Abstract
Purpose Besides mortality, the patient-reported outcome (PRO) in survivors of multiple trauma is of increasing interest. So far, no data on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after multiple trauma from an entire trauma network are available. Within this study, the course of the PRO over time and differences between level I and level II trauma centers within an entire trauma network was ...
Abstract
Purpose Besides mortality, the patient-reported outcome (PRO) in survivors of multiple trauma is of increasing interest. So far, no data on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after multiple trauma from an entire trauma network are available. Within this study, the course of the PRO over time and differences between level I and level II trauma centers within an entire trauma network was evaluated. Methods Multiple injured patients, treated in a rural trauma network over 2 years, were prospectively included in this study. After 6, 12 and 24 months the results of the European Quality of Life (EuroQoL) EQ-5D outcome instrument were evaluated. To adjust for differences in trauma severity between level I and level II centers, the Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC II) and the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) were used to adjust the life-quality results of patients. Results 501 patients were included, 118 patients with an ISS < 16 points, 383 patients reached 16 points or more. Despite a steady increase of EQ-5D index over time (6 months: 0.71 +/- 0.31; 12 months: 0.74 +/- 0.28; 24 months: 0.76 +/- 0.27; p < 0.001), the values of a reference population could not be reached even 2 years after trauma (EQ-5D reference population: 0.9). After adjustment for trauma severity, no significant differences in PROMs between level I and level II centers could be detected (p = 0.188). Conclusion The consistently low EQ-5D index relative the reference population and the lack of a difference between level I and II centers suggest that improved strategies for polytrauma aftercare are called for.
Altmetric