MaTOMS: A Feasibility Study Into Collecting Major Trauma Outcomes

Purpose and design

Historically much of the literature into major trauma refers to outcomes and mortality synonymously. However there is a growing recognition that as trauma systems mature and more patients lives are saved, the focus has to shift from amenable mortality to improving patient morbidity. Other than mortality it is not currently possible to ascertain the outcomes of patients with major trauma in England as there is no international consensus on which outcome measures should be collected for major trauma patients, nor a collection process in place.

Patients who suffer major trauma are often left with significant long term morbidity with one paper suggesting 42% are unable to return to work at 1 year and another suggesting full recovery is only present in 30% at 5 years. It is important for patients and the public that any outcome measures that are implemented can allow the identification of good or inadequate treatment so that attention can be addressed to improving the quality of care. None of these exist at present and this feasibility study aims to help identify and develop these for possible national implementation.

The study is designed as an observational feasibility study as the way outcomes will be assessed is via a structured interview either face to face or by telephone made up of questions from existing outcome measure instruments and the practicalities of collection of data and identification of the best instruments need to be made prior to any larger study. The instruments have been chosen from those that are known to measure outcomes in one or more domains of the World Health Organisation International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO ICF) and that have been previously used to measure outcome in major trauma patients in the literature and have been recommended by a workshop of clinicians and other stakeholders.

The study is designed as an observational feasibility study as the way outcomes will be assessed is via a structured interview either face to face or by telephone made up of questions from existing outcome measure instruments and the practicalities of collection of data and identification of the best instruments need to be made prior to any larger study. The instruments have been chosen from those that are known to measure outcomes in one or more domains of the World Health Organisation International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO ICF) and that have been previously used to measure outcome in major trauma patients in the literature and have been recommended by a workshop of clinicians and other stakeholders.

The design of the study has been influenced by existing protocols by which major trauma patients are routinely followed up in Victoria State in Australia. The main difference is that whilst the Australian protocols involved optout consent, this study will involve informed consent or in the case of those who are unable to consent, their Consultee (either personal or nominated) will be asked to advise whether they think the patient would be content to participate. Children aged 2 or more will be included in this study with their parents providing informed consent.

This study will build on the current literature as it will allow the assessment of the feasibility of assessing outcomes in an English Major Trauma Centre and the identification of the most suitable instruments. The study will also measure each instruments and their validity & sensitivity to change and allow an estimation of the costs and other logistics surrounding the routine collection of this data in England to be made.

Inclusion criteria

• Male or female
• Over 2 years
• First admission (for a particular set of injuries) to the Major Trauma Centre
• Traumatic injuries with ISS 9 or more as estimated at time of eligibility assessment
• Within 4 weeks of injury

Exclusion criteria

• The participant may not enter the study if ANY of the following apply:
• Non resident in the United Kingdom
• Patient unwilling to give informed consent
• Patient unable to give informed consent and 'consultee' advises they feel patient would not be content to participate
• Inmate in prison and therefore unable to be easily followed up by telephone