Article

Comparing the Responsiveness of Functional Outcome Assessment Measures for Trauma Registries

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/2011; 71(1):63-8. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31820e898d
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To compare 6 month and 12 month health status and functional outcomes between regional major trauma registries in Hong Kong and Victoria, Australia. Summary Background Data: Multicentres from trauma registries in Hong Kong and the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). Methods: Multicentre, prospective cohort study. Major trauma patients and aged >= 18 years were included. The main outcome measures were Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) functional outcome and risk-adjusted Short-Form 12 (SF-12) health status at 6 and 12 months after injury. Results: 261 cases from Hong Kong and 1955 cases from VSTR were included. Adjusting for age, sex, ISS, comorbid status, injury mechanism and GCS group, the odds of a better functional outcome for Hong Kong patients relative to Victorian patients at six months was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.17), and at 12 months was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.12). Adjusting for age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, Hong Kong patients demonstrated comparable mean PCS-12 scores at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.2, 95% CI: -1.2, 3.6) and 12-months (adjusted mean difference: -0.4, 95% CI: -3.2, 2.4) compared to Victorian patients. Keeping age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, there was no difference in the MCS-12 scores of Hong Kong patients compared to Victorian patients at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 0.4, 95% CI: -2.1, 2.8) or 12-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.8, 95% CI: -0.8, 4.5). Conclusion: The unadjusted analyses showed better outcomes for Victorian cases compared to Hong Kong but after adjusting for key confounders, there was no difference in 6-month or 12-month functional outcomes between the jurisdictions.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e103396. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0103396 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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 12/2014; 9(12):e113467. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0113467 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic disease is a major public health concern. Monitoring the quality of services provided is essential for the maintenance and improvement thereof. Assessing and monitoring the quality of care in trauma patient through quality indicators would allow identifying opportunities for improvement whose implementation would improve outcomes in hospital mortality, functional outcomes and quality of life of survivors. Many quality indicators have been used in this condition, although very few ones have a solid level of scientific evidence to recommend their routine use. The information contained in the trauma registries, spread around the world in recent decades, is essential to know the current health care reality, identify opportunities for improvement and contribute to the clinical and epidemiological research.
    Medicina Intensiva 09/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1016/j.medin.2014.06.008 · 1.32 Impact Factor