Does patient preference for online or telephone follow-up impact on response rates and data completeness following injury?

BACKGROUND: Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes is needed to better understand recovery, benchmark between trauma centers and systems, and monitor outcomes over time. A key component of follow-up methodology is the mode of administration of outcome measures with multiple options available. We aimed to quantify patient preference and compare the response rates and data completeness for telephone and online completion in trauma patients. METHODS: A registry-based cohort study of adult (16 years and older) patients registered to the Victorian State Trauma Registry and Victorian Orthopedic Trauma Outcomes Registry from April 2020 to December 2020 was undertaken. Survivors to discharge were contacted by telephone and offered the option of telephone or online completion of 6-month follow-up using the five-level EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). The online and telephone groups were compared for differences in characteristics, follow-up rates, and data completeness. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of choosing online completion. RESULTS: Of the 3,886 patients, 51% (n = 1,994) chose online follow-up, and the follow-up rates were lower for online (77%), compared with telephone (89%), follow-up. Younger age, higher socioeconomic status, and preferred language other than English were associated with higher adjusted odds of choosing online completion. Admission to intensive care was associated with lower adjusted odds of choosing online completion. Completion rate for the EQ-5D-5L utility score was 97% for both groups. A valid total 12-WHODAS score could be calculated for 63% of online respondents compared with 86% for the telephone group. CONCLUSION: More than half of trauma patients opted for online completion. Completion rates did differ depending on the questionnaire and telephone follow-up rates were higher. Nevertheless, given the wide diversity of the trauma population, the high rate of online uptake, and potential resource constraints, the study findings largely support the use of dual methods for follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiological, Level III.

Outcomes of severe lower limb injury with Mangled Extremity Severity Score ≥ 7.

AIMS: Complex fractures of the femur and tibia with associated severe soft tissue injury are often devastating for the individual. The aim of this study was to describe the two-year patient-reported outcomes of patients in a civilian population who sustained a complex fracture of the femur or tibia with a Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) of ≥ 7, whereby the score ranges from 2 (lowest severity) to 11 (highest severity). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 16 years with a fractured femur or tibia and a MESS of ≥ 7 were extracted from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (January 2007 to December 2018). Cases were grouped into surgical amputation or limb salvage. Descriptive analysis were used to examine return to work rates, three-level EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) outcomes at 12 and 24 months post-injury. RESULTS: In all, 111 patients were included: 90 (81%) patients who underwent salvage and 21 (19%) patients with surgical amputation. The mean age of patients was 45.8 years (SD 15.8), 93 (84%) were male, 37 (33%) were involved in motor vehicle collisions, and the mean MESS score was 8.2 (SD 1.4). Two-year outcomes in the cohort were poor: six (7%) patients achieved a GOS-E good recovery, the mean EQ-5D-3L summary score was 0.52 (SD 0.27), and 17 (20%) patients had returned to work. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of patients with severe lower limb injury (MESS ≥ 7) achieved a good level of function 24 months post-injury. Further follow-up is needed to better understand the long-term trajectory of these patients, including delayed amputation, hospital readmissions, and healthcare utilization. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):769-774.

Prevalence of non-union and delayed union in proximal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of proximal humeral non-union. There is disagreement on what constitutes union, delayed union and non-union. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of these complications in proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) admitted to trauma hospitals. METHODS: The Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry identified 419 cases of PHFs, of which 306 were analysed. Three upper limb orthopaedic surgeons used X-rays to classify fractures according to the Neer classification and determine union. Twelve-item Short Form Health Survey scores were used to assess patient health and wellbeing. RESULTS: Of 306 cases, 49.4% reached union. Median time to union was 100 days (confidence interval 90-121). Of these, 17.0% united by 60 days, 8.5% united by 89 days and 23.9% united after 90 days, demonstrating 'prolonged delayed union'. There were 25 non-unions with a prevalence of 8.2%, most occurring in two-part surgical neck fractures. CONCLUSION: Our cohort of largely displaced PHFs admitted to trauma hospitals had a non-union prevalence of 8.2% and an overall delayed union prevalence of 32.4%. Consensus is required on definitions of non-union and delayed union timeframes.

