1. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(author)
-
Prehospital Trauma Care among 68 European Neurotrauma Centers : Results of the CENTER-TBI Provider Profiling Questionnaires
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 36:1, s. 176-181
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The first hour following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered crucial to prevent death and disability. It is, however, not established yet how the prehospital care should be organized to optimize recovery during the first hour. The objective of the current study was to examine variation in prehospital trauma care across Europe aiming to inform comparative effectiveness analyses on care for neurotrauma patients. A survey on prehospital trauma care was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers from 20 European countries participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study. The survey was developed using literature review and expert opinion and was pilot tested in 16 centers. All participants completed the questionnaire. Advanced life support was used in half of the centers (n = 35; 52%), whereas the other centers used mainly basic life support (n = 26; 38%). A mobile medical team (MMT) could be dispatched 24/7 in most centers (n = 66; 97%). Helicopters were used in approximately half of the centers to transport the MMT to the scene (n = 39; 57%) and the patient to the hospital (n = 31, 46%). Half of the centers used a stay-and-play approach at the scene (n = 37; 55%), while the others used a scoop-and-run approach or another policy. We found wide variation in prehospital trauma care across Europe. This may reflect differences in socio-economic situations, geographic differences, and a general lack of strong evidence for some aspects of prehospital care. The current variation provides the opportunity to study the effectiveness of prehospital interventions and systems of care in comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
2. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(author)
-
Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury : A survey in 70 European neurotrauma centres participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 49:5, s. 395-401
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in structural and process characteristics of acute in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care for patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe.DESIGN: Survey study, of neurotrauma centres.METHODS: A 14-item survey about in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care was sent to 71 neurotrauma centres participating in a European multicentre study (CENTER-TBI). The questionnaire was developed based on literature and expert opinion and was pilot-tested before sending out to the centres.RESULTS: Seventy (99%) centres in 20 countries completed the survey. The included centres were predominately academic level I trauma centres. Among the 70 centres, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team can be consulted at 41% (n = 29) of the intensive care units and 49% (n = 34) of the wards. Only 13 (19%) centres used rehabilitation guidelines in patients with traumatic brain injury. Age was reported as a major determinant of referral decisions in 32 (46%) centres, with younger patients usually referred to specialized rehabilitation centres, and patients ≥ 65 years also referred to nursing homes or local hospitals.CONCLUSION: Substantial variation exists in structural and process characteristics of in-hospital acute rehabilitation and referral to post-acute rehabilitation facilities among neurotrauma centres across Europe.
|
|
3. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(author)
-
Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury : Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study
- 2016
-
In: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLOS). - 1932-6203. ; 11:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions.RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers.CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.
|
|
4. |
- Foks, Kelly A., et al.
(author)
-
Management of mild traumatic brain injury at the emergency department and hospital admission in Europe : A survey of 71 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 34:17, s. 2529-2535
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Previous studies have indicated that there is no consensus about management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) at the emergency department (ED) and during hospital admission. We aim to study variability between management policies for TBI patients at the ED and hospital ward across Europe. Centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study received questionnaires about different phases of TBI care. These questionnaires included 71 questions about TBI management at the ED and at the hospital ward. We found differences in how centers defined mTBI. For example, 40 centers (59%) defined mTBI as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score between 13-15 and 26 (38%) as a GCS score between 14-15. At the ED various guidelines for the use of head CT in mTBI patients were used; 32 centers (49%) used national guidelines, 10 centers (15%) local guidelines and 14 centers (21%) used no guidelines at all. Also differences in indication for admission between centers were found. After ED discharge, 7 centers (10%) scheduled a routine follow-up appointment, while 38 (54%) did so only after ward admission. In conclusion, large between-center variation exists in policies for diagnostics, admission and discharge decisions in patients with mTBI at the ED and in hospital. Guidelines are not always operational in centers, and reported policies systematically diverge from what is recommended in those guidelines. The results of this study may be useful in the understanding of mTBI care in Europe and show the need for further studies on the effectiveness of different policies on outcome.
|
|
5. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(author)
-
Variation in Blood Transfusion and Coagulation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury at the Intensive Care Unit : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 35:2, s. 323-332
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Our aim was to describe current approaches and to quantify variability between European intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Therefore, we conducted a provider profiling survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The ICU Questionnaire was sent to 68 centers from 20 countries across Europe and Israel. For this study, we used ICU questions focused on 1) hemoglobin target level (Hb-TL), 2) coagulation management, and 3) deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis. Seventy-eight participants, mostly intensivists and neurosurgeons of 66 centers, completed the ICU questionnaire. For ICU-patients, half of the centers (N = 34; 52%) had a defined Hb-TL in their protocol. For patients with TBI, 26 centers (41%) indicated an Hb-TL between 70 and 90 g/L and 38 centers (59%) above 90 g/L. To treat trauma-related hemostatic abnormalities, the use of fresh frozen plasma (N = 48; 73%) or platelets (N = 34; 52%) was most often reported, followed by the supplementation of vitamin K (N = 26; 39%). Most centers reported using DVT prophylaxis with anticoagulants frequently or always (N = 62; 94%). In the absence of hemorrhagic brain lesions, 14 centers (21%) delayed DVT prophylaxis until 72 h after trauma. If hemorrhagic brain lesions were present, the number of centers delaying DVT prophylaxis for 72 h increased to 29 (46%). Overall, a lack of consensus exists between European ICUs on blood transfusion and coagulation management. The results provide a baseline for the CENTER-TBI study, and the large between-center variation indicates multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
6. |
- Velt, Kimberley Bernadette, et al.
(author)
-
Emergency department overcrowding : a survey among European neurotrauma centres
- 2018
-
In: Emergency Medicine Journal. - : BioMed Central. - 1472-0205 .- 1472-0213. ; 35:7, s. 447-448
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: ED overcrowding is an increasing problem worldwide that may negatively affect quality of care and patient outcomes. We aimed to study ED overcrowding across European centres.METHODS: Questionnaires on structure and process of care, including crowding, were distributed to 68 centres participating in a large European study on traumatic brain injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury).RESULTS: Of the 65 centres included in the analysis, 32 (49%) indicated that overcrowding was a frequent problem and 28 (43%) reported that patients were placed in hallways 'multiple times a day'; 27 (41%) stated that multiple times a day, there was no bed available when a patient needed to be admitted. Ambulance diversion rarely occurred in the participating centres.CONCLUSION: Similar to reports from other parts of the world, ED crowding appears to be a considerable problem in Europe. More research is needed to determine effective ways to reduce overcrowding.
|
|
7. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(author)
-
Variation in Guideline Implementation and Adherence Regarding Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment : A CENTER-TBI Survey Study in Europe
- 2019
-
In: World Neurosurgery. - : Elsevier. - 1878-8750 .- 1878-8769. ; 125, s. e515-e520
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence.METHODS: As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation.RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were "every patient is unique" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.
|
|
8. |
- Zeiler, Frederick A., et al.
(author)
-
Patient-specific ICP Epidemiologic Thresholds in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury : A CENTER-TBI Validation Study
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0898-4921 .- 1537-1921.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patient-specific epidemiologic intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) have emerged, using the relationship between pressure reactivity index (PRx) and ICP, displaying stronger association with outcome over existing guideline thresholds. The goal of this study was to explore this relationship in a multi-center cohort in order to confirm the previous finding.METHODS: Using the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) high-resolution intensive care unit cohort, we derived individualized epidemiologic ICP thresholds for each patient using the relationship between PRx and ICP. Mean hourly dose of ICP was calculated for every patient for the following thresholds: 20, 22 mm Hg and the patient's individual ICP threshold. Univariate logistic regression models were created comparing mean hourly dose of ICP above thresholds to dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, based on Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead-GOSE≥2/GOSE=1; favorable/unfavorable-GOSE 5 to 8/GOSE 1 to 4, respectively).RESULTS: Individual thresholds were identified in 65.3% of patients (n=128), in keeping with previous results (23.0±11.8 mm Hg [interquartile range: 14.9 to 29.8 mm Hg]). Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual threshold provides superior discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC]=0.678, P=0.029) over mean hourly dose above 20 mm Hg (AUC=0.509, P=0.03) or above 22 mm Hg (AUC=0.492, P=0.035) on univariate analysis for alive/dead outcome at 6 to 12 months. The AUC for mean hourly dose above individual threshold trends to higher values for favorable/unfavorable outcome, but fails to reach statistical significance (AUC=0.610, P=0.060). This was maintained when controlling for baseline admission characteristics.CONCLUSIONS: Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual epidemiologic ICP threshold has stronger associations with mortality compared with the dose above Brain Trauma Foundation defined thresholds of 20 or 22 mm Hg, confirming prior findings. Further studies on patient-specific epidemiologic ICP thresholds are required.
|
|
9. |
|
|