Dataset Information

Comparison of Injured Older Adults Included in vs Excluded From Trauma Registries With 1-Year Follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Trauma registries are the primary data mechanism in trauma systems to evaluate and improve the care of injured patients. Research has suggested that trauma registries may miss high-risk older adults, who commonly experience morbidity and mortality after injury.

Objective

To compare injured older adults who were included in with those excluded from trauma registries, with a focus on patients with serious injuries, requiring major surgery, or dying after injury.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study included all injured adults 65 years and older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma centers in 7 counties in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, with follow-up through December 31, 2012. Record linkage was used to match emergency medical services records with state trauma registries, state discharge databases, state death registries, and Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August to November 2018.

Exposures

Inclusion in vs exclusion from a trauma registry.

Main outcomes and measures

Mortality up to 12 months, including time to death and causes of death.

Results

Of 8161 included patients, 5579 (68.4%) were women, and the mean (SE) age was 82.2 (0.10) years. A total of 1720 older adults (21.1%) were matched to a trauma registry record. Seriously injured patients not captured by trauma registries ranged from 18% (7 of 38 patients with abdominal-pelvic Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater) to 80.0% (1792 of 2241 patients with extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or greater), while 68 of 186 patients requiring major nonorthopedic surgery (36.6%) and 1809 of 2325 patients requiring orthopedic surgery (77.8%) were not included in trauma registries. Of patients with serious injuries or undergoing major surgery missed by trauma registries (range by injury and procedure type, 36.0% to 57.1%), 36.4% (39.3% when excluding serious extremity injuries and orthopedic procedures) were treated at trauma centers, particularly level III through V hospitals. When registry and nonregistry groups were tracked over 12 months, 93 of 188 in-hospital deaths (49.5%) and 1531 of 1887 total deaths (81.1%) occurred in the nonregistry cohort.

Conclusions and relevance

In their current form, trauma registries are ineffective in capturing, tracking, and evaluating injured older adults, although mortality following injury is frequently due to noninjury causes. High-risk injured older adults are not included in registries because of care in nontrauma hospitals, restrictive registry inclusion criteria, and being missed by registries in trauma centers.

SUBMITTER: Newgard CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6624817 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The injured trauma survivor screen (ITSS) has been shown to predict posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression risk at 1 month after traumatic injury. This study explored the ability of the ITSS to predict chronic distress after injury, as well as the impact of combining the ITSS with an additional screening measure. METHODS:Patients were enrolled following admission to a Level I trauma center. Baseline measurements were collected during initial hospitalization, and follow-up measures were collected an average of 6.5 months after injury. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were run to determine predictive accuracy, controlling for participants who had mental health intervention and for those who experienced additional potentially psychologically traumatic events since their injury event. RESULTS:Utilizing a cut score of 2, the ITSS PTSD scale had a sensitivity of 85.42%, specificity of 67.35%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.9% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 51.4%. The combined PTSD risk group (risk positive on the baseline ITSS and the PTSD checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) had a sensitivity of 72.92%, specificity of 81.63%, NPV of 88.2%, and PPV of 61.6%. Also using a cut score of 2, the ITSS Depression Scale had a sensitivity of 72.50%, specificity of 70.29%, NPV of 91.1%, and PPV of 37.9%. CONCLUSION:The nine-item ITSS, which takes approximately 5 minutes to administer, is a stable screening tool for predicting those most at risk for PTSD and/or depression 6 months after admission to a Level I trauma center following traumatic injury. The combined PTSD risk group data provide evidence that symptom evaluation by a psychologist can improve specificity. These results further inform the recommendation of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma regarding PTSD and depression screening in trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic study, level III.

Project description:BackgroundMultilevel analyses are ideally suited to assess the effects of ecological (higher level) and individual (lower level) exposure variables simultaneously. In applying such analyses to measures of ecologies in epidemiological studies, individual variables are usually aggregated into the higher level unit. Typically, the aggregated measure includes responses of every individual belonging to that group (i.e. it constitutes a self-included measure). More recently, researchers have developed an aggregate measure which excludes the response of the individual to whom the aggregate measure is linked (i.e. a self-excluded measure). In this study, we clarify the substantive and technical properties of these two measures when they are used as exposures in multilevel models.MethodsAlthough the differences between the two aggregated measures are mathematically subtle, distinguishing between them is important in terms of the specific scientific questions to be addressed. We then show how these measures can be used in two distinct types of multilevel models-self-included model and self-excluded model-and interpret the parameters in each model by imposing hypothetical interventions. The concept is tested on empirical data of workplace social capital and employees' systolic blood pressure.ResultsResearchers assume group-level interventions when using a self-included model, and individual-level interventions when using a self-excluded model. Analytical re-parameterizations of these two models highlight their differences in parameter interpretation. Cluster-mean centered self-included models enable researchers to decompose the collective effect into its within- and between-group components. The benefit of cluster-mean centering procedure is further discussed in terms of hypothetical interventions.ConclusionsWhen investigating the potential roles of aggregated variables, researchers should carefully explore which type of model-self-included or self-excluded-is suitable for a given situation, particularly when group sizes are relatively small.