The interpretation of research in health care is essential to decision making. By understanding research, health care providers can identify risk factors, trends, outcomes for treatment, health care costs and best practices. To be effective in evaluating and interpreting research, the reader must first understand how to interpret the findings. You will practice article analysis in Topics 2, 3, and 5.
For this assignment:
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Article Analysis 1, (ARTICLE 2 AND 3)
Just from $13/Page
Search the GCU Library and find three different health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles that appear in the Topic Materials or textbook. Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis 1” template.
Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 1,” for an example of an article analysis.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Article Analysis 1
Article Citation and Permalink (APA format)
|
Article 1
Garí-Llanes, M., García-Nóbrega, Y., Chávez-González, E., González-Rodríguez, E., García-Sáez, J., & Llanes-Camacho, M. D. C. (
2
019). Biochemical markers and hypertension in children. MEDICC review, 21, 10-15.
Link: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=139234963&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1 x Citation Title:
Title:
Article 2
Eggenberger, T. L., Keller, K. B., Chase, S. K., & Payne, L. (2012). A quantitative approach to evaluating caring in nursing simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 406+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A313344870/PPNU?u=canyonuniv&sid=PPNU&xid=37339c7
Link: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A313344870/PPNU?u=canyonuniv&sid=PPNU&xid=37339c7a
|
Article 3
Wake, E., Battistella, T., Dale, K., Scott, M., Nelson, R., &Marshall, A.P. (2020). Evaluation of a Trauma Service: Patient and Family Perspectives. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 27(4), 216-224. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.ocic.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000517
Link: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=144597397&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds
|
|
Point
|
|
|
Description
|
Description
Description
|
Broad Topic Area/Title
|
Confirm an association between biochemical risk markers of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in children aged 8 to 11 years.
|
|
Identify Independent and Dependent Variables and Type of Data for the Variables
|
The following variables will be considered, these are the age, sex of individual, height, systolic, and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol level, triglycerides level, lipoproteins and Apo lipoproteins in the body respectively.
The children were reportedly classified as being either normotensive, with pre hypertensive or hypertensive, as applicable based on the assessment of blood pressure, based on both readings and the percentiles for the age, sex and height, of the individuals.
|
|
Population of Interest for the Study
|
The study is based on children between the ages of 8-11, selected from different background, and different school in a city known as Santa Clara in central Cuba
|
|
Sample
|
373 children
|
|
Sampling Method
|
Cross-sectional study of three primary schools was done
|
|
Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Median, Mode; Standard Deviation)
Identify examples of descriptive statistics in the article.
|
Example descriptive statistics:
Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative variables. A bi variate analysis, tests of independence for qualitative variables was conducted, and a mean comparison for quantitative variables (ANOVA and its nonparametric alternative, the Kruskal Wallis test) were also performed respectively. The Fisher’s F-test which is a test that is used in statistics, and its associated probability, which is known as the p value were employed.
A number of the children were normotensive while a percentage of them in total of 37.3% were both hypertensive and pre hypertensive.
Example of hypertensive, and pre hypertensive children in percentile is listed below as:
Percentile: 5.1% and 32.2%
|
|
Inferential Statistics
Identify examples of inferential statistics in the article.
|
Example of inferential statistics:
The inferential statistics used in the article compared the values, and levels of cholesterol, this is required by the body to make vitamins, and also build up cells, and that of triglycerides which is a fat like or lipid that is found in the blood, both were significantly higher in hypertensive children, in comparison to normotensive children (p = 0.028 and p = 0.047, respectively)
|
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
2
Loading…
Accessibility Information and Tips
Revised Date: 07/2015
Evaluation of a Trauma Service: Patient and Family Perspectives.
-
« Result List
-
Refine Search
-
Download PDF
Sign In
Folder
Help
☰
Evaluation of a Trauma Service: Patient and Family Perspectives.
Collapse Document Viewing Options
Document Viewing Options:
-
Detailed Record
-
PDF Full Text
Source:
Journal of Trauma Nursing
Date:
July 1,
2020
Inside this work
Full Text Contents
chapters 1 – 5
chapters 6 – 10
191
Let Your Light Shine.
193
The Need for Actions…
195
Modified Need for Tr…
200
Evaluation of Burnou…
207
Effectiveness of Mul…
216
Evaluation of a Trau…
225
Analysis of Mild Tra…
234
Effect of Pain Manag…
240
Implementation of an…
246
Sacral Pressure Inju…
Illustrations
-
HTML Full Text
Collapse Article
Tools
Tools
-
Google Drive
-
Print
-
E-mail
-
Add to folder
-
Cite
-
Export
-
Permalink
-
« Result List
-
Refine Search
-
Download PDF
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Ev#lu#tion of # Tr#um# Service: P#tient #nd F#mily Perspectives
Contents
PURPOSE
METHODS
Design
Setting
S1mple
D1t1 Collection
Me1surement Tools
D1t1 An1lysis
RESULTS Recruitment
Response R1tes
P1tient Ch1r1cteristics
Interview D1t1 — Likert Responses
TABLE 1 P1tient Demogr1phic Inform1tion
Interview D1t1 — Open Responses
TABLE 2 P1tient/F1mily Responses
DISCUSSION
Limit1tions
CONCLUSION
Acknowledgments
KEY POINTS
REFERENCES
References
Thompson, K. L., & W1nqing Zh1ng. (2020). Using Mixed
Methods Rese1rch to Better Underst1nd Pedi1tric
Feeding Disorder. Perspectives of the ASHA Speci1l
Interest Groups, 5(6), 1623.
Full Text
Listen
Americ1n Accent Austr1li1n Accent British Accent
B1ckground: P1tient s1tisf1ction is 1n indic1tor of the qu1lity of c1re th1t
underpins 1 p1tient’s he1lth c1re experience. A focus on both the p1tient 1nd the
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-2
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-3
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-4
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-5
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-6
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-7
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-8
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-9
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-10
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-11
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-12
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-13
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-14
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-15
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-16
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-17
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-18
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-19
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-20
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-21
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN0144597397-22
https://app-na-readspeaker-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=5845&lang=en_us&readid=rs_full_text_container_title&url=https%3A%2F%2Feds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org%2Feds%2Fdetail%2Fdetail%3Fvid%3D8%26sid%3D5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%2540sdc-v-sessmgr03%26bdata%3DJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d&speedValue=medium&download=true&audiofilename=EvaluationofaTraumaService-WakeElizabeth-20200701
f1mily is import1nt when ev1lu1ting s1tisf1ction from the perspective of p1tients
with tr1um1 1nd is consistent with delivery of p1tient- 1nd f1mily- centered c1re.
Using the liter1ture to guide development, we designed 1nd implemented 1
questionn1ire to ev1lu1te 1ttitudes 1nd experiences of p1tients 1nd f1milies c1se
m1n1ged by the tr1um1 service. This 1rticle reports the findings of this qu1lity
improvement project. Methods: A cross-section1l cohort pr1gm1tic design w1s
used. The questionn1ire w1s conducted with 142 tr1um1 p1tients 1nd 49 f1mily
members. D1t1 included hospit1l 1dmission d1t1, 1pplic1tion of 1 s1tisf1ction
tool, 1nd free text comments.
Results: Both p1tients 1nd their f1mily members r1ted the tr1um1 service highly in
the s1tisf1ction scoring. Differences in the communic1tion pr1ctices encountered
by p1tients 1nd f1milies were identified.
Conclusions: Str1tegies to involve f1mily members 1nd promote f1mily-centered
c1re 1re required in the context of tr1um1 p1tients to improve the s1fety, qu1lity,
1nd s1tisf1ction of the c1re they receive while being m1n1ged by the tr1um1
service.
