare the measures.
Two hundred forty-three patients participated, of which 234 patients (96%) completed the study. The GOSE and GOS were the most responsive instruments in this major trauma population with effect sizes of 5.3 and 4.4, respectively. The GOSE had the lowest ceiling effect (17%).
The GOSE was the instrument with greatest responsiveness and the lowest ceiling effect in a major trauma population with and without significant head injuries and is recommended for use by trauma registries for monitoring functional outcomes and benchmarking care. The results of this study do not support the use of the modified FIM for this purpose.
- SourceAvailable from: Sarah Derrett[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine associations between the number of injuries sustained and three measures of disability 12-months post-injury for hospitalised patients. Data from 27,840 adult (18+ years) participants, hospitalised for injury, were extracted for analysis from the Validating and Improving injury Burden Estimates (Injury-VIBES) Study. Modified Poisson and linear regression analyses were used to estimate relative risks and mean differences, respectively, for a range of outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, GOS-E; EQ-5D and 12-item Short Form health survey physical and mental component summary scores, PCS-12 and MCS-12) according to the number of injuries sustained, adjusted for age, sex and contributing study. More than half (54%) of patients had an injury to more than one ICD-10 body region and 62% had sustained more than one Global Burden of Disease injury type. The adjusted relative risk of a poor functional recovery (GOS-E<7) and of reporting problems on each of the items of the EQ-5D increased by 5-10% for each additional injury type, or body region, injured. Adjusted mean PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores worsened with each additional injury type, or body region, injured by 1.3-1.5 points and 0.5 points, respectively. Consistent and strong relationships exist between the number of injury types and body regions injured and 12-month functional and health status outcomes. Existing composite measures of anatomical injury severity such as the NISS or ISS, which use up to three diagnoses only, may be insufficient for characterising or accounting for multiple injuries in disability studies. Future studies should consider the impact of multiple injuries to avoid under-estimation of injury burden.PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(12):e113467. · 3.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is limited evidence describing the long-term outcomes of severe pelvic ring fractures. The aim of this study was to describe the longer term independent living and return to work outcomes following severe pelvic ring fracture.ANZ Journal of Surgery 05/2014; · 1.12 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare 6 month and 12 month health status and functional outcomes between regional major trauma registries in Hong Kong and Victoria, Australia.PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e103396. · 3.53 Impact Factor