Medically graded reduced capacity to work (RCW) following significant injury as explained by patient related outcome measures (PROMs): A prospective trauma center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Data is limited how well patient-reported longer-term outcome measures (PROMs) explain medically graded reduced capacity for work (RCW). OBJECTIVE: This prospective study investigates the association of RCW with several PROMs in addition to demographic and injury-related variables in significantly injured of working age. METHODS: Patients (New Injury Severity Score, NISS ≥ 8) were recruited consecutively. RCW, as registered by the largest Swiss accident insurer, was tested against demographic, trauma and treatment characteristics, and patients' contemporaneous two year rating of functional outcome and quality of life following trauma with measures such as the Short-Form (SF)-36 or Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP), using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: 140 patients (mean 42 years, 2-year RCW rate 21%) participated in the longer-term follow-up of self-rated outcome. In multivariable analysis, all investigated baseline factors together accounted for 48% of the variance explaining 2-year postinjury RCW with 31% contributed by demographic, injury or treatment related variables, and 17% by patients' condition at hospital discharge. Patients' self-rated longer-term outcome provided 61% of the information on concurrent RCW, whereby 53% identified worsening of physical function (SF-36) and additional 8% constraints in daily activities (TOP). Four variables (Glasgow Outcome Scale at the time of hospital discharge and SF-36 physical functioning, TOP daily activities, SF-36 role physical at two years) explained 71% of RCW, corresponding to an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: Objectively graded RCW 2 years after injury was found to be well explained by the combined information of patients' subjective longer-term outcome together with basic patient, trauma and treatment characteristics.

The capacity of baseline patient, injury, treatment and outcome data to predict reduced capacity to work and accident insurer costs - a Swiss prospective 4-year longitudinal trauma centre evaluation.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Given the lack of information on the relation between baseline patient, injury and treatment data and longer-term outcomes for survivors of significant trauma, the objective of this evaluation was to examine the degree to which these characteristics might predict working constraints and expenses. METHODS: 1183 significantly injured patients (New Injury Severity Score >8) of working age were treated at a Swiss trauma centre. Only patients insured by the largest national accident insurer, Suva, were included. Their sociodemographic, trauma, treatment and early clinical status data were evaluated against insurance variables for 4 years post-injury (uni- and multivariate analysis, R2). RESULTS: 346 out of 363 surviving Suva-insured patients were eligible for analysis, constituting a 95% complete 4-year longitudinal follow-up. Overall, 121 (35%) presented with a reduced capacity to work (RCW) 1 to 4 years after the trauma. Patients experienced a mean percentage RCW (PRCW) of 27% 1 year after injury and of 14% at 4 years. In multivariate analysis all investigated parameters together explained 40% of the adjusted variance of patients’ mean PRCW over the 4-year surveillance period, with the highest association found for the block of injury-related variables (17%). Sixty percent of variance was explained for total insurance costs, found to be on average CHF 417,000 per case in patients with a RCW compared with CHF 47,000 per case without RCW (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Four years after significant injury, every fifth patient presented with resultant RCW; half of these remained totally incapable of work. Investigated baseline parameters predicted about 40% of the variance regarding RCW. Future studies are needed to better explain and potentially minimise longer-term incapacity to work following injury. (Trial registration no. NCT02165137).

To What Extent Are Main Accident-Insurer Cases Representative of All Significantly Injured? A Swiss Monocenter Perspective.

Background and Objectives.-Even though Switzerland has a compulsory insurance system, there is a lack of detailed information on the treatment and outcome following trauma. The objective of this evaluation was to examine to what extent cases insured by the largest accident-insurer (Suva) are representative of all significantly injured. Methods.-Trauma center analysis of all ≥16 year old trauma patients with a New Injury Severity Score (NISS) ≥8, comparing the characteristics of Suva- vs non-Suva cases (chi-square; univariate explained variance R2; multivariate logistic regression analysis, Nagelkerke R2). Results.-Over 7 years, 2233 trauma patients were treated at the hospital, of whom 29.4% were Suva-insured. Compared to non-Suva-insured, Suva cases were younger (41.6 vs 64.2, R2 = 0.23) and more often male (88.0% vs 59.4%; R2 = 0.08). In multivariate analysis, these two factors together explained 37.5% of the differences between groups. No other investigated factor explained more than 2%. If only those patients of obligatory working age were analyzed (n = 1264), Suva cases (50.6%) were more often male than non-Suva-insured (n = 562 [87.8%] vs n = 393 [63.0%], resp.; p<0.001, R2 = 0.08). In multivariate analysis, other factors taken together were only 2.6% of the variance. Conclusions.-Significantly injured patients in Switzerland may be considered comparable from a statistical point of view whether insured by the main accident-insurer or not, provided groups are adequately controlled for age and gender. Other differences appear to be only marginal. Respecting these limitations such data can justifiably be given as Swiss reference statistics and the relevant insurer outcome information used for international comparison.

Gender-Specific Improvements in Outcome 1 and 2 Years After Major Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The study aim was to evaluate patient progress over time, given the limited knowledge available on gender-dependent longer-term outcomes after major trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective longitudinal survey of consecutive trauma survivors with a New Injury Severity Score ≥8, comparing working capacity and outcome scores of male versus female patients at 1- and 2-y follow-ups (trauma medical outcomes study Short Form-36, Euro Quality of Life [EuroQoL], Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS]; mean + standard deviation; univariate analysis [Pearson's r]; P < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 335 major trauma patients (71% male; aged 54.8 ± 18.8 y; New Injury Severity Score 18.6 ± 9.3) participated at both follow-up time points. Overall, a significant improvement in patients' working capacity was found (P < 0.001) in the second year after trauma compared with 1 y earlier. At 2 y, 24% of working patients were still suffering from a diminished capacity to work. Improvements in working capacity correlated only weakly with outcome scores; best in the GOS (r = 0.23) and the EuroQol (r = 0.22). Women, but not men, demonstrated a significant improvement in quality of life (QoL) over time: to a higher level, for example, on the GOS (P = 0.001), the EuroQoL (P = 0.018), and the physical component of the Short Form-36 (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal longer-term follow-up found an overall improvement in capacity to work for both genders in the second year after major trauma. Surprisingly, only women demonstrated significant improvements in measures of health-related QoL and functional outcome-a finding that has to be further evaluated in greater detail in larger systematic evaluations.

Longer-term quality of life following major trauma: age only significantly affects outcome after the age of 80 years.

AIM: Against the background of conflicting data on the topic, this study aimed to determine the differences in longer-term patient outcomes following major trauma with regard to age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective trauma center survey of survivors of trauma (≥16 years) was carried out employing a New Injury Severity Score (NISS) ≥8 to investigate the influence of age on working capacity and several outcome scores, such as the trauma medical outcomes study Short Form-36 (physical component [PCS] and mental component [MCS]), the Euro Quality of Life (EuroQoL), or the Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP) at least 1 year following injury. Chi square tests, t-tests, and Pearson correlations were used as univariate; stepwise regression as multivariate analysis. Significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: In all, 718 major trauma patients (53.4±19.4 years; NISS 18.4±9.2) participated in the study. Multivariate analysis showed only low associations of patient or trauma characteristics with longer-term outcome scores, highest for the Injury Severity Score of the extremities with the PCS (R2=0.08) or the working capacity of employed patients (n=383; R2=0.04). For age, overall associations were even lower (best with the PCS, R2=0.04) or could not be revealed at all (TOP or MCS). Subgroup analysis with regard to decennia revealed the age effect to be mainly attributable to patients aged ≥80, who presented with a significantly worse outcome compared to younger people in all overall and physical component scores (p<0.001). In patients under 80 years an association of age was only found for EuroQoL (R2=0.01) and the PCS (R2=0.03). CONCLUSION: Given the small impact of age on the longer-term outcomes of major trauma patients, at least up to the age of 80 years, resuscitation as well as rehabilitation strategies should be adapted accordingly.