Keywords: F1mily-centered nursing; Multiple tr1um1; P1tient-centered c1re;
P1tient s1tisf1ction
P1tient s1tisf1ction is 1n indic1tor of the qu1lity of c1re th1t underpins 1 p1tient’s
he1lth c1re experience (Muntlin, Gunningberg, & C1rlsson, 2006). P1tient
s1tisf1ction is usu1lly g1uged by surveying p1tients to underst1nd their views 1nd
perspectives on the qu1lity of c1re they receive (S1cks et 1l., 2015). Using p1tient
experiences is 1 v1lu1ble str1tegy to inform pr1ctice 1nd the development of
services 1nd is consistent with 1 p1tient-centered 1ppro1ch to c1re (ACSQHC,
2012). P1tient s1tisf1ction d1t1 c1n be collected through 1 wide 1rr1y of
v1lid1ted tools (Al-Abri & Al-B1lushi, 2014). However, using generic tools th1t 1re
not specific to p1tient groups c1n result in v1lu1ble inform1tion going undetected
(J1nssen, Ommen, Neugeb1uer, Lefering, & Pf1ff, 2007). Furthermore, the l1ck of
“person1liz1tion” c1n 1ffect the level of p1tient eng1gement, which suggests th1t
1 “one-size-fits-1ll 1ppro1ch” m1y not yield optim1l results (Jerofke-Owen, &
D1hlm1n, 2019). As 1 result, p1tient or condition-specific tools h1ve been
developed to ev1lu1te multiple concepts, including p1tient experience, hospit1l
qu1lity, p1tient expect1tions, 1nd p1tient- centered c1re (PCC; Hibb1rd, &
Greene, 2013).
Within the 1re1 of tr1um1, the reduction of tr1um1- rel1ted mort1lity, due to
1dv1nces in tr1um1 c1re delivery (G1bbe et 1l., 2007), me1ns the focus h1s
shifted to p1tient-reported outcomes 1s 1 m1rker of qu1lity c1re. Mul- titr1um1
p1tients c1n require complex coordin1ted c1re by multiple clinic1l te1ms 1nd
frequently experience long periods of hospit1liz1tion; therefore, underst1nding
their perceptions of s1tisf1ction is essenti1l to ensure the delivery of high-qu1lity
PCC (Ardolino, Sle1t, & Willett, 2012).
Determin1nts of s1tisf1ction of tr1um1 p1tients with 1cute hospit1liz1tion were
explored by J1nssen et 1l. (2007). Using v1lid1ted tools (Cologne P1tient
Questionn1ire 1nd SF-36), they determined th1t the perceived qu1lity of
psychosoci1l c1re h1d 1 signific1nt effect on 1 p1tient’s s1tisf1ction with his or
her hospit1l st1y. Although this study highlights key f1ctors influencing the
s1tisf1ction of seriously injured p1tients, the use of generic tools m1y not h1ve
c1ptured 1ll relev1nt inform1tion rel1ted to their experience through their
recovery.
Bobrovitz, S1nt1n1, B1ll, Kortbeek, 1nd Stelfox (2012) developed 1nd v1lid1ted 1
qu1ntit1tive survey instrument (Qu1lity of Tr1um1 C1re P1tient-Reported
Experience
Me1sure [QTAC-PREM]) to me1sure p1tient 1nd f1mily experiences with c1re
following m1jor injury. They found over1ll r1tings of s1tisf1ction to be high;
however, issues such 1s inform1tion 1nd communic1tion were highlighted 1s
1re1s for improvement. G1bbe et 1l. (2013), using in- depth, semistructured
interviews of 120 tr1um1 p1tients, identified communic1tion, inform1tion
provision, 1nd postdisch1rge c1re 1s 1re1s th1t p1tients identified requiring
improvement highlighting th1t 1 single point of cont1ct for coordin1ting
postdisch1rge c1re w1s desir1ble.
Although the 1forementioned work h1s helped develop our underst1nding of the
experiences of tr1um1 p1tients, they provide limited inform1tion on s1tisf1ction
with c1re from the perspective of the p1tient’s f1mily. However, m1ny p1tients
who experience tr1um1 m1y not be 1ble to effectively eng1ge bec1use of the
ongoing burden of injury (de Jongh et 1l., 2017). Furthermore, f1mily members
c1n experience neg1tive effects of unexpected hospit1liz1tion of 1 rel1tive with
reports of post- tr1um1tic stress disorder occurring in f1mily members up to 3
months 1fter the p1tient h1s been disch1rged from the intensive c1re unit (ICU;
Azoul1y et 1l., 2005).
Therefore, 1 focus on both the p1tient 1nd the f1mily is import1nt when
ev1lu1ting s1tisf1ction from the perspective of p1tients with tr1um1 1nd is
consistent with the delivery of p1tient 1nd f1mily-centered c1re, which is 1n
expect1tion of public, government, 1nd he1lth c1re providers worldwide
(ACSQHC, 2012; Fr1mpton, Pelik1n, & Wieczorek, 2016). Kellezi et 1l. (2015)
explored the inform1tion needs of both tr1um1 p1tients 1nd their c1rers 1nd
found th1t this 1ltered over time. Although this study recognized 1nd provided
insight into the needs of f1mily members of tr1um1 p1tients, the evidence rem1ins
sp1rse.
PURPOSE
In 2013, we est1blished 1 tr1um1 service 1t our institution, 1nd c1se m1n1gement
of p1tients commenced in Febru1ry 2014. The function of the tr1um1 service is to
c1se m1n1ge 1nd coordin1te the c1re of the multitr1u- m1 p1tient. The service
sees p1tients if they receive 1 tr1um1 c1ll 1ctiv1tion, sust1in injury to more th1n
one body system or injury involving chest or 1bdomen, 1nd/ or where the
mech1nism of injury w1s signific1nt. The tr1um1 service reviews the p1tient twice
d1ily 1nd coll1bor1tes with the wider multidisciplin1ry te1m on the c1re delivery
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
to the p1tient. Tr1um1 c1se m1n1gement h1s been shown to decre1se
complic1tion r1tes, incre1se 1llied he1lth referr1l r1tes, 1nd decre1se the time to
1llied he1lth intervention (Curtis, Zou, Morris, & Bl1ck, 2006). In 2015, we
ev1lu1ted the service from the perspective of multitr1um1 p1tients 1nd their
f1milies. Although the QTAC-PREM w1s 1n 1ppropri1te tool to use, we did not
h1ve 1dequ1te resources to 1dminister 1 survey of this length 1nd were
concerned with the potenti1l p1rticip1nt burden owing to 1 l1rge number of
response items. Using the liter1ture to guide development, we designed 1nd
implemented 1 questionn1ire, which encomp1ssed both qu1ntit1tive 1nd
qu1lit1tive items, to ev1lu1te the 1ttitudes 1nd experiences of p1tients 1nd
f1milies c1se m1n1ged by the tr1um1 service. This 1rticle reports the findings of
this qu1lity improvement project.
METHODS
Design
A cross-section1l cohort pr1gm1tic design w1s used with both qu1ntit1tive 1nd
qu1lit1tive d1t1 collected to en1ble 1ssessment of p1tient 1nd f1mily s1tisf1ction
with the tr1um1 service.
Setting
The study setting w1s 1 750-bed terti1ry he1lth service loc1ted in Austr1li1. The
institution receives more th1n 1,500 tr1um1 c1ll 1ctiv1tions 1nnu1lly.
