A comparison of the psychometric properties of a person-administered vs. automated screening tool for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in traumatically injured patients.

Journal: Injury

Volume: 

Issue: 

Year of Publication: 

Affiliated Institutions:  Data Analytics & Informatics, Comprehensive Injury Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States; Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: abrandolino@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: ebiesboer@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: mleissring@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: rlweber@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: stimmer@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: tcassini@mcw.edu. Division of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. Electronic address: meschroeder@mcw.edu.

Abstract summary 

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-CoT) mandated that trauma centers have mental health screening and referral protocols in place by 2023. This study compares the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS) and the Automated Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Screen to assess their performance in predicting risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the same sample of trauma patients to inform trauma centers' decision when selecting a tool to best fit their current clinical practice.This was a secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies of traumatically injured patients (N = 255). The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves to predict risk of subsequent PTSD development. PTSD diagnosis at 6-month follow-up was assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5.Just over half the sample screened positive on the ITSS (57.7%), while 67.8% screened positive on the Automated EMR Screen. The area under the curve (AUC) for the two screens was not significantly different (ITSS AUC = 0.745 versus Automated EMR Screen AUC = 0.694, p = 0.21), similar performance in PTSD risk predication within the same general trauma population. The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen had similar sensitivities (86.5%, 89.2%), and specificities (52.5%, 40.9%) respectively at their recommended cut-off points.Both screens are psychometrically comparable. Therefore, trauma centers considering screening tools for PTSD risk to comply with the ACS-CoT 2023 mandate should consider their local resources and patient population. Regardless of screen selection, screening must be accompanied by a referral process to address the identified risk.

Authors & Co-authors:  Brandolino Biesboer Leissring Weber Timmer-Murillo deRoon-Cassini Schroeder

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations : 
Authors :  7
Identifiers
Doi : 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111507
SSN : 1879-0267
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Other Terms
Automated EMR Screen;Injured Trauma Survivor Screen;Mental health screening;PTSD;Traumatic injury
Study Design
Study Approach
Country of Study
Publication Country
Netherlands