Adherence to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy one year after osteoporotic fracture - a Swiss trauma center secondary prevention project.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: According to current evidence, one out of ten fracture patients with osteoporosis does not sustain another fracture if he or she is on adequate medication. However, epidemiological surveys show that only about 15 to 30% of affected patients avail themselves of the treatments. This cohort study investigated how many fracture patients with a recommendation for antiosteoporotic therapy effectively received treatment and the possible reasons why the treatment was not implemented. METHODS: As part of a quality improvement programme in a Swiss trauma centre, fracture patients were actively checked for osteoporosis in accordance with a standardised outpatient programme. The results, together with detailed therapy recommendations, were transmitted to each patient's general practitioner (GP). A prospective questionnaire survey evaluated all patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis for subsequent realisation of therapy 1 year after the fracture (mean ± standard deviation; chi-square; analysis of variance; significance level p <0.05). RESULTS: A total of 305 patients received a recommendation for antiosteoporotic therapy, of whom 18 (5.9%) died before 1 year. The questionnaire was completed for 255 out of 287 patients (follow-up 88.9%; 73.8±11.5 years old at the time of survey; 77.7% female). Of these, 117 patients (45.9%) sustained a fracture of the lower extremities and 105 patients (41.1%) a fracture of the upper extremities; 33 patients (13%) had other or multiple fractures. Fifty-two cases (20.4%) had pre-existing osteoporosis at the time of fracture. At the 1-year follow-up, 132 (52%) patients were receiving prescribed drugs. The most frequent patient explanation for not taking treatment (n = 123) was, in 47.2% of cases (n = 58), that none had been prescribed; 30.1% of patients were not interested. Multivariate analysis of verifiable factors of influence confirmed that fracture patients were treated significantly more reliably with antiosteoporotic therapy if osteoporosis was diagnosed with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry alone in patients with fewer comorbidities, and that fracture patients persisted significantly more reliably with antiosteoporotic therapies when pre-existing osteoporosis was present (R2 0.17; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Following a standardised diagnostic work up for osteoporosis as part of fracture treatment, and including the communication of recommendations for antiosteoporotic therapy to the GP, only every second patient actually received the proposed treatment. This appears to be better than described in the literature but still calls for improvement. Two different solutions appear to be possible based on these findings: to endeavour to better inform and convince GPs about the need for treatment and/or for the diagnosing team to initiate antiosteoporotic therapy where indicated rather than just recommending it.

Screening for osteoporosis following non-vertebral fractures in patients aged 50 and older independently of gender or level of trauma energy-a Swiss trauma center approach.

Screening in a standardized manner for osteoporosis in non-vertebral fracture patients aged 50 and older independently of both gender and level of trauma energy yielded the indication for osteoporotic therapy for every fourth male high-energy fracture patient. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the rate of osteoporosis in patients of both genders after fracture independently of the underlying level of trauma energy. METHODS: A random cohort of patients aged 50 or older with non-vertebral fractures participated in a standardized diagnostic protocol to evaluate the indication for treatment of osteoporosis (number needed to screen (NNS)). Univariate and multivariate analysis as well as correlation testing were performed to determine statistical relationships. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 478 fracture patients with a mean age of 69.3 ± 11.8 years, 317 (66.3%) were female and 161 (33.7%) male. One hundred nineteen patients (24.9%) sustained high-energy fractures (HEFs) and 359 (75.1%) low-energy fractures (LEFs). Twenty-eight percent of males and 47% of females qualified as osteoporotic in densitometry (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)), resulting in a NNS of 2.1 for women and 3.6 for men. The indication for treatment of osteoporosis increased to an NNS of 1.5 for females and 2.4 for males if the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) was included in the diagnostics (DXA and FRAX). With regard to the energy of trauma, the NNS for treatment following DXA and FRAX was 1.5 for LEF and 2.9 for HEF. Subgroup analysis revealed that HEF males within the decennia 50+ and 80+ had an NNS of around 3, i.e., comparable to females and about twice as high as LEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings appear to confirm the pragmatic approach to screening in a standardized manner for osteoporosis in all non-vertebral fracture patients aged 50 and older-independently of both gender and level of trauma energy.