Zatzick Douglas, Russo Joan, Thomas Peter, Darnell Doyanne, Teter Harry, Ingraham Leah, Whiteside Lauren K, Wang Jin, Guiney Roxanne, Parker Lea, Sandgren Kirsten, Hedrick Margot Kelly, Van Eaton Erik G, Jurkovich Gregory
Psychiatry. 2018 Summer;81(2):141-157. doi: 10.1080/00332747.2017.1354621. Epub 2018 Mar 13.
The investigation aimed to compare two approaches to the delivery of care for hospitalized injury survivors, a patient-centered care transition intervention versus enhanced usual care.
This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial randomized 171 acutely injured trauma survivors with three or more early postinjury concerns and high levels of emotional distress to intervention (I; n = 85) and enhanced usual care control (C; n = 86) conditions. The care transition intervention components included care management that elicited and targeted improvement in patients' postinjury concerns, 24/7 study team cell phone accessibility, and stepped-up care. Posttraumatic concerns, symptomatic distress, functional status, and statewide emergency department (ED) service utilization were assessed at baseline and over the course of the 12 months after injury. Regression analyses assessed intervention and control group outcome differences over time.
Over 80% patient follow-up was attained at each time point. Intervention patients demonstrated clinically and statistically significant reductions in the percentage of any severe postinjury concerns expressed when compared to controls longitudinally (Wald chi-square = 11.29, p = 0.01) and at the six-month study time point (C = 74%, I = 53%; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02). Comparisons of ED utilization data yielded clinically significant cross-sectional differences (one or more three- to six-month ED visits; C = 30.2%, I = 16.5%, [relative risk (95% confidence interval] C versus I = 2.00 (1.09, 3.70), p = 0.03) that did not achieve longitudinal statistical significance (F (3, 507) = 2.24, p = 0.08). The intervention did not significantly impact symptomatic or functional outcomes.
Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts should continue to evaluate patient-centered care transition interventions to inform American College of Surgeons' clinical guidelines for U.S. trauma care systems.
本研究旨在比较两种为住院受伤幸存者提供护理的方法,即以患者为中心的护理过渡干预与强化常规护理。
这项实用的比较有效性试验将171名急性受伤的创伤幸存者随机分为干预组(I;n = 85)和强化常规护理对照组(C;n = 86),这些幸存者在受伤后早期有三个或更多问题且情绪困扰程度较高。护理过渡干预措施包括护理管理,该管理能找出并针对患者受伤后的问题进行改善,研究团队24/7提供手机接入服务,以及加强护理。在基线和受伤后12个月期间评估创伤后问题、症状困扰、功能状态和全州急诊科服务利用情况。回归分析评估了干预组和对照组随时间推移的结果差异。
每个时间点的患者随访率均超过80%。与对照组相比,干预组患者在纵向(Wald卡方 = 11.29,p = 0.01)以及六个月研究时间点时,表达的任何严重受伤后问题的百分比在临床和统计学上均有显著降低(C = 74%,I = 53%;Fisher精确检验,p = 0.02)。急诊科利用数据的比较产生了具有临床意义的横断面差异(一次或多次三到六个月的急诊科就诊;C = 30.2%,I = 16.5%,[相对风险(95%置信区间)]C对I = 2.00(1.09,3.70),p = 0.03),但未达到纵向统计学显著性(F(3, 507) = 2.24,p = 0.08)。该干预对症状或功能结果没有显著影响。
精心策划的调查和政策努力应继续评估以患者为中心的护理过渡干预措施,以为美国外科医师学会关于美国创伤护理系统的临床指南提供参考。