Browsing by Subject "Traumatic"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Establishing a core outcome set for blunt cerebrovascular injury: an EAST modified Delphi method consensus study
    (BMJ, 2023-06-15) Ziesmann, Markus; Byerly, Saskya; Yeh, Daniel Dante; Boltz, Melissa; Gelbard, Rondi; Haut, Elliott R.; Smith, Jason W.; Stein, Deborah M.; Zarzaur, Ben L.; Bensard, Denis D.; Biffl, Walter L.; Boyd, April; Brommeland, Tor; Burlew, Clay Cothren; Fabian, Timothy; Lauerman, Margaret; Leichtle, Stefan; Moore, Ernest E.; Timmons, Shelly; Vogt, Kelly; Nahmias, Jeffry; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Objectives: Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting. Methods: After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds, and four rounds of deliberation were performed to re-evaluate the variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria. Results: From an initial panel of 15 experts, 12 (80%) completed all rounds. A total of 22 items were considered, with 9 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: incidence of postadmission symptom onset, overall stroke incidence, stroke incidence stratified by type and by treatment category, stroke incidence prior to treatment initiation, time to stroke, overall mortality, bleeding complications, and injury progression on radiographic follow-up. The panel further identified four non-outcome items of high importance for reporting: time to BCVI diagnosis, use of standardized screening tool, duration of treatment, and type of therapy used. Conclusion: Through a well-accepted iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future research on BCVI. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new BCVI research and will allow future projects to generate data suitable for pooled statistical analysis with enhanced statistical power.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Predictors of Missed Follow-up Visits in the National Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Cohort Study
    (Elsevier, 2022-12) Vos, Leia; Ngan, Esther; Novelo, Luis Leon; Williams , Michael W.; Hammond, Flora M.; Walker, William C.; Clark, Allison N.; Lopez, Andrea P. Ochoa; Juengst, Shannon B.; Sherer, Mark; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    Objective To identify key variables that could predict risk of loss to follow-up (LTFU) in a nationally funded longitudinal database of persons with traumatic brain injury. Design Secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Setting Traumatic Brain Injury Model System (TBIMS) Centers in the US. Participants A total of 17,956 TBIMS participants (N=17,956) with interview status data available were included if eligible for 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 15-, or 20-year follow-ups between October 31, 1989, and September 30, 2020. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Follow-up data collection completion status at years 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Results Information relevant to participants’ history, injury characteristics, rehabilitation stay, and patterns of follow-up across 20 years were considered using a series of logistic regression models. Overall, LTFU rates were low (consistently <20%). The most robust predictors of LTFU across models were missed earlier follow-ups and demographic factors including Hispanic ethnicity, lower education, and lack of private health insurance. Conclusions Efforts to retain participants in such social disadvantaged or minority groups are encouraged given their disproportionate rate of LTFU. Repeated attempts to reach participants after a previously missed assessment are beneficial because many participants that missed 1 or more follow-ups were later recovered.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Identifying, Perceiving, and Seeking Healthcare for Chronic Pain After TBI: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Nakase-Richardson, Risa; Cotner, Bridget A.; Agtarap, Stephanie D.; Martin, Aaron M.; Ching, Deveney; O’Connor, Danielle R.; Tweed, Amanda; Haun, Jolie N.; Hanks, Robin A.; Bergquist, Thomas F.; Hammond, Flora M.; Zafonte, Ross D.; Hoffman, Jeanne M.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    Objective: Identify determinants to chronic pain healthcare for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) informed by an Access to Care Framework. Findings related to the Access Framework's core domains of identifying a need, perceptions of the need, and seeking healthcare are reported. Setting: Community. Participants: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years of experience treating persons with TBI interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. Design: Descriptive, qualitative study. Main measures: Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access Framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the domains of identifying healthcare needs, perceptions of needs, and factors related to healthcare seeking from the supply and demand perspective. Results: For the overall sample, 14 facilitators and 6 barriers were endorsed by more than 20% of the provider cohort. Top facilitators included on-site availability of needed resources and treatments (94%), adequate time and provider capability to ensure patient comprehension of diagnosis and treatment plans (83%), and establishing patient motivation