Quantitative Minor Injury Scale: pilot study of a scale to measure level of minor injury after motor vehicle collisions Kristopher R. Brickman ∗†, Alex B. Blair, Marijo B. Tamburrino ‡, Alexander D. Dzurik ∗ , Hong Xie §, Jennifer B. Smirnoff ‡ , Xin Wang ‡ § ¶ ∗Departments of Emergency Medicine,‡Psychiatry,§Neurosciences, and ¶Radiology; University of Toledo Health Science Campus, Toledo, OH Study objective: Severity of physical injury after motor vehicle collisions (MVC) may associate with survivors’ mental health; however the quantitative relationship is poorly understood. This is partly because existing injury scales are only sensitive in the potentially fatal range, while most MVC injuries are minor. To quantitatively describe a minor injury, a Quantitative Minor Injury Scale (QMIS) was developed based on injury symptoms, medica- tion, imaging examination, age and hospital stay. Methods: We developed the QMIS after analyzing existing injury and trauma scales coupled with input from Emergency physi- cians. We recruited 32 MVC survivors with minor injury (rated 1-2 on Abbreviated Injury Scale) who visited the emergency depart- ment (ED) within 48 hours of the accident. Depression symptoms were measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depres- sion Scale (CES-D) within 3 weeks of the trauma and their injuries were quantified with the QMIS. Results: Application of the QMIS in the MVC survivors produced a gradient from 0.6 to 7.8 with an average of 2.65. A significant cor- relation (R=0.366; p=0.039; n=32) was found with the QMIS score and depression symptoms as measured by the CES-D. Conclusions: Results suggest the QMIS creates differentiation among a population of minor injury patients and may be useful in examining the relationship between minor injury and psychologi- cal conditions. The further development of QMIS may generalize the usage of this scale to minor injuries caused by other types of trauma. minor injury | injury scale | minor trauma | motor vehicle collision Survivors of motor vehicle collisions (MVC) have reported psy-chiatric conditions, such as acute stress disorder (ASD), post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder, pho- bias, substance abuse and depression (1-4). Up to 67% of MVC vic- tims seeking medico-legal assessment suffered from depression (1). Injured patients reported more post-MVC mental health hospitaliza- tions and physician mental health claims than non-injured (5), indi- cating mental health problems may be associated with severity of in- jury. Numerical injury scales, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)(6) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS)(7), are standardized anatomic scoring systems developed to predict trauma patient mortality, evalu- ate patient outcome, conduct epidemiological research and longitudi- nal trauma center comparisons. Other scales incorporate physiologic functioning; Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)(8) and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS)(9) are used to assess level of consciousness after head injury and predict patient survival after blunt or penetrat- ing trauma respectively. Variable correlation between injury severity and mental health problems has been found using these scales (2, 10- 14). The controversy may be influenced by the significant number of MVC survivors with solely minor injuries such as sprained joints and contusions. Importance. The CDC reports nearly 3 million MVCs a year in the United States of America. Of these, 92.7% were treated in the ED and released without further hospitalization (15). Over a 6 year pe- riod, the Queensland Trauma registry reported that minor injury of any etiology, as determined by contemporary scales, accounted for nearly 90% of all recorded trauma admitted, and significantly con- tributed to the burden of injury (16). The impact of minor injuries on survivor’s mental health is understudied largely because of an ab- sence of a sensitive, easy to use scale to evaluate severity and distin- guish demarcations among this undifferentiated category of injury. The injury severity scales that aim to categorize the severity of minor injuries may open this large survivor group to future research regard- ing psychiatric morbidity. Study Goals. The purpose of this study is to establish a numerical system, Quantitative Minor Injury Scale (QMIS), to evaluate MVC patients’ minor injuries, as defined by an AIS score of 1-2. The AIS is an anatomical score considering location and type of injury with a scale of one to six; ‘one’ being minor