OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the prehospital GCS and GCS-M to predict 30-day mortality and severe disability in trauma patients.
DESIGN: We used the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study registry to enroll all trauma patients >18 years of age who presented to hospitals via emergency medical services from 1 January 2016 to November 30, 2018.
SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16,218 patients were included in the analysis of 30-day mortality and 11 653 patients in the analysis of functional outcomes.
OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after injury, and the secondary outcome was severe disability at discharge defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥4. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were compared between GCS and GCS-M for these outcomes. Patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) were analyzed separately. The predictive discrimination ability of logistic regression models for outcomes (30-day mortality and MRS) between GCS and GCS-M is illustrated using AUROCs.
MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome for 30-day mortality was 1.04% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.917 (0.887-0.946) vs. GCS-M:0.907 (0.875-0.938), P = 0.155. The secondary outcome for poor functional outcome (MRS ≥ 4) was 12.4% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.617 (0.597-0.637) vs. GCS-M: 0.613 (0.593-0.633), P = 0.616. The subgroup analyses of patients with and without TBI demonstrated consistent discrimination ability between the GCS and GCS-M. The AUROC values of the GCS vs. GCS-M models for 30-day mortality and poor functional outcome were 0.92 (0.821-1.0) vs. 0.92 (0.824-1.0) ( P = 0.64) and 0.75 (0.72-0.78) vs. 0.74 (0.717-0.758) ( P = 0.21), respectively.
CONCLUSION: In the prehospital setting, on-scene GCS-M was comparable to GCS in predicting 30-day mortality and poor functional outcomes among patients with trauma, whether or not there was a TBI.
METHODS: European, Thai and Malaysian universities collaborated with SEA national nutrition associations in the Early Nutrition eAcademy Southeast Asia (ENeA SEA) project. We assessed HCPs' needs using questionnaires and mapped CME/CPD programmes and regulations through stakeholder questionnaires. Using a co-creation approach, we established an e-learning platform. Evaluation in users was undertaken using questionnaires.
RESULTS: HCPs in SEA reported major training gaps relating to the first 1000 days of nutrition and limited impact of existing face-to-face training. Existing pre/postgraduate, residency and CME/CPD programmes did not adequately address the topic. To address these gaps, we produced a targeted e-learning platform with six modules and CME-tests. National ministries, Thai and Malaysian universities, and professional associations endorsed the training platform. To date, over 2600 HCPs have registered. Evaluation shows high acceptance and a very positive assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated e-learning can reduce major gaps in HCP training in SEA regarding nutrition during the first 1000 days of life at scale and is highly valued by both users and key stakeholders.