and buy-in with the treatment plan (75%). Barriers most endorsed included policies impacting access (46%), wait times for services (41%), and patient uncertainty regarding telehealth commonly due to cognitive and physical challenges (37%). Unique determinants are reported across civilian versus Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems and different provider types. Conclusion: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatments for persons with TBI. Results will inform future interventions at the systems, patient, and policy levels of healthcare that can be tailored to healthcare settings (VA, Civilian) and types of providers (rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and medical). Evidence-informed interventions may help minimize healthcare disparities experienced by persons with TBI and facilitate access to high-quality, evidence-informed chronic pain care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider Perspectives of Facilitators and Barriers to Reaching and Utilizing Chronic Pain Healthcare for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Nakase-Richardson, Risa; Cotner, Bridget A.; Martin, Aaron M.; Agtarap, Stephanie D.; Tweed, Amanda; Esterov, Dmitry; O’Connor, Danielle R.; Ching, Deveney; Haun, Jolie N.; Hanks, Robin A.; Bergquist, Thomas F.; Hammond, Flora M.; Zafonte, Ross D.; Hoffman, Jeanne M.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    Objective: To identify facilitators and barriers to reaching and utilizing chronic pain treatments for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) organized around an Access to Care framework, which includes dimensions of access to healthcare as a function of supply (ie, provider/system) and demand (ie, patient) factors for a specified patient population. Setting: Community. Participants: Clinicians (n = 63) with experience treating persons with TBI were interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. Design: Descriptive, qualitative study. Main measures: Semistructured open-ended interview of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access to Care framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the core domains (reaching care, utilizing care) and relevant subdimensions from the supply (affordability of providing care, quality, coordination/continuity, adequacy) and demand (ability to pay, adherence, empowerment, caregiver support) perspective. Results: Themes from provider interviews focused on healthcare reaching and healthcare utilization resulted in 19 facilitators and 9 barriers reaching saturation. The most themes fell under the utilization core domain, with themes identified that impact the technical and interpersonal quality of care and care coordination/continuity. Accessibility and availability of specialty care and use of interdisciplinary team that permitted matching patients to treatments were leading thematic facilitators. The leading thematic barrier identified primarily by medical providers was cognitive disability, which is likely directly linked with other leading barriers including high rates of noncompliance and poor follow-up in health care. Medical and behavioral health complexity was also a leading barrier to care and potentially interrelated to other themes identified. Conclusion: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning for this complex population to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatment. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of individuals with TBI/caregivers to inform interventions to improve access to chronic pain treatment for persons with TBI.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Viscoelastic Testing and Coagulopathy of Traumatic Brain Injury
    (MDPI, 2021-10-28) Bradbury, Jamie L.; Thomas, Scott G.; Sorg, Nikki R.; Mjaess, Nicolas; Berquist, Margaret R.; Brenner, Toby J.; Langford, Jack H.; Marsee, Mathew K.; Moody, Ashton N.; Bunch, Connor M.; Sing, Sandeep R.; Al-Fadhl, Mahmoud D.; Salamah, Qussai; Saleh, Tarek; Patel, Neal B.; Shaikh, Kashif A.; Smith, Stephen M.; Langheinrich, Walter S.; Fulkerson, Daniel H.; Sixta, Sherry; Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine
    A unique coagulopathy often manifests following traumatic brain injury, leading the clinician down a difficult decision path on appropriate prophylaxis and therapy. Conventional coagulation assays—such as prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio—have historically been utilized to assess hemostasis and guide treatment following traumatic brain injury. However, these plasma-based assays alone often lack the sensitivity to diagnose and adequately treat coagulopathy associated with traumatic brain injury. Here, we review the whole blood coagulation assays termed viscoelastic tests and their use in traumatic brain injury. Modified viscoelastic tests with platelet function assays have helped elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and guide clinical decisions in a goal-directed fashion. Platelet dysfunction appears to underlie most coagulopathies in this patient population, particularly at the adenosine diphosphate and/or arachidonic acid receptors. Future research will focus not only on the utility of viscoelastic tests in diagnosing coagulopathy in traumatic brain injury, but also on better defining the use of these tests as evidence-based and/or precision-based tools to improve patient outcomes.