Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:10:16.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Scoring Systems for Trauma and Head Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2020

By
Laura White ,
Antoinette Edwards  and
Fiona Lecky
Edited by
Peter C. Whitfield ,
Jessie Welbourne ,
Elfyn Thomas ,
Fiona Summers ,
Maggie Whyte  and
Peter J. Hutchinson
Peter C. Whitfield
Affiliation:
Derriford Hospital, Plymouth
Jessie Welbourne
Affiliation:
University Hospitals, Plymouth
Elfyn Thomas
Affiliation:
Derriford Hospital, Plymouth
Fiona Summers
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
Maggie Whyte
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
Peter J. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Trauma care systems deal with patients who have an infinite variety of injuries requiring complex treatment. The assessment of such systems is a major challenge in clinical measurement and audit. Which systems are most effective in delivering best outcomes? Implementing recommendations for improved procedures will often incur additional costs – will the expense be worthwhile? Clearly, case-mix-adjusted outcome analysis must replace anecdote and dogma. Outcome prediction in trauma is a developing science that enables the assessment of trauma system effectiveness. This chapter will review some of the commonly used scoring systems and their particular applications in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Type
Chapter
Information
Traumatic Brain Injury
A Multidisciplinary Approach
 , pp. 57 - 64
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Committee on Injury Scaling, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. The Abbreviated injury scale 2005 revision (2008 update). Des Plaines, IL; 2005.Google Scholar
Baker, SP, O’Neill, B. The injury severity score: an update. J Trauma 1976;16:882–5.Google Scholar
Champion, HR, Copes, WS, Sacco, WJ, et al. Improved predictions from A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT) over Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): results of an independent evaluation. J Trauma 1996;40:42–9.Google Scholar
Osler, TMD, Baker, SPMPH, Long, WMD. A modification of the Injury Severity Score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma 1997;43:922–6.Google Scholar
Bouamara, O, Wrotchford, AS, Hollis, S, Vail, A, Woodford, M, Lecky, FE. A new approach to outcome prediction in trauma: a comparison with the TRISS model. J Trauma 2006;61:701–10.Google Scholar
Champion, HR, Sacco, WJ, Copes, WS, Gann, DS, Gennarelli, TA, Flanagan, ME. A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma 1989;29:623–9.Google Scholar
Perel, P, Edwards, P, Wentz, R, Roberts, I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decision Making 2006;6:38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennett, B, Teasdale, G. Aspects of coma after severe head injury. Lancet. 1977;1:878–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Healey, C, Osler, T, Rogers, F, et al. Improving the Glasgow Coma Score scale: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma 2003;54:671–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teasdale, J. The Child’s Glasgow Coma Scale has evolved from adaptations to Jennett and Teasdale’s Glasgow Coma Scale. Lancet 1977;1:878–81.Google Scholar
Champion, HC, Copes, WS, Sacco, WJ, et al. The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for trauma care. J Trauma 1990;30:1356–65.Google Scholar
Bouamra, O, Jacques, R, Edwards, A, Yates, DW, Lawrence, T, Jenks, T, Woodford, MI, Lecky, F. Prediction modelling for trauma using comorbidity and ‘true’ 30-day outcome. Emerg Med J 2015;32(12):933–8.Google Scholar
Altman, DG, Royston, P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000;19:453–73.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiell, IG, Wells, GA, Vandemheen, K, et al. The Canadian CT head rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357:1391–6.Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, B, Lingsma, HF, Lecky, FE, Lu, J, Weir, J, Butcher, I, McHugh, GS, Murray, GD, Perel, P, Maas, AIR, Steyerberg, EW. Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models Crit Care Med 2012;40(5):1609–17.Google Scholar
Hollis, S, Yates, DW, Woodford, M, Foster, P. Standardised comparison of performance indicators in trauma: a new approach to case-mix variation. J Trauma 1995;38:763–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, T, Helmy, A, Bouamra, O, Woodford, M, Lecky, F, Hutchinson, PJ. Traumatic brain injury in England and Wales Epidemiology: complications and standardised mortality BMJ Open 2016;6:e01219718.Google Scholar
EuroTARN Writing Committee on behalf of the EuroTARN Group. A comparison of European Trauma Registries: the first report from the EuroTARN Group. Resuscitation 2007;75:286–97.Google Scholar
Ringdal, KG, Coats, TJ, Lefering, R, Di Bartolomeo, S, Steen, PA, Røise, O, Handolin, L. Hans Morten Lossius and Utstein TCD expert panel: the Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: a joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG. Scand J Trauma Resuscitation Emerg Med 2008;16:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennett, B, Bond, M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: a practical scale. Lancet 1975;1:480–4.Google Scholar
Black, N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013;346:f167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×