The use of Functional Capacity Scale in the Assessment of Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury — Multicenter Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15225/PNN.2014.3.4.5Keywords
traumatic brain injury, Functional Capacity ScaleAbstract
Introduction. One of the most serious life and health hazards of a modern man are injuries, one of which is traumatic brain injury (TBI). Among functional scales that are most commonly used for the assessment of the condition of a patient after TBI we can distinguish the Modified Rankin Scale, Disability Rating Scale (DRS), Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE).
Aim. The main aim of this work was to present Functional Capacity Scale in the assessment of patients after traumatic brain injury.
Material and Methods. In the multicenter studies, there were 159 patients examined. They were hospitalized in neurosurgical wards in Bydgoszcz, Lublin and Wroclaw due to traumatic brain injury. The research was based on twofold assessment (on the day of admission — assessment 1 and discharge — assessment 2) of the condition of a patient after traumatic brain injury with the use of standardized research tools such as Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Functional Capacity Scale (FCS) and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). The method used was direct observation with measurement.
Results. The average result of functional capacity in FCS was 34,41 points (71.7%) on the day of admission, and 41,87 points (87.2%) on the day of discharge. After analyzing the differences between the FCS results of men and women, there was no difference between gender groups that would be statistically significant (p>0.05) both on the day of admission and discharge. The age groups remained in statistically significant, low correlation with the results of FCS on the day of admission (R=0.261; p=0.001) and were on the edge of significance (R=0.140; p=0.088) on the day of discharge. The place of residence did not differentiate (p>0.05) the functional capacity assessed with FCS. The results of FCS remained in statistically significant correlation with GCS results (p<0.05) both on the day of admission and discharge and GOS (p=0.000) results on the day of discharge.
Conclusions. The FCS scale, suggested for functional assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury, is a tool that appropriately recognizes the functional condition of a patient with traumatic brain injury. It substantially correlates with GCS and GOS, which denotes that its construction and prognostic features are accurate. (JNNN 2014;3(4):175–182)
References
Traumatic Brain Injury. Retrieved September 21, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/ traumaticbraininjury/.
Greenberg M.S. Handbook of neurosurgery. Thieme, New York 2010.
Lenrow D. What is Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI?). Retrieved September 19, 2014, from http://www.traumaticbraininjury.com/.
Rutkowska M. Urazy czaszkowo-mózgowe epidemią XXI wieku. Medycyna Ogólna. 2010;16(2):192–200.
Maksymowicz W. Neurochirurgia w zarysie. PZWL, Warszawa 1999.
Ślusarz R., Kruszyna K., Beuth W. Postępowanie pielęgniarskie wobec pacjenta z urazem czaszkowo-mózgowym. W: Ślusarz R., Szewczyk M.T. (Red.), Pielęgniarstwo w neurochirurgii. Borgis, Warszawa 2006;61–68.
Ślusarz R. Wybrane standardy i procedury w pielęgniarstwie neurochirurgicznym. Naczelna Izba Pielęgniarek i Położnych, Warszawa 2007.
Jabłońska R., Ślusarz R., Grzelak L., Dopierała L., Swincow A., Beuth W. Opieka neurochirurgiczna nad chorym po urazie czaszkowo-mózgowym na wszystkich etapach leczenia szpitalnego. Annales UMSC. 2005;60(7)supl.16: 50–55.
Hickey J.V. Craniocerebral trauma. In Hickey J.V. (Ed.), Neurological and neurosurgical nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2003;373–406.
Bullock R., Chesnut R.M., Clinton G. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2000;17(6/7):451–553.
Minton M.S., Hickey J.V. Neuroscience critical care. In Hickey J.V. (Ed.), Neurological and neurosurgical nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2003;359–369.
Sadaka F., Patel D., Lakshmanan R. The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16(1):95–101.
Henninger N., Izzy S., Carandang R., Hall W., Muehlschlegel S. Severe leukoaraiosis portends a poor outcome after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(3): 483–495.
Nichol A.D., Higgins A.M., Gabbe B.J., Murray L.J., Cooper D.J., Cameron P.A. Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42(3):281–287.
Shukla D., Devi B.I., Agrawal A. Outcome measures for traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011; 113(6):435–441.
Shah S., Muncer S., Griffin J., Elliott L. The Utility of the Modified Barthel Index for Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation and Prognosis. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2000;63(10):469–475.
Houlden H., Edwards M., McNeil J., Greenwood R. Use of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure during early inpatient rehabilitation after single incident brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2006; 20:153–159.
Seel R.T., Wright G., Wallace T., Newman S., Dennis L. The utility of the FIM+FAM for assessing traumatic brain injury day program outcomes. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007;22(5):267–277.
Whitlock J.A. Jr, Hamilton B.B. Functional outcome after rehabilitation for severe traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(12):1103–1112.
Jennett B., Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: a practical scale. Lancet. 1975;1:480–484.
King J.T., Carlier P.M., Marion D.W. Early Glasgow Outcome Scale scores predict long-term functional outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22(9):947–954.
Teasdale G.M., Pettigrew L.E., Wilson J.T., Murray G., Jennett B. Analyzing outcome of treatment of severe head injury: A review and update on advancing the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Journal of Neurotrauma. 1998;15:587–597.
Wilson J.T.L., Pettigrew L.E.L., Teasdale G.M. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: Guidelines for Their Use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15(8):573–585.
Wilson J.T., Slieker F.J., Legrand V., Murray G., Stocchetti N., Maas A.I. Observer variation in the assessment of outcome in traumatic brain injury: experience from a multicenter, international randomized clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(1):123–129.
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–84.
Ślusarz R. Functional Capacity Scale (FCS) in Nursing Practice. JNNN. 2012;1(1):35–40.
Ślusarz R., Beuth W., Książkiewicz B. Functional Capacity Scale as a Suggested Nursing Tool for Assessing Patient Condition with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage — Part II. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2006;15(4):741–746.
Hirtz D., Thurman D.J., Gwinn-Hardy K., Mohamed M., Chaudhuri A.R., Zalutsky R. How common are the “common” neurologic disorders? Neurology. 2007;68(5): 326–337.
Flaada J.T., Leibson C.L., Mandrekar J.N. et al. Relative risk mortality after traumatic brain injury: a population- -based study of the role of age and injury severity. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:435–445.
Jaracz K., Kozubski W. Jakość życia chorych po urazie czaszkowo-mózgowym. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2008;42(6): 525–535.
Berger E., Leven F., Pirente N., Bouillon B., Neugebauer E. Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the literature. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1999;14:93–102.
Cipolle M.D., Geffe K., Getchell J., et al. Long-term outcome in elderly patients after operation for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Del Med J. 2014;86(8):237–244.
Barnes M.P., Ward A.B. Oxford Handbook of Rehabilitation Medicine. Oxford University Press 2005.
Moppett I.K. Traumatic brain injury: assessment, resuscitation and early management. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99: 18–31.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 263
Number of citations: 0