67
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Right care, right time, right place: improving outcomes for people with spinal cord injury through early access to intervention and improved access to specialised care: study protocol

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Traumatic spinal cord injury is a devastating condition impacting adversely on the health and wellbeing, functioning and independence, social participation and quality of life of the injured person. In Australia, there are approximately 15 new cases per million population per year; economic burden estimates suggest 2 billion dollars annually. For optimal patient outcomes expert consensus recommends expeditious transfer (“<24 hours of injury”) to a specialist Spinal Cord Injury Unit, where there is an interdisciplinary team equipped to provide comprehensive care for the many and complex issues associated with traumatic spinal cord injury. No study of this patient population has been undertaken, that assessed the extent to which care received reflected clinical guidelines, or examined the patient journey and outcomes in relation to this. The aims of this study are to describe the nature and timing of events occurring before commencement of specialist care, and to quantify the association between these events and patient outcomes.

          Methods and design

          The proposed observational study will recruit a prospective cohort over two years, identified at participating sites across two Australian states; Victoria and New South Wales. Included participants will be aged 16 years and older and diagnosed with a traumatic spinal cord injury. Detailed data will be collected from the point of injury through acute care and subacute rehabilitation, discharge from hospital and community reintegration. Items will include date, time, location and external cause of injury; ambulance response, assessments and management; all episodes of hospital care including assessments, vital signs, diagnoses and treatment, inter-hospital transfers, surgical interventions and their timing, lengths of stay and complications. Telephone follow-up of survivors will be conducted at 6, 12 and 24 months.

          Discussion

          There is limited population level data on the effect of delayed commencement of specialist care (>24 hours) in a Spinal Cord Injury Unit. Examining current health service and clinical intervention pathways in this Australian population-based sample, in relation to their outcomes, will provide an understanding of factors associated with patient flow, resource utilisation and cost, and patient and family quality of life. Barriers to streamlined effective early-care pathways and facilitators of optimal treatment for these patients will be identified.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality.

          Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients.

            The Functional Independence Measurement (FIM) is a new functional status instrument for use among rehabilitation inpatients, but its validity and reliability have been only partially established. Because of its rapid dissemination, we sought further evidence concerning the FIM's internal consistency, responsiveness over time, and construct validity. We examined Uniform Data System (UDS) data on 11,102 general rehabilitation inpatients from the Pacific Northwest. Mean age was 65 and 51% were male. The most common diagnoses were stroke (52%), orthopedic conditions (10%), and brain injury (10%). Internal consistency of the FIM was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. To assess FIM responsiveness, we examined differences between admission and discharge FIM scores. For construct validation purposes, we hypothesized that the FIM would vary with age, comorbidity, discharge destination, and impairment severity. Comorbidity was quantified with the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The FIM had a high overall internal consistency (discharge FIM alpha = .93). The FIM registered significant functional gains during rehabilitation (33% FIM score improvement, p < .001), as do many other functional status indicators. The greatest and least functional improvements were observed for traumatic brain injury and low back pain (53% and 8% FIM score improvement, respectively). The FIM discriminates patients on the basis of age, comorbidity, and discharge destination. Severity differences could be distinguished among spinal cord injury and stroke patients. We conclude that the FIM has high internal consistency and adequate discriminative capabilities for rehabilitation patients. It is a good indicator of burden of care, and demonstrates some responsiveness, but its capacity to measure change over time needs further examination and comparison with competing scales.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury Worldwide: A Systematic Review

              Background: Incidence studies of spinal cord injury (SCI) are important for health-care planning and epidemiological research. This review gives a quantitative update on SCI epidemiology worldwide through a statistical evaluation of incidence rates. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. For each study, the crude rate ratio was calculated and, when possible, age- and gender-adjusted incidence rate ratios with 95% CI were determined by direct adjustment or using Poisson regression. Results: Thirteen studies were included. Annual crude incidence rates in traumatic SCI varied from 12.1 per million in The Netherlands to 57.8 per million in Portugal. Compared to the Portuguese reference study, incidence rates showed a 3-fold variation, with the highest rates in Canada and Portugal. Most traumatic SCI studies showed a bimodal age distribution. The first peak was found in young adults between 15 and 29 years and a second peak in older adults (mostly ≧65 years). Motor vehicle accidents and falls were the most prevalent causes of injury accounting for nearly equal percentages. In contrast, another age pattern in non-traumatic SCI reflected steadily increasing incidence with advancing age. Conclusions: The results show significant variation in SCI incidence with changing epidemiological patterns. A trend towards increased incidence in the elderly was observed, likely due to falls and non-traumatic injury.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                james.middleton@sydney.edu.au
                lisa.sharwood@sydney.edu.au
                Peter.Cameron@monash.edu
                pmmiddleton@gmail.com
                james.harrison@flinders.edu.au
                doug.brown@thesri.org
                rmcclure@cdc.gov
                karen.smith@ambulance.vic.gov.au
                smuecke@ambulance.nsw.gov.au
                sarah.healy@thesri.org
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                5 December 2014
                5 December 2014
                2014
                : 14
                : 1
                : 600
                Affiliations
                [ ]The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [ ]Department of Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Sydney, Australia
                [ ]Discipline of Emergency Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [ ]Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia
                [ ]The Spinal Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, Boston, USA
                [ ]Ambulance Victoria, Research and Evaluation, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]NSW Ambulance, New South Wales, Australia
                [ ]Distributed Research in Emergency and Acute Medicine (DREAM) Collaboration, Sydney, Australia
                [ ]University Western Australia, Perth, Australia
                Article
                600
                10.1186/s12913-014-0600-7
                4267049
                25477157
                fbe18887-f82e-4e74-9f9e-5504e3ab7cbf
                © Middleton et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 September 2014
                : 12 November 2014
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Health & Social care
                acute traumatic spinal cord injury,clinical pathways,patient flow,trauma systems,access to specialist care,quality of care,outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content91

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors654