ArticleBMC health services research2024
Follow-up after major traumatic injury: a survey of services in Australian and New Zealand public hospitals.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased survival from traumatic injury has led to a higher demand for follow-up care when patients are discharged from hospital. It is currently unclear how follow-up care following major trauma is provided to patients, and how, when, and to whom follow-up services are delivered. The aim of this study was to describe the current follow-up care provided to patients and their families who have experienced major traumatic injury in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).
methodsInformed by Donabedian's 'Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care' model and the Institute of Medicine's Six Domains of Healthcare Quality, a cross-sectional online survey was developed in conjunction with trauma experts. Their responses informed the final survey which was distributed to key personnel in 71 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand that (i) delivered trauma care to patients, (ii) provided data to the Australasian Trauma Registry, or (iii) were a Trauma Centre.
resultsData were received from 38/71 (53.5%) hospitals. Most were Level 1 trauma centres (n = 23, 60.5%); 76% (n = 16) follow-up services were permanently funded. Follow-up services were led by a range of health professionals with over 60% (n = 19) identifying as trauma specialists. Patient inclusion criteria varied; only one service allowed self-referral (3.3%). Follow-up was within two weeks of acute care discharge in 53% (n = 16) of services. Care activities focused on physical health; psychosocial assessments were the least common. Most services provided care for adults and paediatric trauma (60.5%, n = 23); no service incorporated follow-up for family members. Evaluation of follow-up care was largely as part of a health service initiative; only three sites stated evaluation was specific to trauma follow-up.
conclusionFollow-up care is provided by trauma specialists and predominantly focuses on the physical health of the patients affected by major traumatic injury. Variations exist in terms of patient selection, reason for follow-up and care activities delivered with gaps in the provision of psychosocial and family health services identified. Currently, evaluation of trauma follow-up care is limited, indicating a need for further development to ensure that the care delivered is safe, effective and beneficial to patients, families and healthcare organisations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.