Approxim1tely 300 of these present1tions 1re cl1ssified 1s m1jor tr1um1, which
for the purposes of this study is defined 1s 1n injury severity score (ISS) of 12 or
gre1ter.
S#mple
A convenience s1mple of tr1um1 p1tients older th1n 16 ye1rs who were 1dmitted
to hospit1l by the tr1um1 service with 1n ISS of 12 or 1bove (m1jor tr1um1) w1s
1ppro1ched 1nd invited to p1rticip1te, 1long with their f1mily members. We did
not 1ppro1ch p1tients or f1mily members un1ble to spe1k or write in English 1nd
p1tients without cognitive c1p1city (1s 1ssessed by 1 he1lth profession1l).
Following disch1rge from the hospit1l, ISS coding w1s 1pplied to the p1tients’
injuries by 1 member of the tr1um1 service (tr1ined in ISS coding) to 1scert1in the
minor 1nd m1jor tr1um1 p1tients. Fifteen percent of the minor tr1um1 group were
r1ndomly selected to rem1in within the project 1s evidence suggests th1t
focusing on m1jor tr1um1 1lone underestim1tes the burden injury h1s to p1tients
(Richmond et 1l., 2014).
Following the initi1l review of the p1tient by the tr1um1 service, p1tients 1nd their
f1mily members were provided with 1 det1iled expl1n1tion of the project 1nd 1n
inform1tion summ1ry sheet before obt1ining informed verb1l consent to be
cont1cted 1fter disch1rge. A n1tion1l ethics 1pplic1tion form w1s 1ssessed by
the institution’s hum1n rese1rch ethics committee 1nd the need for ethic1l
1pprov1l w1s w1ived 1s this w1s deemed 1 qu1lity 1ctivity.
D#t# Collection
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
D1t1 were collected for 1ll p1rticip1nts from J1nu1ry to December 2015. P1tient
demogr1phic d1t1 collected from the tr1um1 d1t1b1se included 1ge 1nd gender;
clinic1l d1t1 included di1gnosis, mech1nism of injury, ISS, length of ICU st1y,
length of hospit1l st1y, 1nd hospit1l disch1rge disposition. Demogr1phic d1t1 for
the f1mily included 1ge, rel1tionship to the p1tient, residenti1l loc1tion, 1nd
whether they coh1bited with the p1tient.
Me#surement Tools
Questionn1ire items were selected 1nd 1d1pted from the v1lid1ted F1mily
S1tisf1ction ICU (FS-ICU) survey tool (Heyl1nd & Tr1nmer, 2001); item responses
used 1 5-point Likert sc1le (1 = Excellent, 2 = Very good, 3 = Good, 4 = F1ir, 5 =
Poor, 6 = NA). The FS-ICU tool w1s selected 1s it 1ligned closely with the c1re
components relev1nt to the c1re of tr1um1 p1tients. The “Provision of
Inform1tion” 1nd “S1tisf1ction with C1re” sections were selected for inclusion 1s
they cont1in items th1t h1ve been previously identified problem1tic for tr1um1
p1tients (Bo- brovitz et 1l., 2012; G1bbe et 1l., 2013).
P1rticip1nts were 1sked to describe whether they initi1ted cont1ct 1t 1ny time
with the tr1um1 service during hospit1liz1tion or 1fter disch1rge. P1rticip1nts
were 1lso 1sked whether they h1d 1ny comments or suggestions they felt would
be helpful (see Supplement1l Digit1l Content Figure 1, 1v1il1ble 1t: http://
links.lww.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/JTN/A14). Responses were collected vi1
telephone within 2 months of p1tient disch1rge from 1cute c1re services.
P1rticip1nts were 1sked for consent 1t the st1rt of the survey 1nd whether they
rec1lled the tr1um1 service from their time in the hospit1l. For p1rticip1nts who
could not remember the tr1um1 service or were un1ble to provide consent, the
survey w1s discontinued. The surveys were undert1ken by 1n experienced
rese1rch 1ssist1nt who w1s not involved in p1tient c1re. All responses were
documented on the survey forms. C1lls l1sted between 4 1nd 17 min in dur1tion
1nd were 1udio-recorded to 1llow for 1 qu1lity 1udit of the d1t1 1nd tr1nscribed
verb1tim to c1pture responses to the open-ended questions. P1rticip1nts who
were un1ble to be cont1cted 1fter three 1ttempts were deemed lost to follow up.
D#t# An#lysis
Descriptive st1tistics were used to 1n1lyze demogr1phic d1t1 1nd survey
responses. Norm1lly distributed continuous v1ri1bles were described 1ccording to
me1n 1nd st1nd1rd devi1tions. Where the d1t1 were not norm1lly distributed,
medi1n v1lues 1nd interqu1rtile r1nges (IQRs) were reported. C1tegoric1l
v1ri1bles were summ1rized using counts 1nd percent1ges. IBM SPSS St1tistics
for Windows (Version 24) w1s used for st1tistic1l 1n1lysis.
Qu1lit1tive d1t1 from interview tr1nscripts were reviewed for 1ccur1cy 1nd
completeness prior to d1t1 1n1lysis. Responses to open-ended questions were
1n1lyzed using inductive content 1n1lysis methods (Br1un & Cl1rke, 2006). The
first 1nd second 1uthors re1d 1ll tr1nscripts to obt1in 1n overview of the d1t1.
The first 1uthor (E.W.) then inductively 1n1lyzed the d1t1 1pplying coding to
p1r1gr1phs in the tr1nscripts b1sed on the content to identify themes. The first
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
http://links.lww.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/JTN/A14
http://links.lww.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/JTN/A14
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
1nd second 1uthors (E.W. 1nd T.B.) then grouped the developed themes to
construct 1 complete picture of the d1t1. Themes were 1greed to by te1m
consensus, 1nd dis1greements were discussed 1nd resolved through 1
reex1min1tion of the tr1nscripts.
RESULTS Recruitment
A tot1l of 1,114 p1tients older th1n 16 ye1rs were c1se m1n1ged by the tr1um1
service in 2015. B1sed upon the ISS scores, 1 convenience s1mple of 320 p1tients
were 1ppro1ched for consent to be cont1cted 1fter disch1rge. Two hundred four
p1tients were cl1ssed 1s minor tr1um1 (ISS <12); 30 p1tients (15%) were
r1ndomly selected to rem1in within the project. Four of the 204 p1tients were
cl1ssed 1s m1jor tr1um1 (ISS > 12) but were missed from inclusion. One hundred
forty-two p1tients 1nd 49 f1mily members were cont1cted following disch1rge;
112 p1tients were cl1ssed 1s m1jor tr1um1 (ISS >12, 78.9%) 1nd 30 p1tients were
cl1ssed 1s non-m1jor tr1um1 (ISS <12; 21.1%). A det1iled p1tient flow is depicted
in Figure 1.
Response R#tes
Ninety-three p1tient interviews were completed (65.5%). Of the 49 p1tients who
were not interviewed, 44.9% (n = 22) were lost to follow up despite multiple
cont1ct 1ttempts. Twenty p1tients (40.8%) were un1ble to rec1ll the tr1um1
service, so the interview w1s ce1sed 1t this point, 1nd three p1tients were
undergoing cognitive 1ssessment, 1nd therefore consent for the interview could
not be g1ined. Rel1tive's interviews followed 1 simil1r p1ttern, with 67.3% (n = 33)
interviews conducted. Sixteen interviews were not completed (32.7%); three
f1mily p1rticip1nts (18.8%) were un1ble to rec1ll the tr1um1 service 1nd 11
(68.8%) were un1ble to be cont1cted 1fter hospit1l disch1rge. Twenty-eight
p1tients h1d 1 f1mily member p1rticip1te where1s five f1mily p1rticip1nts
p1rticip1ted where the p1tient w1s un1ble to provide d1t1.
P#tient Ch#r#cteristics
P1tient ch1r1cteristics 1re summ1rized in T1ble 1. Ninety- six p1tients (67.6%)
were m1le, 1nd their medi1n 1ge w1s 42 (IQR: 29-55) ye1rs. Blunt force tr1um1
w1s the m1jor c1use of injury (n = 135; 95.1%), 1nd the medi1n ISS w1s 14 (IQR:
12-21). The most frequent c1use of injury w1s motor vehicle 1ccidents (n = 45;
23.9%) 1nd motorbike 1ccidents (n = 33; 23.2%). The medi1n hospit1l length of
st1y (LOS) w1s 7.5 (IQR: 2-19) d1ys. Forty-nine (34.5%) p1tients h1d 1n ICU
1dmission with 1 medi1n LOS of 24 (iQR: 24-28) hr. The m1jority of p1tients (n =
118; 83.1%) were disch1rged home 1nd required inp1tient reh1bilit1tion (n = 8;
5.6%). Despite the sm1ll s1mple size, results were l1rgely reflective of p1tients
who were c1se m1n1ged by the tr1um1 service during 2015. Age, gender, ISS,
1nd hospit1l LOS v1ried little between interviewed 1nd lost to follow up p1tients.
However, ICU LOS in the lost to follow up group w1s 1lmost double th1t of
p1tients who were interviewed. P1rticip1ting f1milies were m1inly fem1le (n = 38;
77.6%) 1nd the wife (n = 13; 43.3%) or mother (n = 8; 26.7%) of the p1tient; the
m1jority coh1bited with the p1tient (n = 26; 89.7%).
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Interview D#t# — Likert Responses
P1tients 1nd f1mily responses to the questions 1re det1iled in T1ble 2. Across 1ll
the six items, responses indic1ted th1t the m1jority of p1rticip1nts r1ted the
communic1tion by the tr1um1 service to be excellent or very good, with over1ll
p1tients r1ting it higher th1n f1mily. A difference between p1tient 1nd f1mily
responses w1s noted within the c1tegory of “Provision of consistent inform1tion,”
with 81.8% of f1mily r1ting the tr1um1 service excellent/ very good comp1red with
89.2% of p1tients. Within the c1tegory of “Providing links to other services,”
responses were the lowest r1ted with both p1tients 1nd f1mily r1ting excellence
59.1% 1nd 45.5%. This c1tegory h1d the highest respondents for not 1pplic1ble
(11.8% 1nd 24.2%).
TABLE 1 P#tient Demogr#phic Inform#tion
Survey
Group
Lost to
Follow
Up
All 2015
TS
P1tient
(n = 142) (n = 49) > 16 (n = 1,099)
n % n % n %
Age
(medi1n,
IQR),
ye1rs
42
(29-55)
39
(27-54)
37
(25-53)
Gender:
M1le
96 67.6 30 61.2 788 71.7
ISS
(medi1n,
IQR)
14
(12-21)
14
(12-22)
5 (1 -12)
MOI
Blunt 135 95.1 47 95.9 1,012 92.1
Penetr1ti
ng
4 2.8 1 2 61 5.6
Burn 0 0 0 0 13 1.2
Other 3 2.1 1 2 13 1.2
C1use of
injury
MVA 45 31.7 16 32.7 352 32
MBA 33 23.2 7 14.3 172 15.7
Bicycle 10 7 5 10.2 107 9.7
F1ll 28 19.7 12 24.5 229 20.8
Other1 26 18.3 9 18.4 239 21.8
Hospit1l
LOS d1ys
(medi1n,
IQR)
7.5 (2-19) 8 (2 -18) 1 (0-4.0)
ICU LOS
hours
(medi1n,
IQR)
68.5 (44- -150.25) 129.5
(60.75-2
30)
49
(22-140)
Disch1rg
e
dispositio
n
Home 122 85.9 46 93.9 920 83.7
Acute
c1re
7 4.9 0 0 55 5.0
Reh1bilit
1tion
9 6.3 1 2 49 4.5
Died 0 0 0 0 36 3.3
Other 4 2.8 1 2 39 3.5
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Survey
Group
Lost to
Follow
Up
All 2015
TS
P1tient
(n = 142) (n = 49) > 16 (n = 1,099)
n % n % n %
Age
(medi1n,
IQR),
ye1rs
42
(29-55)
39
(27-54)
37
(25-53)
Gender:
M1le
96 67.6 30 61.2 788 71.7
ISS
(medi1n,
IQR)
14
(12-21)
14
(12-22)
5 (1 -12)
MOI
Blunt 135 95.1 47 95.9 1,012 92.1
Penetr1ti
ng
4 2.8 1 2 61 5.6
Burn 0 0 0 0 13 1.2
Other 3 2.1 1 2 13 1.2
C1use of
injury
MVA 45 31.7 16 32.7 352 32
MBA 33 23.2 7 14.3 172 15.7
Bicycle 10 7 5 10.2 107 9.7
F1ll 28 19.7 12 24.5 229 20.8
Other1 26 18.3 9 18.4 239 21.8
Hospit1l
LOS d1ys
(medi1n,
IQR)
7.5 (2-19) 8 (2 -18) 1 (0-4.0)
ICU LOS
hours
(medi1n,
IQR)
68.5 (44- -150.25) 129.5
(60.75-2
30)
49
(22-140)
Disch1rg
e
dispositio
n
Home 122 85.9 46 93.9 920 83.7
Acute
c1re
7 4.9 0 0 55 5.0
Reh1bilit
1tion
9 6.3 1 2 49 4.5
Died 0 0 0 0 36 3.3
Other 4 2.8 1 2 39 3.5
Note. ICU = intensive c1re unit; IQR = interqu1rtile r1nge; ISS = injury severity
score; LOS = length of st1y; MBA = motorbike 1ccidents; MOI= mech1nism of
injury; MVA = motor vehicle 1ccident; TS = tr1um1 service. 1Ass1ult, self-h1rm,
w1ter sports, 1nim1l.
Interview D#t# — Open Responses
The responses to open-ended questions were org1nized into the following
themes: ( 1) coordin1tion 1nd integr1tion of c1re, ( 2) emotion1l 1nd physic1l
support; 1nd ( 3) inform1tion, communic1tion, 1nd educ1tion. Both p1tients 1nd
f1mily members reported overwhelmingly positive feedb1ck reg1rding the tr1um1
service, with the m1jority referring to how the service h1d 1ssisted in providing
them with inform1tion 1nd expl1ining wh1t w1s to h1ppen.
P1tients reported th1t the service provided “1 consistency 1cross my
c1re” (fem1lep1tient, 1ged 41 ye1rs non- tr1nsport injury, #39) 1nd felt “the
service w1s the linchpin” (fem1le p1tient, 1ged 55 ye1rs, nontr1nsport injury,
#P8) of the c1re they received; “They (tr1um1 service) were brilli1nt, they
expl1ined everything to me, wh1t w1s h1ppening” (m1/e p1tient, 1ged 25 ye1rs,
nontr1nsport injury, #P62) 1nd “they helped me get 1n overview of wh1t w1s
1ctu1lly h1ppening” (m1le p1tient, 1ged 59 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P46).
Feedb1ck described th1t the service provided emotion1l 1nd physic1l comfort to
p1tients; “they re1lly p1id 1ttention 1nd were nice 1nd c1ring” (m1le p1tient, 1ged
46 ye1rs, nontr1ffic injury, #P29) 1nd “they took 1 person1l
interest” (m1lep1tient, 1ged 69ye1rs, nontr1ffic injury, #P54). F1mily members
were re1ssured by the c1re implemented by the service to their loved ones by
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#bib1
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#bib2
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#bib3
referr1ls m1de to other disciplines such 1s physiother1py 1nd soci1l work. They
1ppe1red to t1ke comfort in how the service c1red for the p1tient “m1king sure
th1t the p1in relief w1s in pl1ce so he didn’t experience discomfort” (wife of m1le
p1tient, 1ged 64 ye1rs, nontr1ffic injury, # P19) 1nd “I w1s very 1w1re they were
supporting him in the next st1ge.”
The feedb1ck on communic1tion pr1ctices from other he1lth profession1ls within
the hospit1l w1s highlighted by 1ll p1rticip1nts but differed in n1ture. P1tients
found the numerous medic1l te1ms who provided them with inform1tion 1bout
their condition 1nd tre1tment confusing st1ting “too m1ny people t1lking 1bout
different things” (m1le p1tient, 1ged 19 ye1rs, nontr1ffic injury) 1nd “there w1s
miscommunic1tion between speci1lists” (m1le p1tient, 1ged 27ye1rs, nontr1ffic
injury, #P27); “I didn’t know if I w1s coming or going” (m1le p1tient, 1ged 51 ye1rs,
ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P11). F1mily members r1ised concerns reg1rding trying to
1ccess the inform1tion th1t led to feelings of frustr1tion 1nd 1nnoy1nce; “I just
w1nted some inform1tion 1bout his injuries which I w1sn’t getting” (mother of
m1le p1tient, 1ged 26 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P7) 1nd “I would 1sk questions
1nd didn’t re1lly get told 1nything” (p1rtner of m1le p1tient, 1ged 26 ye1rs, ro1d
tr1ffic injury, #P57).
TABLE 2 P#tient/F#mily Responses
Exc
elle
nt
Ver
y
Goo
d
Goo
d
F1ir Poo
r
NA
n % n % n % n % n % n %
P1ti
ents
: n
=
93
F1m
ily:
n =
33
Fre
que
ncy
of
com
mun
ic1ti
on
P1ti
ent
68 73.1 20 21.5 2 2.2 3 3.2 0 0 0 0
F1m
ily
23 69.
7
7 21.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 1 3.0
Pro
vide
link
s to
serv
ices
P1ti
ents
55 59.1 17 18.3 5 5.4 4 4.3 1 1.1 11 11.8
F1m
ily
15 45.
5
6 18.2 3 9.1 1 3 0 0 8 24.2
Expl
1n1
tion
s
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
74 79.6 13 14.0 1 1.1 4 4.3 1 1.1 0 0
F1m
ily
24 72.7 7 4.9 0 0 1 7 1 7 0 0
Info
rm1
tion
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
69 74.2 15 16.1 4 4.3 2 2.2 0 0 3 3.2
F1m
ily
24 72.7 6 18.2 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6.1
Cou
rtes
y
1nd
resp
ect
P1ti
ents
84 90.
3
4 4.3 0 0 1 1.1 1 1.1 3 3.2
F1m
ily
30 90.
9
3 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Con
sist
ent
info
rm1
tion
P1ti
ents
68 73.1 15 16.1 5 5.4 0 0 1 1.1 4 4.3
F1m
ily
19 57.6 8 24.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 4 12.1
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Exc
elle
nt
Ver
y
Goo
d
Goo
d
F1ir Poo
r
NA
n % n % n % n % n % n %
P1ti
ents
: n
=
93
F1m
ily:
n =
33
Fre
que
ncy
of
com
mun
ic1ti
on
P1ti
ent
68 73.1 20 21.5 2 2.2 3 3.2 0 0 0 0
F1m
ily
23 69.
7
7 21.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 1 3.0
Pro
vide
link
s to
serv
ices
P1ti
ents
55 59.1 17 18.3 5 5.4 4 4.3 1 1.1 11 11.8
F1m
ily
15 45.
5
6 18.2 3 9.1 1 3 0 0 8 24.2
Expl
1n1
tion
s
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
74 79.6 13 14.0 1 1.1 4 4.3 1 1.1 0 0
F1m
ily
24 72.7 7 4.9 0 0 1 7 1 7 0 0
Info
rm1
tion
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
69 74.2 15 16.1 4 4.3 2 2.2 0 0 3 3.2
F1m
ily
24 72.7 6 18.2 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6.1
Cou
rtes
y
1nd
resp
ect
P1ti
ents
84 90.
3
4 4.3 0 0 1 1.1 1 1.1 3 3.2
F1m
ily
30 90.
9
3 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Con
sist
ent
info
rm1
tion
P1ti
ents
68 73.1 15 16.1 5 5.4 0 0 1 1.1 4 4.3
F1m
ily
19 57.6 8 24.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 4 12.1
Exc
elle
nt
Ver
y
Goo
d
Goo
d
F1ir Poo
r
NA
n % n % n % n % n % n %
P1ti
ents
: n
=
93
F1m
ily:
n =
33
Fre
que
ncy
of
com
mun
ic1ti
on
P1ti
ent
68 73.1 20 21.5 2 2.2 3 3.2 0 0 0 0
F1m
ily
23 69.
7
7 21.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 1 3.0
Pro
vide
link
s to
serv
ices
P1ti
ents
55 59.1 17 18.3 5 5.4 4 4.3 1 1.1 11 11.8
F1m
ily
15 45.
5
6 18.2 3 9.1 1 3 0 0 8 24.2
Expl
1n1
tion
s
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
74 79.6 13 14.0 1 1.1 4 4.3 1 1.1 0 0
F1m
ily
24 72.7 7 4.9 0 0 1 7 1 7 0 0
Info
rm1
tion
pro
vide
d
P1ti
ents
69 74.2 15 16.1 4 4.3 2 2.2 0 0 3 3.2
F1m
ily
24 72.7 6 18.2 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6.1
Cou
rtes
y
1nd
resp
ect
P1ti
ents
84 90.
3
4 4.3 0 0 1 1.1 1 1.1 3 3.2
F1m
ily
30 90.
9
3 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Con
sist
ent
info
rm1
tion
P1ti
ents
68 73.1 15 16.1 5 5.4 0 0 1 1.1 4 4.3
F1m
ily
19 57.6 8 24.2 2 6.1 0 0 0 0 4 12.1
Note. NA = not 1pplic1ble.
Differences imp1cted how p1rticip1nts felt 1bout the disch1rge process. P1tients
found th1t communic1tion 1round the disch1rge c1used 1pprehension, st1ting
they felt “confused” (m1le p1tient, 1ged 33 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P60; m1le
p1tient, 1ged 56 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P25\ 1nd w1nted cl1rity reg1rding
disch1rge instructions 1nd follow-up 1ppointments. Where1s, the l1ck of 1ccess
to inform1tion c1used f1mily members to experience 1nxiety when the p1tient
w1s disch1rged st1ting th1t they felt th1t it w1s “too e1rly” (wife of m1le p1tient,
1ged 40 ye1rs, nontr1ffic injury, #P118; husb1nd of fem1le p1tient, 1ged 67 ye1rs,
nontr1ffic injury, #P 15; p1rtner of m1le p1tient, 1ged 53 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury,
#P21; 1nd mother of m1le p1tient, 1ged 26 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P7) 1nd
“been in hospit1l for two months 1nd found out they were being disch1rged two
d1ys before” (son of fem1le p1tient, 1ged 81 ye1rs, ro1d tr1ffic injury, #P80).
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this study is novel for the qu1lit1tive 1ppro1ch to underst1nd
both the tr1um1 p1tient 1nd his or her f1mily’s experiences. The results of our
study found overwhelmingly positive feedb1ck, by both p1tients 1nd their f1mily
members, 1ssoci1ted with the introduction of 1 tr1um1 service 1t our institution.
Communic1tion pr1ctices demonstr1ted by the tr1um1 service were r1ted highly
by 1ll p1rticip1nts with open-ended responses indic1ting th1t the tr1um1 service
provided 1 vit1l role not only with the coordin1tion of the tr1um1 p1tient’s c1re
but 1lso in providing emotion1l 1nd physic1l support to both p1tients 1nd their
f1milies.
Our d1t1 demonstr1te th1t the experience of communic1tion pr1ctices differs for
f1milies to th1t of their injured rel1tive. F1milies r1ted communic1tion lower th1n
the p1tients, highlighting diss1tisf1ction in 1ccessing inform1tion from the he1lth
c1re te1m 1s 1n 1re1 th1t c1n be improved. Also, within the c1tegory of
“providing links to other services,” 1lmost one-qu1rter of f1milies responded with
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
“not 1pplic1ble”; this suggests th1t they were un1w1re th1t the tr1um1 service
provided this function.
P1tients found th1t the inform1tion provided to them w1s more consistent when
comp1red with the f1milies, which is likely due to the incre1sed opportunities for
communic1tion to occur with the clinic1l te1ms. In contr1st, f1milies reported th1t
they h1d difficulty 1ccessing the inform1tion, which w1s supported by Kellezi et
1l. (2015), who found th1t c1rers often l1cked opportunities to t1lk to he1lth
profession1ls. Despite the inform1tion provided being r1ted 1s more consistent,
the involvement of multiple clinic1l te1ms c1used confusion for p1tients. Br11f et
1l. (2018) suggest th1t eng1ging with l1rge numbers of he1lth profession1ls from
v1rious speci1lties c1n result in v1ri1ble communic1tion effectiveness 1nd imp1ct
the qu1lity of c1re received.
The liter1ture documents th1t f1mily members of tr1um1 p1tients often
experience high levels of 1nxiety 1nd stress, which m1y imp1ct on the 1bility to
underst1nd the inform1tion provided to them (Newcomb & Hymes, 2017). This
w1s highlighted in our study by the number of f1milies who f1iled to rec1ll the
tr1um1 service visiting the p1tient during their hospit1l 1dmission. In 1ddition,
poor communic1tion with f1milies m1y incre1se the burden th1t they feel
reg1rding decision m1king on beh1lf of the p1tient, which m1y predispose f1mily
members to f1tigue, 1nxiety, 1nd posttr1um1tic stress disorder (Anderson, Arnold,
Angus, & Bryce, 2008). Developing str1tegies to include 1nd inform the f1mily of
referr1ls to other services could help 1llevi1te some of the stress 1nd 1nxiety they
experience. It m1y 1lso provide support for f1milies during the disch1rge process,
thus reducing the c1regiver burden. One such str1tegy is the inclusion of f1milies
in bedside h1ndover, which h1s incre1sed the 1ppreci1tion shown by f1milies 1s
they h1ve the opportunity to listen 1nd inter1ct 1s p1rtners (Tobi1no, Ch1boyer, &
McMur- r1y, 2013). This should occur when f1mily members 1re present but 1lso
ensure th1t f1milies 1re cont1cted 1nd provided with opportunities to eng1ge in
sh1red decision m1king (IPFCC, 2017) when they 1re not 1ble to 1ttend. There 1re
issues with priv1cy 1nd confidenti1lity in involving f1milies in the h1ndover, 1nd
therefore p1tient consent should be obt1ined. However, previous studies h1ve
indic1ted th1t this is felt more by the nursing st1ff
(Ch1boyer et 1l., 2009) th1n p1tients 1nd f1milies (McMur- r1y, Ch1boyer, W1llis,
& Fetherston, 2010).
F1milies 1re 1n essenti1l p1rt of the tr1um1 p1tients’ recovery with some
evidence to suggest th1t if p1tients 1nd f1milies 1re tre1ted liked 1 dy1d, then
outcomes 1re improved (Schulz et 1l., 2002). With the development of PCC, there
is growing recognition th1t incorpor1ting p1tient 1nd f1mily perspectives into c1re
represents 1n import1nt unt1pped qu1lity improvement opportunity (Boyd et 1l.,
2017). The 1bsence of guid1nce for p1tient- 1nd f1mily-centered injury c1re likely
reflects the limited rese1rch to d1te in this 1re1 (Boyd et 1l., 2017).
Communic1tion is 1n essenti1l p1rt of providing s1fe p1tient c1re (Kitson &
Muntlin Athlin, 2013) 1nd h1s been highlighted to be 1 f1ctor in determining
s1tisf1ction (J1nssen et 1l., 2007). To improve the p1tient 1nd f1mily experience,
we must underst1nd wh1t p1tients 1nd f1milies w1nt 1nd v1lue (Byczkowski et 1l.,
2016). P1tient-reported outcome me1sures (PROMs) h1ve 1 v1lu1ble role in
routine clinic1l pr1ctice to promote PCC 1nd c1n improve communic1tion 1nd 1
p1tient’s s1tisf1ction (Turner et 1l., 2019). The RESTORE study protocol by G1bbe
et 1l. (2015) 1ims to explore prospectively over 5 ye1rs injured p1tients’ views
reg1rding tr1um1 c1re delivery 1nd PROMs. Although this study will 1ssist in
underst1nding the long-term p1tient experience, routine eng1gement with
f1milies to underst1nd their needs h1s not been 1ddressed, le1ving 1 potenti1l
g1p within the evidence b1se.
Limit#tions
This single-center project with limited resources prevented the use of 1 previously
v1lid1ted tool (Bobrovitz et 1l., 2012), which m1y h1ve limited the extern1l v1lidity
of our findings. However, the pr1gm1tic 1ppro1ch used 1llowed us to collect the
d1t1 to inform our pr1ctice. Despite the limited numbers of p1rticip1nts, the
ev1lu1tion of the service within the context of the clinic1l 1re1 supports the
upt1ke 1nd r1pid pr1ctice ch1nge of identified 1re1s of concern. The explor1tion
of f1mily views is 1lso limited by the number of f1mily p1rticip1nts 1nd the depth
to which their experiences were explored. The convenience s1mpling method used
m1y prevent comp1rison to the bro1der tr1um1 popul1tion, yet when comp1red
with the 1nnu1l tr1um1 service p1tient d1t1 (2015), we found it to be
represent1tive. The high loss to follow up r1tes experienced m1y h1ve been due
to the prolonged dur1tion of time between hospit1l disch1rge 1nd p1tient cont1ct
(66 d1ys for p1tients vs. 52 d1ys for f1mily). During the study period, ISS coding
w1s 1pplied 1fter disch1rge from 1cute c1re, which c1used 1 del1y in cont1cting
p1rticip1nts. We h1ve since ch1nged to 1 prospective ISS coding model th1t
1ddresses this shortcoming, 1nd we believe th1t it will reduce lost to follow up
r1tes in the future. Although this 1rticle h1s identified th1t the needs of tr1um1
p1tients 1nd their f1mily members differ, further in-depth explor1tion will be
required to underst1nd this phenomenon more comprehensively.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstr1ted th1t p1tients 1nd f1milies were highly s1tisfied with the
service provided by the tr1um1 service but encountered differences in the
communic1tion pr1ctices received. Recognition 1nd identific1tion of the different
experiences 1nd needs following tr1um1 c1n 1ssist the development of both
p1tient 1nd f1mily- centered c1re, which in turn c1n incre1se s1tisf1ction 1nd
promote the s1fety 1nd qu1lity of he1lth c1re delivered to this popul1tion. Future
work should explore how the tr1um1 service c1n build upon the results of this
project 1nd help eng1ge both the p1tient 1nd the f1mily members more
effectively.
