Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:03:38.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

P078: Derivation and validation of a non return to work predictive model three months after a mild traumatic brain injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

N. Le Sage*
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
J. Chauny
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
M. Émond
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
L. Moore
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
P.M. Archambault
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
É. De Guise
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
M. Ouellet
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
P. Tardif
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
E. Mercier
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec City, QC
*
*Corresponding authors

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Introduction: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common problem and until now, ED physicians don’t have any tool to predict when the patient will return to work. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a clinical decision rule to identify the ED patients who are at risk of non-return to work or to school three months after a mTBI. Methods: Patients were recruiting in five Level I and II Trauma Centers ED in the province of Québec. All patients were referred for a systematic telephone follow-up after three months. Information about their return to work/school, partial or complete, was collected. Log binomial regression was used to develop a predictive model and the validation of this model was performed on a different prospective cohort. Results: 13,7% of the patients did not return to work/school at three months. The final model was derived from a prospective cohort of 398 patients and included three risk factors: motor vehicle accident (2 points), loss of consciousness (1 point) and headache during the emergency department assessment (1 point). With a one-point threshold, this model has a sensitivity of 97% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%. However, the specificity is only 23% and the positive predictive value (PPV) is 17%. The area under the curve is 0.786. Validation of the model was performed with a new prospective cohort of 517 patients, and demonstrated a sensitivity of 86% and a NPV of 91%. Conclusion: Although this model is not very specific, its high sensitivity and NPV indicate to the clinician that mTBI patients who don’t have any of the three criteria are at low risk of prolonged work stoppage after their trauma.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2017