Objective: Severe traumatic brain injury is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in young adults. Assessing long-term neurological outcome after such injury is difficult and often characterised by uncertainty. The objective of this feasibility study was to establish the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre prospective study to develop a prognostic model of long-term neurological outcome in critically ill patients with severe traumatic brain injury.Design: A prospective cohort study.Setting: 9 Canadian intensive care units enrolled patients suffering from acute severe traumatic brain injury. Clinical, biological, radiological and electrophysiological data were systematically collected during the first week in the intensive care unit. Mortality and functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale extended) were assessed on hospital discharge, and then 3, 6 and 12 months following injury.Outcomes: The compliance to protocolised test procedures was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were enrolment rate and compliance to follow-up.Results: We successfully enrolled 50 patients over a 12-month period. Most patients were male (80%), with a median age of 45 years (IQR 29.0-60.0), a median Injury Severity Score of 38 (IQR 25-50) and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 6 (IQR 3-7). Mortality was 38% (19/50) and most deaths occurred following a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies (18/19). The main reasons for non-enrolment were the time window for inclusion being after regular working hours (35%, n=23) and oversight (24%, n=16). Compliance with protocolised test procedures ranged from 92% to 100% and enrolment rate was 43%. No patients were lost to follow-up at 6 months and 2 were at 12 months.Conclusions: In this multicentre prospective feasibility study, we achieved feasibility objectives pertaining to compliance to test, enrolment and follow-up. We conclude that the TBI-Prognosis prospective multicentre study in severe traumatic brain injury patients in Canada is feasible.

Abstract Purpose: Investigate health care providers’ perceptions of referral and admission criteria to brain injury inpatient rehabilitation in two Canadian provinces. Methods: Health care providers (n = 345) from brain injury programs (13 acute care and 16 rehabilitation facilities) participated in a cross-sectional web-based survey. The participants rated the likelihood of patients (traumatic brain injury and cerebral hypoxia) to be referred/admitted to rehabilitation and the influence of 19 additional factors (e.g., tracheostomy). The participants reported the perceived usefulness of referral/admission policies and assessment tools used. Results: Ninety-one percent acute care and 98% rehabilitation participants reported the person with traumatic brain injury would likely or very likely be referred/admitted to rehabilitation compared to respectively 43% and 53% for the patient with hypoxia. Two additional factors significantly decreased the likelihood of referral/admission: older age and the combined presence of minimal learning ability, memory impairment and physical aggression. Some significant inter-provincial variations in the perceived referral/admission procedure were observed. Most participants reported policies were helpful. Similar assessment tools were used in acute care and rehabilitation. Conclusions: Health care providers appear to consider various factors when making decisions regarding referral and admission to rehabilitation. Variations in the perceived likelihood of referral/admission suggest a need for standardized referral/admission practices. Implications for Rehabilitation Various patient characteristics influence clinicians’ decisions when selecting appropriate candidates for inpatient rehabilitation. In this study, acute care clinicians were less likely to refer patients that their rehabilitation counter parts would likely have admitted and a patient with hypoxic brain injury was less likely to be referred or admitted in rehabilitation than a patient with a traumatic brain injury. Such discrepancies suggest that policy-makers, managers and clinicians should work together to develop and implement more standardized referral practices and more specific admission criteria in order to ensure equitable access to brain injury rehabilitation services.

BackgroundAccess to specialised trauma care is an important measure of trauma system efficiency. However, few data are available on access to integrated trauma systems. We aimed to describe access to trauma centres (TCs) in an integrated Canadian trauma system and identify its determinants.MethodsWe conducted a population-based cohort study including all injured adults admitted to acute care hospitals in the province of Québec between 2006 and 2011. Proportions of injured patients transported directly or transferred to TCs were assessed. Determinants of access were identified through a modified Poisson regression model and a relative importance analysis was used to determine the contribution of each independent variable to predicting access.ResultsOf the 135,653 injury admissions selected, 75% were treated within the trauma system. Among 25,522 patients with major injuries [International Classification of diseases Injury Severity Score (ICISS<0.85)], 90% had access to TCs. Access was higher for patients aged under 65, men and among patients living in more remote areas (p-value <0.001). The region of residence followed by injury mechanism, number of trauma diagnoses, injury severity and age were the most important determinants of access to trauma care.ConclusionsIn an integrated, mature trauma system, we observed high access to TCs. However, problems in access were observed for the elderly, women and in urban areas where there are many non-designated hospitals. Access to trauma care should be monitored as part of quality of care improvement activities and pre-hospital guidelines for trauma patients should be applied uniformly throughout the province.

BACKGROUND:According to Donabedian's health care quality model, improvements in the structure of care should lead to improvements in clinical processes that should in turn improve patient outcome. This model has been widely adopted by the trauma community but has not yet been validated in a trauma system. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of an integrated trauma system in terms of structure, process, and outcome and evaluate the correlation between quality domains.METHODS:Quality of care was evaluated for patients treated in a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 centers, n = 63,971) using quality indicators (QIs) developed and validated previously. Structural performance was measured by transposing on-site accreditation visit reports onto an evaluation grid according to American College of Surgeons criteria. The composite process QI was calculated as the average sum of proportions of conformity to 15 process QIs derived from literature review and expert opinion. Outcome performance was measured using risk-adjusted rates of mortality, complications, and readmission as well as hospital length of stay (LOS). Correlation was assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficients.RESULTS:Statistically significant correlations were observed between structure and process QIs (r = 0.33), and process and outcome QIs (r = -0.33 for readmission, r = -0.27 for LOS). Significant positive correlations were also observed between outcome QIs (r = 0.37 for mortality-readmission; r = 0.39 for mortality-LOS and readmission-LOS; r = 0.45 for mortality-complications; r = 0.34 for readmission-complications; 0.63 for complications-LOS).CONCLUSION:Significant correlations between quality domains observed in this study suggest that Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model is a valid model for evaluating trauma care. Trauma centers that perform well in terms of structure also tend to perform well in terms of clinical processes, which in turn has a favorable influence on patient outcomes.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic study, level III.

Background Unplanned readmissions cost the US economy approximately $17 billion in 2009 with a 30-day incidence of 19.6%. Despite the recognised impact of socio–economic status (SES) on readmission in diagnostic populations such as cardiovascular patients, its impact in trauma patients is unclear. We examined the effect of SES on unplanned readmission following injury in a setting with universal health insurance. We also evaluated whether additional adjustment for SES influenced risk-adjusted readmission rates, used as a quality indicator (QI). Study design We conducted a multicenter cohort study in an integrated Canadian trauma system involving 56 adult trauma centres using trauma registry and hospital discharge data collected between 2005 and 2010. The main outcome was unplanned 30-day readmission; all cause, due to complications of injury and due to subsequent injury. SES was determined using ecological indices of material and social deprivation. Odds ratios of readmission and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for covariates were generated using multivariable logistic regression with a correction for hospital clusters. We then compared a readmission QI validated previously (original QI) to a QI with additional adjustment for SES (SES-adjusted QI) using the mean absolute difference. Results The cohort consisted of 52,122 trauma admissions of which 6.5% were rehospitalised within 30 days of discharge. Compared to patients in the lowest quintile of social deprivation, those in the highest quintile had a 20% increase in the odds of all-cause unplanned readmission (95% CI = 1.06–1.36) and a 27% increase in the odds of readmission due to complications of injury (95% CI = 1.04–1.54). No association was observed for material deprivation or for readmissions due to subsequent injuries. We observed a strong agreement between the original and SES-adjusted readmission (mean absolute difference = 0.04%). Conclusions Patients admitted for traumatic injury who suffer from social deprivation have an increased risk of unplanned rehospitalisation due to complications of injury in the 30 days following discharge. Better discharge planning or follow up for such patients may improve patient outcome and resource use for trauma admissions. Despite observed associations, results suggest that the trauma QI based on unplanned readmission does not require additional adjustment for SES.

# Outcomes and opportunities for improvement in self-inflicted blunt and penetrating trauma {#article-title-2} Self-inflicted trauma (SIT) is a public health issue ranking 4th as leading cause of death and disability in young adults. Retrospective descriptive analysis of patients admitted to a

BackgroundFew data are available on population-based access to specialised trauma care and its influence on patient outcomes in an integrated trauma system. We aimed to evaluate the influence of access to an integrate trauma system on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS).MethodsAll adults admitted to acute care hospitals for major trauma [International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score (ICISS<0.85)] in a Canadian province with an integrated trauma system between 2006 and 2011 were included using an administrative hospital discharge database. The influence of access to an integrated trauma system on in-hospital mortality and LOS was assessed globally and for critically injured patients (ICISS<0.75), according to the type of injury [traumatic brain injury (TBI), abdominal/thoracic, spine, orthopaedic] using logistic and linear multivariable regression models.ResultsWe identified 22,749 injury admissions. In-hospital mortality was 7% and median LOS was 9 days for all injuries. Overall, 92% of patients were treated within the trauma system. Globally, patients who did not have access had similar mortality and LOS compared to patients who had access. However, we observed a 62% reduction in mortality for critical abdominal/thoracic injuries (odds ratio=0.38; 95% CI, 0.16–0.92) and an 8% increase in LOS for TBI patients (geometric mean ratio=1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.14) treated within the trauma system.ConclusionsResults provides evidence that in a health system with an integrated mature trauma system, access to specialised trauma care is high and the small proportion of patients treated outside the system, have similar mortality and LOS compared to patients treated within the system. This study suggests that the Québec trauma system performs well in its mandate to offer appropriate treatment to victims of injury that require specialised care.

OBJECTIVE:To describe acute care length of stay (LOS) over all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury and according to level of care [intensive care unit (ICU), intermediate care, general ward], compare observed and expected LOS, and identify predictors of LOS.BACKGROUND:Prolonged LOS has important consequences in terms of costs and outcome, yet detailed information on LOS after trauma is lacking.METHODS:This multicenter retrospective cohort study was based on adults discharged alive from a Canadian trauma system (1999-2010; n = 126,513). Registry data were used to calculate index LOS (LOS in trauma center with highest designation level) and were linked to hospital discharge data to calculate total LOS (all consecutive hospitalizations for the injury). Expected LOS was obtained by matching general provincial discharge statistics to study data by year, age, and sex. Potential predictors of LOS were evaluated using linear regression.RESULTS:Mean index and total LOS were 8.6 and 9.4 days, respectively. ICU, intermediate care unit, and general ward care constituted 8.9%, 2.5%, and 88.6% of total hospital days. Observed mean index and ICU LOS in our trauma patients were 2.9 and 1.3 days longer than expected LOS (P < 0.0001). The strongest determinants of index LOS were discharge destination, age, transfer status, and injury severity.CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that acute care LOS after injury is underestimated when only information on the index hospitalization is used and that ICU or intermediate care constitute an important part of LOS. This information should be used to inform the development of an informative and actionable quality indicator.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned readmissions represent 20% of all admissions and cost $12 billion annually in the United States. Despite the burden of injuries for the health care system, no quality indicator (QI) based on readmissions is available to evaluate trauma care. The objective of this study was to derive and internally validate a QI for a 30-day unplanned hospital readmission to evaluate trauma care.METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in a Canadian integrated provincial trauma system. We included adults admitted to any of the 57 provincial trauma centers between 2005 and 2010 (n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and linked to the hospital discharge database. The primary outcome was unplanned readmission to an acute care hospital within 30 days of discharge. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for derivation of the risk adjustment model using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting.RESULTS: The risk adjustment model includes patient age, sex, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), region of the most severe injury, and 11 comorbid conditions. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation, 0.02) and is correlated with QIs that measure hospital performance in terms of clinical processes (r = -0.38), risk-adjusted mortality (r = 0.32), and complication rates (r = 0.38). In addition, performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.59).CONCLUSION: We have developed a QI based on risk-adjusted 30-day rates of unplanned readmission, which can be used to evaluate trauma care with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a comprehensive risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This research represents an essential step toward reducing unplanned readmission rates to improve resource use and patient outcomes following injury. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 76: 1310-1316. Copyright (C) 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)

The diffusion of phytochemicals in health promoting products is growing, but studies related to their effects on healthy subjects are still lacking despite the large consumption of natural products as nutraceuticals or food supplements. In many cases, research supports the in vitro antioxidant activity of phytochemicals, but the health claims attributed to the final marketed nutraceutical products have dubious scientific foundation. Also, studies focussed on the definition of their biological targets and mechanisms of action can be useful to assess their efficacy and safety.In this study, the effect of oral administration of 80 mg/kg of Curcuma longa Linn. extract to 12 healthy rats over 25 days was evaluated by monitoring the changes of urinary composition. 24-h urine was collected during the animal experiment and the composition was analyzed by 1H NMR and HPLC–MS. The two datasets were studied individually through a metabolomic approach and the multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the control and the treated group. Curcumin levels were also measured in 24-h urine samples by HPLC–MS. Both the 1H NMR and the HPLC–MS dataset showed that the administration of 80 mg/kg of Curcuma longa extract to healthy animals induces changes in urinary composition. Decreased allantoin urinary levels can be considered a partial demonstration of the in vivo effect of curcumin on oxidative stress in a healthy animal model.

OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time to onset of delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax in adults who experienced a minor blunt thoracic trauma.METHOD:A prospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients was recruited. Eligible patients had to be over 16 years of age, consulted within 72 hours for a trauma, and available for outpatient follow-up at 2, 7, and 14 days posttrauma. The clinical outcome investigated was the presence of delayed pneumothorax or hemothorax on the follow-up chest x-ray.OUTCOMES:Delayed hemothorax occurred in 11.8% (95% CI 8.8-14.8), and delayed pneumothorax occurred in 0.9% (95% CI 0.2-2.3) of participants. During the 14-day follow-up period, 87.0% of these delayed complications developed in the first week. In the multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for delayed complications was the location of fractures on the x-ray of the hemithorax. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.52 (95% CI 0.62-3.73) for the lower ribs (tenth to twelfth rib), 3.11 (95% CI 1.60-6.08) for the midline ribs (sixth to ninth rib), and 5.05 (95% CI 1.80-14.19) for the upper ribs (third to fifth rib) versus patients with no fractures.CONCLUSION:The presence of at least one rib fracture between the third and ninth rib on the x-ray of the hemithorax is a significant risk factor for delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax.

OBJECTIVE:To derive and internally validate a quality indicator (QI) for acute care length of stay (LOS) after admission for injury.BACKGROUND:Unnecessary hospital days represent an estimated 20% of total LOS implying an important waste of resources as well as increased patient exposure to hospital-acquired infections and functional decline.METHODS:This study is based on a multicenter, retrospective cohort from a Canadian provincial trauma system (2005-2010; 57 trauma centers; n = 57,524). Data were abstracted from the provincial trauma registry and the hospital discharge database. Candidate risk factors were identified by expert consensus and selected for model derivation using bootstrap resampling. The validity of the QI was evaluated in terms of interhospital discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting.RESULTS:The risk adjustment model explains 37% of the variation in LOS. The QI discriminates well across trauma centers (coefficient of variation = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.011-0.028) and is correlated with the QI on processes of care (r = -0.32), complications (r = 0.66), unplanned readmissions (r = 0.38), and mortality (r = 0.35). Performance in 2005 to 2007 was predictive of performance in 2008 to 2010 (r = 0.80).CONCLUSIONS:We have developed a QI on the basis of risk-adjusted LOS to evaluate trauma care that can be implemented with routinely collected data. The QI is based on a robust risk adjustment model with good internal and temporal validity, and demonstrates good properties in terms of discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting. This QI can be used to target interventions to reduce LOS, which will lead to more efficient resource use and may improve patient outcomes after injury.

BACKGROUND: Process performance indicators that evaluate trauma centers in clinical case management provide information essential to the improvement of trauma care. However, multiple indicators are needed to adequately evaluate process performance, which renders comparisons cumbersome. Several methods are available for generating composite indicators that measure global performance. The goal of this study was to compare three composite methods that are widely used in other health care domains to identify the most appropriate for trauma care process performance evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, 15 process performance indicators were implemented using data from a Canadian provincial trauma registry (19,853 patients; 59 centers) on patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15. Composite scores were derived using three methods as follows: the indicator average, the opportunity model, and a latent variable model. Composite scores were evaluated in terms of discrimination, construct validity (association with an indicator of trauma center structural performance), criterion predictive validity (association with clinical outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). RESULTS: All composite scores discriminated well between trauma centers. Only the average indicator score was correlated with improved structure (r = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07–0.53), lower risk-adjusted mortality (r = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.04), and lower risk-adjusted complication rate (r = -0.48; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.25). Composite scores calculated with 1999 to 2002 data all correlated with those calculated with 2003 to 2006 data (r = 0.49, 0.87, and 0.84 for the indicator average, the opportunity model, and the latent variable model, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that of the three composite scores evaluated, only the indicator average demonstrates content and predictive criterion validity, discriminates between centers, and has good forecasting properties. In addition, this score is simple and intuitive and not subject to variation in weights over trauma systems and time. The observed association between higher indicator average scores and lower risk-adjusted mortality and complication rates suggests that improving process performance may improve patient outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic and prognostic study, level III.