Acknowledgments
The 1uthors 1cknowledge the support from 1ll members of the tr1um1 service,
Ms. K1thy He1thcote, 1nd the review te1m for m1nuscript reviews 1nd feedb1ck.
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
●
●
●
●
●
KEY POINTS
The tr1um1 service te1ms 1re highly v1lued by both p1tients 1nd their
f1milies in delivering c1re to tr1um1 p1tients 1nd their f1milies in terms of
their high-level communic1tion skills; their 1bility to coordin1te c1re; 1nd
provide emotion1l 1nd physic1l support.
Involving tr1um1 p1tients 1nd their f1milies in the c1re they receive m1y help
reduce the stress 1nd 1nxiety often experienced by this p1tient group
throughout their hospit1l 1dmission 1nd incre1se s1tisf1ction with the c1re
they receive.
Eng1ging with tr1um1 p1tients 1nd their f1milies in 1scert1ining their needs
rem1ins 1n underexplored 1re1 of tr1um1 c1re delivery liter1ture.
The 1uthors decl1re no conflicts of interest.
Supplement1l digit1l content is 1v1il1ble for this 1rticle. Direct URL cit1tion
1ppe1rs in the printed text 1nd is provided in the HTML 1nd PDF versions of this
1rticle on the journ1l’s Web site (WWW.JOURNALOFTRAUMANURSING.COM).
REFERENCES
ACSQHC. (2012). N1tion1l s1fety 1nd qu1lity he1lth service st1nd1rds. Retrieved
from https://www.s1fety1ndqu1lity.gov.1u/ wp-content/uplo1ds/2011/09/NSQHS-
St1nd1rds-Sept-2012
IPFCC. Adv1ncing the pr1ctice ofp1tient 1nd f1mily centered c1re: How to get
st1rted. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.ipfcc. org/resources/
getting%5Fst1rted
Al-Abri, R., & Al-B1lushi, A. (2014). P1tient s1tisf1ction survey 1s 1 tool tow1rds
qu1lity improvement. Om1n Medic1l Journ1l, 29(1), 3-7. doi:10.5001/omj.2014.02
Anderson, W. G., Arnold, R. M., Angus, D. C., & Bryce, C. L. (2008). Posttr1um1tic
stress 1nd complic1ted grief in f1mily members of p1tients in the intensive c1re
unit. Journ1l Of Gener1l Intern1l Medicine, 23(11), 1871-1876. doi:10.1007/
s11606-008-0770-2
Ardolino, A., Sle1t, G, & Willett, K. (2012). Outcome me1surements in m1jor
tr1um1: Results of 1 consensus meeting. Injury, 43(10), 1662-1666.
Azoul1y, E., Poch1rd, F., Kentish-B1rnes, N., Chevret, S., Abo1b, J., Adrie, C.,
Schlemmer, B. (2005). Risk of post-tr1um1tic stress symptoms in f1mily members
of intensive c1re unit p1tients. Americ1n Journ1l of Respir1tory 1nd Critic1l C1re
Medicine, 171(9), 987-994.
Bobrovitz, N., S1nt1n1, M. J., B1ll, C. G., Kortbeek, J., & Stelfox, H. T. (2012). The
development 1nd testing of 1 survey to me1sure p1tient 1nd f1mily experiences
with injury c1re. Journ1l of Tr1um1 1nd Acute C1re Surgery, 73(5), 1332-1339.
doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31825c4d57
Boyd, J. M., Burton, R., Butler, B. L., Dyer, D., Ev1ns, D. C., Felte1u, M.,
Stelfox, H. T. (2017). Development 1nd v1lid1tion of qu1lity criteri1 for providing
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
http://www.journaloftraumanursing.com/
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=5d9a3faa-8ec9-4a2a-99ab-fa6eec675333%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#toc
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/
p1tient- 1nd f1mily-centered injury c1re. Ann1ls of Surgery, 266(2), 287-296. doi:
10.1097/ SLA.0000000000002006
Br11f, S., Amer1tung1, S., Nunn, A., Christie, N., Te1gue, W., Judson, R., & G1bbe,
B. J. (2018). P1tient-identified inform1tion 1nd communic1tion needs in the
context of m1jor tr1um1. BMC He1lth Services Rese1rch, 16(1), 163.
Br1un, V., & Cl1rke, V. (2006). Using them1tic 1n1lysis in psychology. Qu1lit1tive
Rese1rch in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Byczkowski, T. L., Gillespie, G. L., Kennebeck, S. S., Fitzger1ld, M. R., Downing, K.
A., & Aless1ndrini, E. A. (2016). F1mily- centered pedi1tric emergency c1re: A
fr1mework for me1suring wh1t p1rents w1nt 1nd v1lue. Ac1demic Pedi1trics,
16(4), 327335. doi:10.1016/j.1c1p.2015.08.011
Ch1boyer, W., McMurr1y, A., Johnson, J., H1rdy, L., W1llis, M., & Chu, F. Y. (2009).
Bedside h1ndover: Qu1lity improvement str1tegy to “tr1nsform c1re 1t the
bedside.” Journ1l of Nursing C1re Qu1lity, 24(2), 136-142. doi:10.1097/01.NCQ.
0000347450. 90676.d9
Curtis, K., Zou, Y., Morris, R., & Bl1ck, D. (2006). Tr1um1 c1se m1n1gement:
Improving p1tient outcomes. Injury, 37(7), 626-632. de Jongh, M. A. C., Kruithof,
N., Gosens, T., v1n de Ree, C. L. P., de Munter, L., Brouwers, L.,
L1nsink, K. W. W. (2017). Prev1lence, recovery p1tterns 1nd predictors of qu1lity
of life 1nd costs 1fter non-f1t1l injury: The Br1b1nt Injury Outcomes Surveill1nce
(BIOS) study. Injury Prevention, 23(1), 59.
Fr1mpton, S., Pelik1n, J. M., & Wieczorek, C. C. (2016). The New H1ven
Recommend1tions on p1rtnering with p1tients, f1milies 1nd citizens to enh1nce
perform1nce 1nd qu1lity in he1lth promoting hospit1ls 1nd he1lth service. In
INHPHHS (Ed.). New H1ven, CT: Intern1tion1l HPH Network.
G1bbe, B. J., Br11f, S., Fitzger1ld, M., Judson, R., H1rrison, J. E., Lyons, R. A.,
C1meron, P. A. (2015). RESTORE: REcovery 1fter Serious Tr1um1 — Outcome,
Resources use 1nd p1tient Experiences study protocol. Injury Prevention, 21(5),
348-354.
G1bbe, B. J, C1meron, P. A., Willi1mson, O. D., Edw1rds, E. R., Gr1ves, S. E., &
Rich1rdson, M. D. (2007). The rel1tionship between compens1ble st1tus 1nd
long-term p1tient outcomes following orthop1edic tr1um1. Medic1l Journ1l of
Austr1li1, 18X1), 14-17.
G1bbe, B. J., Sleney, J. S., Gosling, C. M., Wilson, K., H1rt, M. J., Sutherl1nd, A. M.,
& Christie, N. (2013). P1tient perspectives of c1re in 1 region1lised tr1um1
system: Lessons from the Victori1n St1te Tr1um1 System. Medic1l Journ1l of
Austr1li1, 198(3), 149-152.
