Objectives To establish the proportion of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) diagnosis among people presenting to an emergency department (ED), to determine the accuracy of recorded ED diagnoses. We also aimed to describe challenges in mTBI case identification and its acute hospital management. Design and setting A retrospective chart review of all ED attendances to a major trauma hospital, over a 9-month period (June 2015–February 2016). Participants Adults aged 18–65 years consecutively presenting to an ED. Primary outcome measures Proportion of mTBI diagnosis among ED attendances (ie, confirmed mTBI based on the WHO criteria or indeterminate mTBI based on secondary criteria), and proportion of accurately recorded mTBI diagnosis by ED clinicians (ie, ‘mTBI’, ‘concussion’). Results Of 30 479 ED attendances, 351 (1.15%) confirmed mTBI diagnosis and 180 (0.6%) indeterminate diagnosis were identified. Only 81 (23.1%) individuals with a confirmed mTBI had a ‘mTBI diagnosis’ clearly recorded in the medical notes. Of the allocated discharge diagnosis codes to the two identified cohorts, 89.8% were not indicative of mTBI. Intracranial injuries were found in 31 (8.5%) confirmed cases. Glasgow Coma Scale scores were consistently assessed in the ED but identified only 117 (33.3%) confirmed mTBI cases. Post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) testing was able to confirm acute cognitive impairment in 113 (62.1%) of those who were tested (182, 51.3%). Conclusions mTBI is a common, but an under-recognised cause for ED attendance. Despite challenges, the use of an operational definition such as the WHO diagnostic criteria can improve accuracy in mTBI identification. Acute management may be enhanced by rapid assessment of PTA.

Background: Mental health symptoms, like depressive mood (DM) and post-traumatic stress (PTS), and pain interference (PI) with daily functioning often co-occur following traffic injury and their comorbidity can complicate recovery. This study aimed to map the course and overlapping trajectories of mental health symptoms, and associations with PI in a traffic injury population. Methods: In total, 2019 adults sustaining minor-to-moderate traffic injury were recruited within 28 days post-injury and assessed using phone interviews at 1, 6 and 12-months post-injury. Trajectories of DM, PTS and PI were established and relationships between DM, PTS and PI trajectories were explored using dual trajectory modelling. Bio-psychosocial predictors (e.g. pre-injury health, catastrophizing, acute distress, quality of life, social support) of mental health trajectories were investigated. Results: Up to five typical post-trauma trajectories were identified for DM, PTS and PI. Most people were in a resilient mental health trajectory (over 60%, DM or PTS), or in a chronic PI trajectory (almost 60%) 12 months post-injury. While recovery/resilient mental health trajectories were strongly interrelated (73.4% joint probability and > 94% conditional probabilities), DM/PTS comorbidity in chronic trajectories was not straightforward, suggesting a possibly asymmetric relationship. That is, persistent DM was more likely associated with persistent PTS (90.4%), than vice versa (31.9%), with a 22.5% probability that persistent PTS was associated with none or milder depression (i.e. following a recovery/resilient DM trajectory). An asymmetrical relationship was also found between mental health and PI. The majority of those with persistent PI were likely to be in a recovery/resilient DM/PTS trajectory (almost 70%), but those in a non-resilient DM/PTS trajectory showed a high risk of persistent PI. Predictors of non-resilient mental health trajectories included poorer pre-injury health and social support, and shared factors like acute psychological distress and pain catastrophizing. Conclusions: Strong interrelations were confirmed between mental health symptoms and PI following traffic injury. However, persistent DM was more strongly linked to persistent PTS, than vice versa. Persistent PI was only linked with persistent DM/PTS in vulnerable subgroups. Early psychiatric/psychological interventions should target elevated psychological distress and negative appraisals in vulnerable individuals, to reduce long-term mental health morbidity/comorbidity and PI. Trial registration: ACTRN12613000889752.