Memory for trauma: comparison of orthopaedic and brain injury version1

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Memory for trauma: a comparison of orthopaedic injury and brain injury.

  • IRAS ID

    240767

  • Contact name

    Steven Kemp

  • Contact email

    stevenkemp@nhs.net

  • Sponsor organisation

    LTHT

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 6 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Head injury/traumatic brain injury is a common injury that can be mild, moderate or severe. One of the main markers of severity and outcome is post traumatic amnesia (PTA). This is the gap in memory from an accident to someone having normal recall of on-going events. As well as indicating the presence of a brain injury and severity, PTA can be affected by 'other factors' such as medication, pain, psychological upset and shock. Therefore gaps in memory because of these 'other factors' can give a false impression brain injury.

    Diagnostic accuracy is essential in helping patients understand their symptoms (whether caused by brain injury or non-brain injury) and giving the patient and their families appropriate advice and treatment.

    Doctors typically assess PTA using the Rivermead Protocol, which is a series of questions designed to identify the gap in memory from an accident to having normal memory for ongoing events.

    This study will compare two groups (brain injury and orthopaedics control patients as identified by the major trauma pathway in the trust) using the Rivermead protocol, which is the standard clinical technique. We will describe and compare post traumatic memories among the two groups. Primarily, we seek to establish if memory among the orthopaedic control patients is influenced by non-brain injury factors such as medication, shock and pain, and therefore whether such gaps in memory could be mistaken for traumatic brain injury. Diagnostic accuracy and subsequently giving patients and families the correct advice is clinically important.

  • REC name

    London - Central Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    18/LO/1612

  • Date of REC Opinion

    17 Sep 2018

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion