ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4442-9664
Current Organisations
Monash University
,
Deakin University
,
Alfred Health
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
Date: 2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 25-06-2020
Abstract: The aims of this study were to describe the profile and longer-term outcomes of major trauma patients with unstable open pelvic fractures. An observational study was performed using data from the population-based Victorian State Trauma Registry. Adult (≥16 years) major trauma patients who had sustained an unstable open pelvic fracture between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2017 in Victoria (Australia) were included. Patient demographics, injury event, severity and management data were extracted. Patients were followed up at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury to collect information about health status, function and return to work. There were 67 patients. The mean (SD) age was 41.4 (18.3) years, and 66% were male. Seventy-six per cent were road traffic injuries, 96% were managed at Level 1 trauma centres and all were multi-trauma patients. A third were Tile C fractures and 80% underwent surgical stabilisation of the pelvic injury. Eighty per cent were admitted to intensive care. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9%. Most (89%) survivors were discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The proportion classified as ‘severe disability’ on the Glasgow Outcome-Scale Extended declined from 38% at 6 months to 19% at 24 months. The overall three-level EuroQoL five-dimensional instrument score increased with time indicating better health status, and 50% of patients returned to work by 24 months. Major trauma with unstable, open pelvic fracture is rare. Low in-hospital mortality was observed. Most survived to hospital discharge and outcomes improved with time post-injury, but 75% of patients experienced persistent pain and ongoing mobility and activity restrictions.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2018
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 05-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2021.10.038
Abstract: Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are erse, unpredictable, and increasing in frequency, but preparation is possible and necessary. The nature of MCIs requires a trauma response but also requires effective and tested disaster preparedness planning. From an international perspective, the aims of this narrative review are to describe the key components necessary for optimisation of trauma system preparedness for MCIs, whether trauma systems and centres meet these components and areas for improvement of trauma system response. Many of the principles necessary for response to MCIs are embedded in trauma system design and trauma centre function. These include robust communication networks, established triage systems, and capacity to secure centres from threats to safety and quality of care. However, evidence from the current literature indicates the need to strengthen trauma system preparedness for MCIs through greater trauma leader representation at all levels of disaster preparedness planning, enhanced training of staff and simulated disaster training, expanded surge capacity planning, improved staff management and support during the MCI and in the post-disaster recovery phase, clear provision for the treatment of paediatric patients in disaster plans, and ersified and pre-agreed systems for essential supplies and services continuity. Mass casualty preparedness is a complex, iterative process that requires an integrated, multidisciplinary, and tiered approach. Through effective preparedness planning, trauma systems should be well-placed to deliver an optimal response when faced with MCIs.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 24-08-2020
Abstract: Orthopaedic injury can lead to decreased physical activity. Valid measures for assessing physical activity are therefore needed in this population. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement and concordance between the International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form (IPAQ) and device-measured physical activity and sitting time in orthopaedic injury patients. Adults with isolated upper or lower limb fracture (n = 46 mean age of 40.5 years) wore two activity monitors (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and activPAL) for 10 days, from 2 weeks post-discharge. The IPAQ was also completed for a concurrent 7-day period. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots were calculated to compare walking/stepping time, total METmins, and sitting time. The IPAQ overestimated device-derived walking time (mean difference = 2.34 ± 7.33 h/week) and total METmins (mean difference = 767 ± 1659 METmins/week) and underestimated sitting time (mean difference = −2.26 ± 3.87 h/day). There was fair concordance between IPAQ-reported and device-measured walking (ρ = 0.34) and sitting time (ρ = 0.38) and moderate concordance between IPAQ-reported and device-measured METmins (ρ = 0.43). In patients with orthopaedic injury, the IPAQ overestimates physical activity and underestimates sitting time. Higher agreement was observed in the forms of activity (walking, total PA and sitting) commonly performed by this patient group.
No related grants have been discovered for William Veitch.