Heyl1nd, D. K., Tr1nmer, J. E., & Kingston Gener1l Hospit1l ICU Rese1rch Working
Group. (2001). Me1suring f1mily s1tisf1ction with c1re in the intensive c1re unit:
The development of 1 questionn1ire 1nd prelimin1ry results. Journ1l of Critic1l
C1re, 16(4), 142-149. doi:10.1053/jcrc.2001.30163
Hibb1rd, J. H., & Greene, J. (2013). Wh1t the evidence shows 1bout p1tient
1ctiv1tion: Better he1lth outcomes 1nd c1re experiences; fewer d1t1 on costs.
He1lth Aff1irs (Millwood), 32(2), 207-214.
J1nssen, C., Ommen, O., Neugeb1uer, E., Lefering, R., & Pf1ff, H. (2007). How to
improve s1tisf1ction with hospit1l st1y of severely injured p1tients. L1ngenbeck’s
Archives of Surgery, 392(6), 747-760. Jerofke-Owen, T., & D1hlm1n, J. (2019).
P1tients perspectives on eng1ging in their he1lthc1re while hospit1lised. Journ1l
of Clinic1l Nursing, 28(1-2), 340-350.
Kellezi, B., Beckett, K., E1rthy, S., B1rnes, J., Sleney, J., Cl1rkson, J.,
Kendrick, D (2015). Underst1nding 1nd meeting inform1tion needs following
unintention1l injury: Comp1ring the 1ccounts of p1tients, c1rers 1nd service
providers. Injury, 46(4), 564-571. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.11.035
Kitson, A. L, & Muntlin Athlin, A. (2013). Development 1nd prelimin1ry testing of 1
fr1mework to ev1lu1te p1tients’ experiences of the fund1ment1ls of c1re: A
second1ry 1n1lysis of three stroke survivor n1rr1tives. Nursing Rese1rch 1nd
Pr1ctice, 2013, 572437. doi:10.1155/2013/572437
McMurr1y, A., Ch1boyer, W., W1llis, M., & Fetherston, C. (2010). Implementing
bedside h1ndover: Str1tegies for ch1nge m1n1gement. Journ1l of Clinic1l
Nursing, 19(17-18), 2580-2589. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03033.x Muntlin, m.,
Gunningberg, L., & C1rlsson, M. (2006). P1tients’ perceptions of qu1lity of c1re 1t
1n emergency dep1rtment 1nd identific1tion of 1re1s for qu1lity improvement.
Journ1l of Clinic1l Nursing, 15(8), 1045-1056. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2006.01368.x
Newcomb, A. B., & Hymes, R. A. (2017). Life interrupted: The tr1um1 c1regiver
experience. Journ1l of Tr1um1 Nursing, 24(2), 125-133. doi:10.1097/JTN.
0000000000000278 Richmond, T. S., Guo, W., Ackerson, T., Holl1nder, J.,
Gr1ci1s, V.,
Robinson, K., & Amsterd1m, J. (2014). The effect of post injury depression on
qu1lity of life following minor injury. Journ1l of Nursing Schol1rship, 46(2),
116-124. S1cks, G. D., L1wson, E. H., D1wes, A. J., Russell, M. M., M1gg1rd-
Gibbons, M., Zingmond, D. S., & Ko, C. Y. (2015). Rel1tionship between hospit1l
perform1nce on 1 p1tient s1tisf1ction survey 1nd surgic1l qu1lity. JAMA, 150(9),
858-864. doi:10.1001/ j1m1surg.2015.1108
Schulz, R., O’Brien, A., Cz1j1, S., Ory, M., Norris, R., M1rtire, L. M.,
Stevens, A (2002). Dementi1 c1regiver intervention rese1rch: In se1rch of clinic1l
signific1nce. The Gerontologist, 42(5), 589- 602. Retrieved from https://se1rch-
ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.1spx?
direct=true&AuthType=ip,1thens&db=mdc&AN=12351794& site=ehost-live
Tobi1no, G., Ch1boyer, W., & McMurr1y, A. (2013). F1mily members’ perceptions
of the nursing bedside h1ndover. Journ1l of Clinic1l Nursing, 22(1-2), 192-200.
doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2702.2012.04212.x
Turner, G. M., Sl1de, A., Retzer, A., McMull1n, C., Kyte, D., Belli, A., & C1lvert, M.
(2019). An introduction to p1tient-reported outcome me1sures (PROMs) in
tr1um1. Journ1l of Tr1um1 1nd Acute C1re Surgery, 86(2), 314-320.
GRAPH: Figure 1. Flow di1gr1m of recruitment 1nd follow-up r1tes. ISS = injury
●
severity score; TS = tr1um1 service.
~~~~~~~~
By Eliz1beth W1ke, MN, Tr1um1 Service, Intensive C1re Unit, Level 4 D Block,
Gold Co1st University Hospit1l, 1 Hospit1l Blvd, Southport, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1
4215 (Eliz1beth.w1ke@he1lth.qld.gov.1u); T1ni1 B1ttistell1, MN, Tr1um1 Service,
Gold Co1st University Hospit1l, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Mss W1ke, B1ttistell1,
D1le, 1nd Nelson 1nd Mr Scott); Nursing 1nd Midwifery Educ1tion 1nd Rese1rch
Unit, Gold Co1st He1lth, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll); 1nd Menzies He1lth
Institute Queensl1nd, Griffith University, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll).;
K1te D1le, NP, Tr1um1 Service, Gold Co1st University Hospit1l, Queensl1nd,
Austr1li1 (Mss W1ke, B1ttistell1, D1le, 1nd Nelson 1nd Mr Scott); Nursing 1nd
Midwifery Educ1tion 1nd Rese1rch Unit, Gold Co1st He1lth, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1
(Dr M1rsh1ll); 1nd Menzies He1lth Institute Queensl1nd, Griffith University,
Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll).; M1tthew Scott, MN, Tr1um1 Service, Gold
Co1st University Hospit1l, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Mss W1ke, B1ttistell1, D1le,
1nd Nelson 1nd Mr Scott); Nursing 1nd Midwifery Educ1tion 1nd Rese1rch Unit,
Gold Co1st He1lth, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll); 1nd Menzies He1lth
Institute Queensl1nd, Griffith University, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll).;
Renee Nelson, Tr1um1 Service, Gold Co1st University Hospit1l, Queensl1nd,
Austr1li1 (Mss W1ke, B1ttistell1, D1le, 1nd Nelson 1nd Mr Scott); Nursing 1nd
Midwifery Educ1tion 1nd Rese1rch Unit, Gold Co1st He1lth, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1
(Dr M1rsh1ll); 1nd Menzies He1lth Institute Queensl1nd, Griffith University,
Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll). 1nd Andre1 P. M1rsh1ll, PhD, Tr1um1
Service, Gold Co1st University Hospit1l, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Mss W1ke,
B1ttistell1, D1le, 1nd Nelson 1nd Mr Scott); Nursing 1nd Midwifery Educ1tion 1nd
Rese1rch Unit, Gold Co1st He1lth, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr M1rsh1ll); 1nd
Menzies He1lth Institute Queensl1nd, Griffith University, Queensl1nd, Austr1li1 (Dr
M1rsh1ll).
Source: Journ1l of Tr1um1 Nursing, 2020, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p216, 9p
Item: 144597397
HYPERLINK
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://se1rch.ebscohost.com/login.1spx?
direct=true&db=edo&AN=144597397&site=eds-live&scope=site