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a severe neurological injury that results in damage to multiple bodily systems. SCI rehabilitation requires a significant focus on improving adjustment to the injury. This paper presents a detailed description of the Spinal Cord Injury Adjustment Model (SCIAM), which clarifies how individuals adjust to SCI and contends that adjustment to SCI is a multifactorial process involving non-linear dynamic adaptation over time. Evidence supporting SCIAM is also discussed. Mediation analyses were conducted to test the mediator dynamics proposed by the model. The analyses tested the relationship between two moderators (self-care and secondary health conditions), mediators (two self-efficacy items and appraisal of quality of life or QoL), and positive versus negative vitality/mental health as outcomes. Results showed that higher self-efficacy and perceived QoL was related to greater independence in self-care and reduced negative impacts of secondary health conditions. This study supported the mediation role of self-efficacy and other appraisals such as perceived QoL in enhancing self-care and buffering the negative impact of health challenges. In conclusion, it is important to employ a holistic model such as SCIAM to conceptualise and increase understanding of the process of adjustment following a severe neurological injury such as SCI.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in autonomic, motor, and sensory impairments that can compromise mental health. Guidelines directing the management of mental health following SCI presently address clinical anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, substance use disorders, and suicide. However, evidence suggests that perhaps as many as 70% of individuals with SCI do not develop a clinically diagnosable mental health disorder. Therefore, the authors contend that understanding non-clinical cognitive and psychological aspects of adjustment post-SCI is paramount and that the application of this knowledge to the formulation of adjustment-enhancing interventions is crucial. To assist with this endeavour, we examine existing mental health guidelines targeting SCI, and present a narrative review of research on the under-represented topics of adjustment, coping, grief, and resilience. We include mild cognitive impairment, which reflects a common factor that can compromise adjustment. Loss and stress trigger processes of adjustment, coping, grief, and resilience. SCI involves loss and stress triggering these processes, arguably without exception. Our study applied a narrative review methodology searching Google Scholar and PsychInfo databases for terms adjustment, coping, grief, resilience, and cognitive impairment. Qualitative studies and quantitative studies were selected to capture bottom-up and top-down perspectives. Reference lists of retrieved papers were searched as appropriate. Reviewed literature suggested that existing guidelines concerning mental health following SCI neglect positive processes of adjustment and suggest this neglect contributes to a deficits-based view of mental health following SCI. Research into “positive” or adjustment-enhancing processes is mostly cross-sectional, heterogenous, and poorly positioned to inform future guideline-development. Researchers should achieve consensus over the operationalisation of essential processes and overcome a fixation with “outcomes” to better inform management of mental health after SCI.

Background: Seeking compensation has been shown to have an adverse effect on the psychological health and recovery of injured patients, however, this effect requires clarification.Methods: A total of 2019 adults sustaining a traffic injury were recruited. Of these, 709 (35.1%) lodged a compensation claim. Interviews occurred at 1-, 6- and 12-month post-injury. Outcomes were psychological distress (posttraumatic stress (PTS) and depressive symptoms) and health-related functioning (HrF) (quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L and disability by WHODAS) over 12-months post-injury. Covariates included individual stress vulnerability (preinjury, injury-related factors).Results: Compared with non-compensation participants, compensation groups had higher stress vulnerability (more severe injuries and negative reactions) and poorer baseline outcomes (psychological health and HrF). After adjustment, we found an effect of compensation on HrF [β-0.09 (−0.11 to −0.07), p < 0.001] and PTS [β = 0.36 (0.16 to 0.56), p = 0.0003], but not on depression [β = −0.07 (−0.42 to 0.28), p = 0.7]. Both groups improved over time. Vulnerable individuals (β = 1.23, p < 0.001) and those with poorer baseline outcomes (PTS: β = 0.06, p = 0.002; HrF: β = −1.07, p < 0.001) were more likely to lodge a claim. In turn, higher stress vulnerability, poor baseline outcomes and claiming compensation were associated with long-term psychological distress and HrF. Nevertheless, concurrent HrF in the model fully accounted for the compensation effect on psychological distress (β = −0.14, p = 0.27), but not vice versa.Conclusions: This study provides convincing evidence that seeking compensation is not necessarily harmful to psychological health. The person's stress vulnerability and injury-related disability emerge as major risk factors of long-term psychological distress, requiring a whole-systems approach to address the problem.