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: Giles Cattermole[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Trauma care systems aim to reduce both death and disability, yet there is little data on post-trauma health status and functional outcome. To evaluate baseline, discharge, six month and 12 month post-trauma quality of life, functional outcome and predictors of quality of life in Hong Kong. Multicentre, prospective cohort study using data from the trauma registries of three regional trauma centres in Hong Kong. Trauma patients with an ISS≥9 and aged≥18 years were included. The main outcome measures were the physical component summary (PCS) score and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the Short-Form 36 (SF36) for health status, and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) for functional outcome. Between 1 January 2010 and 31 September 2010, 400 patients (mean age 53.3 years; range 18-106; 69.5% male) were recruited to the study. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between responders (N=177) and surviving non-responders (N=163). However, there were significant differences between these groups and the group of patients who died (N=60). Only 16/400 (4%) cases reported a GOSE≥7. 62/400 (15.5%) responders reached the HK population norm for PCS. 125/400 (31%) responders reached the HK population norm for MCS. If non-responders had similar outcomes to responders, then the percentages for GOSE≥7 would rise from 4% to 8%, for PCS from 15.5% to 30%, and for MCS from 31% to 60%. Univariate analysis showed that 12-month poor quality of life was significantly associated with age>65 years (OR 4.77), male gender (OR 0.44), pre-injury health problems (OR 2.30), admission to ICU (OR 2.15), ISS score 26-40 (OR 3.72), baseline PCS (OR 0.89), one-month PCS (OR 0.89), one-month MCS (OR 0.97), 6-month PCS (OR 0.76) and 6-month MCS (OR 0.97). For patients sustaining moderate or major trauma in Hong Kong at 12 months after injury<1 in 10 patients had an excellent recovery, ≤3 in 10 reached a physical health status score≥Hong Kong norm, although as many as 6 in 10 patients had a mental health status score which is≥Hong Kong norm.Injury 11/2013; · 2.46 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that impact on disability is necessary to inform trauma care and enable adequate risk adjustment for benchmarking and monitoring. A key consideration is how to adjust for pre-existing conditions when assessing injury outcomes, and whether the inclusion of comorbidity is needed in addition to adjustment for age. This study compared different approaches to modelling the impact of comorbidity, collected as part of the routine hospital episode data, on disability outcomes following orthopaedic injury. METHODS: 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale -- Extended (GOS-E) outcomes for 13,519 survivors to discharge were drawn from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry, a prospective cohort study of admitted orthopaedic injury patients. ICD-10-AM comorbidity codes were mapped to four comorbidity indices. Cases with a GOS-E score of 7--8 were considered "recovered". A split dataset approach was used with cases randomly assigned to development or test datasets. Logistic regression models were fitted with "recovery" as the outcome and the performance of the models based on each comorbidity index (adjusted for injury and age) measured using calibration (Hosmer-Lemshow (H-L) statistics and calibration curves) and discrimination (Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC)) statistics. RESULTS: All comorbidity indices improved model fit over models with age and injuries sustained alone. None of the models demonstrated acceptable model calibration (H-L statistic p < 0.05 for all models). There was little difference between the discrimination of the indices for predicting recovery: Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.71); number of ICD-10 chapters represented (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.72); number of six frequent chronic conditions represented (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.71); and the Functional Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.69, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of ICD-10 recorded comorbid conditions is an important predictor of long term functional outcome following orthopaedic injury and adjustment for comorbidity is indicated when assessing risk-adjusted functional outcomes over time or across jurisdictions.BMC Health Services Research 01/2013; 13(1):30. · 1.77 Impact Factor
- Injury 12/2011; 43(7):1229-30. · 2.46 Impact Factor