Affiliations: Biochemical and Experimental Division, II. Department
of Surgery of the University of Cologne, Germany | Surgical Clinic of the II. Department of Surgery,
University of Cologne, Germany | Department of Medical Psychology, University of
Hamburg, Germany | School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Mc Gill
University, Montreal, Canada
Note: [] Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. E. Neugebauer, Biochemical and
Experimental Division, II. Department of Surgery, University of Cologne,
Ostmerheimerstr. 200, D-51109 Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49 221 98957 0; Fax.:
+49 221 98957 30; E-mail: sekretariat-neugebauer@uni-koeln.de
Abstract: In October 1999, an international and interdisciplinary consensus
conference was held about the assessment and application of quality of life
(QoL) measures after multiple trauma. Four working groups represented the
following patients: children with traumatic brain injury (TBI); adults with
TBI, adults with multiple injuries (but without TBI), and adults with spinal
cord injury. According to predefined questions, the groups tried to identify
the relevant problems of the patients, at different time points after the
traumatic event. A review of the existing instruments for quality of life
assessment and the evidence of their application in trauma patients in the
scientific literature was performed by each group. Based on the results of
these literature reviews it was concluded that there are not enough data to
establish "evidence-based" guidelines for QoL assessments in these patients.
Nevertheless, the groups comprised of experts clinicians and methodologists,
agreed on the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the SF-36 as generic tools for QoL
assessment across all trauma patients. It was further recommended to use these
generic tools in combination with condition-specific instruments to better
reflect the specific problems of the patients. Finally, the whole group
suggested that it was not appropriate to view this conference as a "final
report" about QoL assessment in trauma patients, but rather it should be seen
as a starting point for increased efforts to initiate clinical research
projects using QoL as an outcome, to develop better instruments, and to include
QoL assessments into daily routines.