Background: The evaluation of trauma center performance implies the use of indicators that evaluate clinical processes. Despite the availability of routinely collected clinical data in most trauma systems, quality improvement efforts are often limited to hospital-based audit of adverse patient outcomes. Objective: To identify and evaluate a series of process performance indicators (PPI) that can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. Materials and Methods: PPI were identified using a review of published literature, trauma system documentation, and expert consensus. Data from the 59 trauma centers of the Quebec trauma system (1999, 2006; N = 99,444) were used to calculate estimates of conformity to each PPI for each trauma center. Outliers were identified by comparing each center to the global mean. PPI were evaluated in terms of discrimination (between-center variance), construct validity (correlation with designation level and patient volume), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: Fifteen PPI were retained. Global proportions of conformity ranged between 6% for reduction of a major dislocation within 1 h and 97% for therapeutic laparotomy. Between-center variance was statistically significant for 13 PPI. Five PPI were significantly associated with designation level, 7 were associated with volume, and 11 were correlated over time. Conclusion: In our trauma system, results suggest that a series of 15 PPI supported by literature review or expert opinion can be calculated using routinely collected trauma registry data. We have provided evidence of their discrimination, construct validity, and forecasting properties. The between-center variance observed in this study highlights the importance of evaluating process performance in integrated trauma systems.

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time to onset of delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax in adults who experienced a minor blunt thoracic trauma. Method: A prospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients was recruited. Eligible patients had to be over 16 years of age, consulted within 72 hours for a trauma, and available for outpatient follow-up at 2, 7, and 14 days posttrauma. The clinical outcome investigated was the presence of delayed pneumothorax or hemothorax on the follow-up chest x-ray Outcomes: Delayed hemothorax occurred in 11.8% (95% CI 8.8-14.8), and delayed pneumothorax occurred in 0.9% (95% CI 0.2-2.3) of participants. During the 14-day follow-up period, 87.0% of these delayed complications developed in the first week. In the multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for delayed complications was the location of fractures on the x-ray of the hemithorax. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.52 (95% CI 0.62-3.73) for the lower ribs (tenth to twelfth rib), 3.11 (95% CI 1.60-6.08) for the midline ribs (sixth to ninth rib), and 5.05 (95% CI 1.80-14.19) for the upper ribs (third to fifth rib) versus patients with no fractures. Conclusion: The presence of at least one rib fracture between the third and ninth rib on the x-ray of the hemithorax is a significant risk factor for delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND:Indicators of structure, process, and outcome are required to evaluate the performance of trauma centers to improve the quality and efficiency of care. While periodic external accreditation visits are part of most trauma systems, a quantitative indicator of structural performance has yet to be proposed. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a trauma center structural performance indicator using accreditation report data.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Analyses were based on accreditation reports completed during on-site visits in the Quebec trauma system (1994-2005). Qualitative report data was retrospectively transposed onto an evaluation grid and the weighted average of grid items was used to quantify performance. The indicator of structural performance was evaluated in terms of test-retest reliability (kappa statistic), discrimination between centers (coefficient of variation), content validity (correlation with accreditation decision, designation level, and patient volume) and forecasting (correlation between visits performed in 1994-1999 and 1998-2005).RESULTS:Kappa statistics were >0.8 for 66 of the 73 (90%) grid items. Mean structural performance score over 59 trauma centers was 47.4 (95% CI: 43.6-51.1). Two centers were flagged as outliers and the coefficient of variation was 31.2% (95% CI: 25.5% to 37.6%), showing good discrimination. Correlation coefficients of associations with accreditation decision, designation level, and volume were all statistically significant (r = 0.61, -0.40, and 0.24, respectively). No correlation was observed over time (r = 0.03).CONCLUSION:This study demonstrates the feasibility of quantifying trauma center structural performance using accreditation reports. The proposed performance indicator shows good test-retest reliability, between-center discrimination, and construct validity. The observed variability in structural performance across centers and over-time underlines the importance of evaluating structural performance in trauma systems at regular intervals to drive quality improvement efforts.

OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and time to onset of delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax in adults who experienced a minor blunt thoracic trauma.METHOD:A prospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients was recruited. Eligible patients had to be over 16 years of age, consulted within 72 hours for a trauma, and available for outpatient follow-up at 2, 7, and 14 days posttrauma. The clinical outcome investigated was the presence of delayed pneumothorax or hemothorax on the follow-up chest x-ray.OUTCOMES:Delayed hemothorax occurred in 11.8% (95% CI 8.8-14.8), and delayed pneumothorax occurred in 0.9% (95% CI 0.2-2.3) of participants. During the 14-day follow-up period, 87.0% of these delayed complications developed in the first week. In the multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for delayed complications was the location of fractures on the x-ray of the hemithorax. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.52 (95% CI 0.62-3.73) for the lower ribs (tenth to twelfth rib), 3.11 (95% CI 1.60-6.08) for the midline ribs (sixth to ninth rib), and 5.05 (95% CI 1.80-14.19) for the upper ribs (third to fifth rib) versus patients with no fractures.CONCLUSION:The presence of at least one rib fracture between the third and ninth rib on the x-ray of the hemithorax is a significant risk factor for delayed hemothorax and pneumothorax.

Objectifs: Les objectifs de cette étude consistent à déterminer la prévalence, les facteurs de risque, et le délai d’apparition de l’hémothorax et du pneumothorax tardifs chez les adultes ayant subi un traumatisme thoracique mineur fermé. Méthode: Une cohorte prospective de 450 patients consécutifs a été recrutée. Les patients éligibles devaient être âgés de plus de 16 ans, avoir consulté en deçà de 72 heures pour un traumatisme et être disponibles pour un suivi ambulatoire à 2, 7, et 14 jours suivant le traumatisme. Le résultat clinique recherché était la présence d’hémothorax et de pneumothorax tardifs à la radiographie pulmonaire de contrôle. Résultats: L’hémothorax tardif est survenu chez 11,8% (IC95% 8,8–14,8%) et le pneumothorax tardif chez 0,9% (IC95% 0,2–2,3%) des participants. Au cours de la période de suivi de 14 jours, 87,0% de ces complications tardives se sont manifestées durant la première semaine. En analyse multivariée, le seul facteur de risque de complications tardives statistiquement significatif était la localisation des fractures sur la radiographie de l’hémithorax. Le rapport de cote ajusté se situe à 1,52 (IC95% 0,62–3,73) pour les côtes inférieures (10–12e côte), à 3,11 (IC95% 1,60–6,08) pour les côtes médianes (6–9e côte), et à 5,05 (IC95% 1,80–14,19) pour les côtes supérieures (troisième—cinquième côte) par rapport aux patients sans fracture. Conclusion: La présence d’au moins une fracture de côte entre la troisième et la neuvième côte à la radiographie de l’hémithorax est un facteur de risque significatif d’hémothorax et de pneumothorax tardifs.

BackgroundElderly trauma patients represent a unique clientele requiring specialised care but they rarely benefit from standardised care strategies within trauma systems. We aimed to evaluate whether trauma centres with lower/higher than expected mortality amongst patients <65 years of age have similar results for geriatric patients. A secondary objective was to compare transfer to level I/II trauma centres across age groups.MethodsThe study was based on data from a Canadian provincial trauma registry (1999–2006). Outcome performance was evaluated with estimates of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality generated for each of the system's 57 adult trauma centres. Agreement in performance results was evaluated with correlation coefficients.ResultsThe study sample comprised 55,283 young adults (3.5% mortality) and 30,960 geriatric patients (8.2% mortality). The two age groups only had one out of six outliers in common. Hospital ranks amongst young adults were not correlated to those assigned amongst geriatric patients (r=0.01, 95%CI −0.25;0.27). Correlation was also low for patients with major trauma (r=0.20, 95%CI −0.06;0.44). Amongst patients with severe head injuries initially received in a level III/IV centre, 81% of young adults versus 71% of geriatric patients were transferred to a level I/II centre (p<0.0001).ConclusionsTrauma centres that have low risk-adjusted mortality for young adults do not necessarily do so for geriatric patients. In addition, geriatric patients with severe head injuries are less likely to be treated in neurosurgical trauma centres. Further research is needed to identify determinants of inter-hospital variation in outcome for geriatric trauma patients.