such as a contusion, ‘three’ serious including an open fracture of the humerus, and ‘six’ repre- senting maximum, untreatable severity with a certain probability of death (6). Common medical procedures to assess and treat these in- juries in the Emergency Department (ED) setting include imaging, pain medication, or hospitalization for observation. The injury type and medical care administered in the ED may give an objective evalu- ation of the severity of a particular minor injury. The proposed QMIS is used to test the relationship of injury severity and mental health in a cohort of MVC survivors having minor injuries. Methods Participants. The patients were recruited from the ED of The Univer- sity of Toledo Medical Center and level one trauma center. Patients †To whom correspondence should be sent:Kris.Brickman@utoledo.edu Author contributions: ABB, KRB, ADD and XW conceived the study and designed the trial. KRB, MBT and XW obtained research funding. All authors supervised conduct of the trial and data collection. ABB and XW undertook recruitment of participating patients and managed the data. MBT, JBS, HX and ADD provided analysis and advice for psychiatric studies. HX and XW provided statistical advice and assisted in data analysis. ABB drafted the manuscript and all authors contributed to its revision. KRB and ABB are equally contributed to the manuscript as a whole. The authors declare no conflict of interest Freely available online through the UTJMS open access option 8–10 UTJMS 2014 Vol. 1 No. 1 utdr.utoledo.edu/translation/ were excluded if their injuries were too severe (AIS 3+)(6) or they were unwilling to participate. Local institutional review committee approval was obtained and all patients gave written informed consent. All subjects experienced a non-fatal MVA and visited the ED within 48 hours of the accident. All were non-pregnant, English-speaking, alert and oriented without intracranial injury; no selection was based on race or gender. The patients were required to complete a series of surveys: during their initial ED visit, within 2-3 weeks of the acci- dent, one month and three months after the accident. QMIS Score Calculation. Review of patient ED medical records identified information on underlying injury, age, imaging studies per- formed, medication received and length of hospital stay. The QMIS was calculated for all patients deemed non-serious, with AIS less than 3 (6). The QMIS has five additive categories leading to a thorough, objective picture of the patient’s minor injury severity: type of pre- senting physical injury, medication utilized, imaging studies, patient age and ED disposition (admit/discharge). Based on previous injury scales and survivability ratios (6-9, 17) the QMIS was created (Table 1[Supplementary File]). The physical injury category has different values depending on location: with a higher score if on the face. Similarly, closed fractures have higher values for different bones: a fractured tibia is more sig- nificant than a fractured phalange. If a patient presents with multiple minor injuries they are summated into one presenting injury symp- tom score; for example: 5+ contusions not to the face, a strained joint, and a 3-10cm facial laceration requiring sutures: (0.75+1+1.5=3.25). The patient’s age was then taken into account by adding a percent- age of the injury symptom score: 12.5% for patients 40-55, 25% for patients 55-70, and 50% for 70+. Similar presented injuries could impact older individuals more. A substantial number of older adults involved in MVCs with only minor injuries are at risk for persistent pain after discharge (18). If admitted, a fraction of the patient’s pre- senting injury symptom score is added per day as the hospital stay category. For example: if the previous injury symptom score of 3.25 required admittance for one day, an additional 33% is added. Uti- lized medication was divided into oral (PO) non-narcotic, narcotic PO and intravenous (IV) narcotics, with a single value corresponding to the maximum tier given during the visit. Imaging studies involve increasing scores based on the type of procedure, with a maximum of 4 X-rays or 2 computed tomography scans (CT). This reflects physi- cian’s concern about a potentially more serious injury. The scores are lastly summed to reflect the severity of the minor injury. The patients were scored by research personnel with medical training. Data Anlaysis. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) was administered within 3 weeks post-MVC to eval- uate the depression symptoms after the trauma. Correlation analy- ses were performed in SPSS (version 17) to explore the relationship between injury severity and psychiatric symptoms. The results are reported as mean±standard deviation. Results Distribution.Thirty-two patients who met criteria were recruited from University of Toledo Medical Center ED in a four month pe- riod. The participants (16 males, 16 females; age range 21-65, mean 33) experienced a MVC within 48 hours before their ED visits and were rated as non-seriously injured on the AIS (6) (29 participants scored 1 and 3 participants scored 2). The minor injuries seen in participants included: soft tissue in- jury, minor head injuries, lacerations, closed fractures, etc. The aver- age QMIS presenting injury symptom score was 1.80; the highest was 5.25 from a patient with brief loss of consciousness, sutures for a fa- cial laceration and a head contusion. Two participants had their injury symptom scores increased by 33% per day based on overnight obser- vation in the hospital. 11 participants were in the 40-54 age range, and 2 in the 55-70 with scores increased accordingly. The medication scores ranged from 0-1.25; 4 participants did not require medication, 5 required IV narcotics, and the rest received Non-narcotic or Nar- cotic PO. The imaging scores ranged from 0-0.75. Eight patients did not receive imaging, 10 patients had only x-rays and 14 needed MRI or CT. All imaging results were negative. After category summation, QMIS totals ranged from 0.63 to 7.8; average of 2.92±1.69. The QMIS provides a gradient to differentiate patients with vari- ous levels of non-serious injury. Correlation with CES-D. Some depression symptoms were reported in all patients; CES-D ranged from 5 to 44 and averaged 20.9±12.69. Two patients met diagnosis for depression. The linear correlation analysis indicated positive correlation between the QMIS total sum- mative score and the CES-D score (correlation coefficient R=0.366; p=0.039 Figure 1). Figure 1. Correlation between CES-D scores and QMIS scores. The CES-D scores and QMIS scores are positively correlated. Discussion The lack of quantitative evaluation of minor injury severity im- pedes research on post-MVC psychiatric symptoms. This study in- troduces a quantitative minor injury scale that considers injury char- acteristics and physician’s assessments. This objective scale of mi- nor injury severity correlated positively with depression symptoms within 3 weeks post-MVC. Reasoning of Scoring Method. The currently accepted injury scales were primarily designed for survival prediction and thus are not sen- sitive in the minor injury range commonly seen after MVC. The re- search questions that require minor injury cohorts cannot adequately compare the injury severity of their participants. The QMIS allows additive analysis of an injury and accounts for variation between sim- ilar symptoms. By incorporating medication and imaging scores, the physician’s professional objective opinion impacts the severity score of the injury. An elderly participant presenting with a “shoul- der strain” requiring x-ray and IV narcotics is rated higher than a "shoulder strain" that requires no medication or imaging. Initial Injury Severity Correlation. The positive correlation of QMIS scores and CES-D suggests severity of minor injury may be related to post-MVC depression symptoms. Previous research supports injury severity correlating with psychiatric morbidity (2, 10, 11). However, these studies involved seriously injured survivors, as those with mi- nor injuries were not previously distinguishable by scales. The QMIS creates a gradient of injury severity, allowing analysis of the impact minor injuries have on post-MVC recovery. This correlation suggests Brickman et al. UTJMS 2014 Vol. 1 No. 1 9 that injury severity, even in non-serious patients, may increase the risk of a psychologically disabling condition, like depression. These initial findings justify further validation of this pilot scale for use in future study of the minor injury patient cohort and their outcomes. Limitations. A potential problem with the QMIS is that medication and imaging use can vary between physicians. These portions hold less weight, but were included to address physical injury symptoms with the same “name” but varying severity. This is a pilot study in which further evaluation and validation is needed in a larger popula- tion. Conclusions. The proposed QMIS provides a gradient to differenti- ate severities of minor injuries after MVC, and the scores may relate to psychological conditions in subsequent weeks. The further de- velopment of QMIS may generalize the usage of this scale to minor injuries caused by other types of trauma. The relationship of sever- ity of minor injuries and physical and psychosocial consequences of trauma will continue to be examined in future study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Funding: [1]Translational Research Stimulation Award (TRSA) of ProMedica Health System. Proposal N-122930-01; [2] William Bauer fMRI Research Fund for XW Grant No.:2401957; [3] University of Toledo New Faculty Start-up Fund for XW 1. Blaszczynski A, et al (1998) Psychiatric morbidity following motor vehicle accidents: A review of methodological issues. Compr Psychiatry 39(3): 111-121. 2. Hamanaka S, et al (2006) Acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among patients severely injured in motor vehicle accidents in Japan. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 28(3): 234-241. 3. Mayou R, Bryant B, Ehlers A (2001) Prediction of psychological outcomes one year after a motor vehicle accident. Am J Psychiatry 158(8): 1231-1238. 4. O’Donnell ML, et al (2003) Posttraumatic disorders following injury: an empirical and methodological review. Clin Psychol Rev 23(4): 587-603. 5. Cameron CM, et al (2006) Mental health: A cause or consequence of injury? A population-based matched cohort study. Bmc Public Health 6: 9. 6. Gennarelli TA, Wodzin E, eds (2005), AIS 2005, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Barrington, IL. 7. Baker SP, et al (1974) Injury severity score - method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14(3): 187-196. 8. Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness - practical scale. Lancet 2(7872): 81-84. 9. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Hunt TK (1983) Trauma severity scoring to predict mor- tality. World J Surg 7(1): 4-11. 10. Blanchard EB, et al (1995) The impact of severity of physical injury and perception of life threat in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder in motor vehicle accident victims. Behav Res Ther 33(5): 529-34. 11. MacGregor AJ, et al (2009) Injury-specific predictors of posttraumatic stress disor- der. Injury 40(9): 1004-1010. 12. Ehlers A, Mayou RA, Bryant B (1998) Psychological predictors of chronic post- traumatic stress disorder after motor vehicle accidents. J Abnorm Psychol 107(3): 508-19. 13. Mason S, et al (2002) The psychological burden of injury: an 18 month prospective cohort study. Emerg Med J 19(5): 400-404. 14. Quale AJ, et al (2009) Severity of injury does not have any impact on posttraumatic stress symptoms in severely injured patients. Injury 40(5): 498-505. 15. Naumann R, Dellinger A, Zaloshnia E, Lawrence B, Miller T (2010) Incidence and total lifetime costs of motor vehicle-related fatal and nonfatal injury by road user type, United States, 2005. Traffic Inj Prev 11(4): 353-360. 16. Lang J, et al (2014) Inclusion of ‘minor’ trauma cases provides a better estimate of the total burden of injury: Queensland Trauma Registry provides a unique perspec- tive. Injury Apr 16. 17. Bergeron E, et al (2007) Canadian benchmarks in trauma. J Trauma 62(2): 491-497. 18. Platts-Mills TF, et al (2012) Motor vehicle collision-related emergency department visits by older adults in the United States. Acad Emerg Med 19(7): 821-7 10 utdr.utoledo.edu/translation/ Brickman et al.   Brickman  et  al     UTJMS  |  2014  |  Vol.  1  |  No.  1  |  A1   Appendix Table 1. QMIS Score sheet Hospital Admit Score [33% * (Injury symptom score)] * number of days of stay TOTAL Age Score 18-39 [0] 40-55 [12.5% * (Injury symptom score)] 56+ [25% * (Injury symptom score)] TOTAL Max Medication Score Non-Narcotic PO [0.25] Non-Narcotic INJ Narcotic PO [0.75] Narcotic IV [1.25] TOTAL Imaging Score 1-3 X-ray scan [0.125] 4+ Xrays [0.25] 1 CT [0.375] 2+ CT [0.5] MRI [0.5] TOTAL TOTAL QMIS SCORE: Injury Symptom Score Abrasion contusion minor laceration not to face/head 1-2 (place) = [0.25] 3-4 = [0.5] 5+ = [0.75] Abrasion contusion minor laceration to face/head 1-2 (place) = [0.75] 3+ = [1] Strain or Sprain 1 (place) = [1] 2-3= [1.5] 4+ = [1.75] Laceration not to face head requires sutures 4-20 cm 1 (place) = [1] 2= [1.5] 3+ = [2] Laceration face/head require sutures 3-10 cm 1 (place) = [1.5] 2= [2] 3+ =[2.5] Penetrating wound not affecting organs 1 (place) = [1] 2= [1.5] 3+= [2] Closed undispalced fracture (FX) Phalange [1.75] FX radius ulna carpal metacarpal fibula [2.25] FX clavicle humerus tibia 1 rib [2.75] FX 2-3 ribs no PTX [3.25] FX Pelvis [3.75] Hit head dazed but no LOC [0.5] Hit Head LOC<1 min [3] Hit Head LOC >1 min <1hr [4] TOTAL