Factors associated with injury severity among users of powered mobility devices

4Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To examine the features of powered mobility device-related injuries and identify the predictors of injury severity in such settings. Methods Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance data from 2011 to 2018 were used in this retrospective study. Participants were assigned to the mild/moderate and severe groups based on their excess mortality ratio–adjusted injury severity score and their general injury-related factors and injury outcome-related factors were compared. Results Of 407 patients, 298 (79.2%) were assigned to the mild/moderate group and 109 (26.8%) to the severe group. The severe group included a higher percentage of patients aged 70 years or older (43.0% vs. 59.6%, P=0.003), injuries incurred in the daytime (72.6% vs. 82.4%, P=0.044), injuries from traffic accidents and falls (P= 0.042), head injuries (38.6% vs. 80.7%, P< 0.001), torso injuries (16.8% vs. 32.1%, P=0.001), overall hospital admission (28.5% vs. 82.6%, P< 0.001), intensive care unit admission (1.7% vs. 37.6%, P< 0.001), death after admission (1.4% vs. 10.3%, P=0.034), and total mortality (0.7% vs. 9.2%, P<0.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for injury severity were as follows: age 70 years or older (OR, 2.124; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.239–3.642), head injury (OR, 10.441; 95% CI, 5.465–19.950), and torso injury (OR, 4.858; 95% CI, 2.495– 9.458). Conclusion The proportions of patients aged 70 years or older, head and torso injuries, injuries from traffic accidents and falls, and injuries in the daytime were higher in the severe group. Our results highlight the need for measures to address these factors to lower the incidence of severe injuries.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choi, S. W., Woo, J. H., Hyun, S. Y., Jang, J. H., & Choi, W. S. (2021). Factors associated with injury severity among users of powered mobility devices. Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine, 8(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.20.078

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free