Discharge from the acute hospital: trauma patients' perceptions of care.

Objective The involvement of orthopaedic trauma patients in the decision-making regarding discharge destination from the acute hospital and their perceptions of the care following discharge are poorly understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate orthopaedic trauma patient experiences of discharge from the acute hospital and transition back into the community. Methods The present qualitative study performed in-depth interviews, between October 2012 and November 2013, with patients aged 18-64 years with lower limb trauma. Thematic analysis was used to derive important themes. Results Ninety-four patients were interviewed, including 35 discharged to in-patient rehabilitation. Key themes that emerged include variable involvement in decision-making regarding discharge, lack of information and follow-up care on discharge and varying opinions regarding in-patient rehabilitation. Readiness for discharge from in-patient rehabilitation also differed widely among patients, with patients often reporting being ready for discharge before the planned discharge date and feeling frustration at the need to stay in in-patient care. There was also a difference in patients' perception of the factors leading to recovery, with patients discharged to rehabilitation more commonly reporting external factors, such as rehabilitation providers and physiotherapy. Conclusion The insights provided by the participants in the present study will help us improve our discharge practice, especially the need to address the concerns of inadequate information provision regarding discharge and the role of in-patient rehabilitation. What is known about the topic? There is no current literature describing trauma patient involvement in decision-making regarding discharge from the acute hospital and the perception of how this decision (and destination choice; e.g. home or in-patient rehabilitation) affects their outcome. What does this paper add? The present large qualitative study provides information on patients' opinion of discharge from the acute hospital following trauma and how this could be improved from their perception. Patients are especially concerned with the lack of information provided to them on discharge, their lack of involvement and understanding of the choices made with regard to their discharge and describe concerns regarding their follow-up care. There is also a feeling from the patients that they are ready to leave rehabilitation before their actual planned discharge date, a concept that needs further investigation. What are the implications for practitioners? The patient insights gained by the present study will lead to a change in discharge practice, including increased involvement of the patient in the decision-making in terms of discharge from both the acute and rehabilitation hospitals and a raised awareness of the need to provide written information and follow-up telephone calls to patients following discharge. Further research into many aspects of patient discharge from the acute hospital should be considered, including the use of rehabilitation prediction tools to ensure patient involvement in decision-making and a discharge and/or follow-up coordinator to ensure patients are aware of how to access information after discharge.

Interobserver agreement of Neer and AO classifications for proximal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: The classification of proximal humeral fractures remains challenging. The two main classification systems used, the Neer and the AO classification, have both been shown to have less than ideal interobserver agreement. Agreement in classification is required, however, to guide fracture management. METHOD: Data from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry were collected and the X-rays of 104 proximal humeral fractures were reviewed by three orthopaedic consultants. They classified the fractures according to the Neer and AO classifications, as well as their simplified versions. Interobserver agreement was then assessed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was better overall in the Neer classification, which was moderate (kappa = 0.40-0.58), than the AO classification, which was fair to moderate (kappa = 0.31-0.54). When simplified, the Neer and AO classification interobserver agreement remained similar. CONCLUSION: The classification of proximal humeral fractures with both the Neer and the AO systems remains difficult with minimal improvements seen when reducing the number of categories in each classification system. From these results, the Neer classification system would appear slightly more useful in clinical practice to guide treatment.

Patient perspectives of care in a regionalised trauma system: lessons from the Victorian State Trauma System.

OBJECTIVES: To explore injured patients' experiences of trauma care to identify areas for improvement in service delivery. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews, conducted from 1 April 2011 to 31 January 2012, with 120 trauma patients registered by the Victorian State Trauma Registry and the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry and managed at the major adult trauma services (MTS) in Victoria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emergent themes from patients' experiences of acute, rehabilitation and post-discharge care in the Victorian State Trauma System (VSTS). RESULTS: Patients perceived their acute hospital care as high quality, although 3s with communication and surgical management delays were common. Discharge from hospital was perceived as stressful, and many felt ill prepared for discharge. A consistent emerging theme was the sense of a lack of coordination of post-discharge care, and the absence of a consistent point of contact for ongoing management. Most patients' primary point of contact after discharge was outpatient clinics at the MTS, which were widely criticised because of substantial delays in receiving an appointment, prolonged waiting times, limited time with clinicians, lack of continuity of care and inability to see senior clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights perceived 3s in the patient care pathway in the VSTS, especially those relating to communication, information provision and post-discharge care. Trauma patients perceived the need for a single point of contact for coordination of post-discharge care.

Does recall of preinjury disability change over time?

BACKGROUND: Pre-injury disability must be determined when assessing whether treatment programs return people to pre-injury status, however there is little empirical evidence to support recommendations that this be done as soon as possible after injury to prevent recall bias. OBJECTIVES: To determine disagreement between recall of pre-injury disability at different time points post-injury and bias towards under- or overestimating pre-injury disability. METHODS: Self-reported pre-injury global disability was assessed within days, 6 months and 12 months post-injury in patients admitted to two level 1 adult trauma centres. Kappa statistics and multiple logistic regression models identified predictors of disagreement between time-points. RESULTS: Pre-injury disability was measured at all time-points in 801 patients. Pre-injury disability at baseline was rated as none, mild, moderate, marked and severe in 80%, 12%, 5.1%, 1.9% and 1.0% respectively. Absolute agreement between baseline and 6 and 12 months respectively, was 79% and 80%. Corresponding kappa values (95% confidence intervals) were 0.33 (0.26-0.40) and 0.32 (0-25-0.38). Patients over 65 years or not completing high school were more likely to report less pre-injury disability at 6 and 12 months than at baseline with adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for these groups being 8.24 (4.32-15.72) and 1.93 (1.03-3.64) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of recall bias in an adult trauma population if self-reported global pre-injury disability was assessed 6 months post-injury. The recall of pre-injury disability up to 6 months post-injury can be used to determine return to pre-injury status, if assessment is not feasible shortly after injury.

Level of agreement between patient and proxy responses to the EQ-5D health questionnaire 12 months after injury.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life represents a patient's experiences and expectations and should be collected from the patient. In trauma, collection of information from the patient can be challenging, particularly for subgroups where cognitive impairment is prevalent, increasing reliance on proxy reporting. This study assessed the agreement between patient and proxy reporting of health-related quality of life 12 months after injury. METHODS: The Victorian State Trauma Registry and Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry collect EQ-5D data at 12 months after injury. Cases where data were collected from the patient and proxy were extracted. Agreement between patient and proxy responses was compared using kappa (K) coefficients for the individual EQ-5D items, and Bland-Altman plots and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for the EQ-5D summary score and visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Agreement between patient and proxy respondents was substantial for the mobility (K = 0.61) and personal care items (K = 0.67) and moderate for the usual activities (K = 0.50), pain/discomfort (K = 0.42), and anxiety/depression items (K = 0.47). The mean difference between proxy and patient-reported scores for the VAS (0.74, 95% confidence interval: -2.73, 4.21) and the EQ-5D summary score (-0.02, 95% confidence interval: -0.07, 0.03) was small, but the limits of agreement were wide (-34.22 to 35.71 for VAS and -0.55 to 0.51 for summary score), suggesting no systematic bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although proxy and patient responses for the EQ-5D VAS may differ, the differences show random variability rather than systematic bias. Group comparisons using proxy responses are unlikely to be biased, but proxy responses should be used with caution when assessing individual patient recovery.