Bangladesh is currently undergoing an epidemic of road traffic crashes (RTCs). In addition to morbidity and mortality, the economic loss from RTC as per cent of gross domestic product is comparatively higher than in countries with similar socioeconomic conditions. However, trauma care remained poorly developed as a specialty and service delivery mechanism. This study aimed to examine the current situation of in-hospital trauma care after RTCs to inform the design of a comprehensive service for Bangladesh.

This qualitative study attempted to elicit stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of managing RTCs through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Three districts and Dhaka city were selected based on the frequency of occurrence of RTCs. Fifteen in-depth interviews and 5 focus group discussions were conducted with 38 RTC patients, their relatives and community members in the catchment areas of 11 facilities managing trauma patients. Key informant interviews were conducted with 21 service providers and 17 key stakeholders/policy-makers.

Hospital-based trauma care was generally poor in primary and secondary-level facilities. There was no triage area or triage protocol in the emergency rooms, no trained staff for trauma care, no dedicated RTC patient register and scarce life-saving equipment. Only in Dhaka-based tertiary hospitals was trauma care prioritised. These hospitals follow Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines and maintain an RTC logbook. Emergency diagnostic services were not always available in the hospitals. Most RTC patients were males; the female participants were additionally vulnerable to physical and mental trauma. Affected people avoided taking legal action considering it a lengthy, complicated and ultimately ineffective process.

The trauma care services currently available in the studied health facilities are very rudimentary and without the necessary human and financial resources. This needs urgent attention from policymakers, programmers and practitioners to reduce morbidity and mortality from the current epidemic of RTCs in Bangladesh.

Geriatric Fracture Centers (GFCs) are dedicated treatment units where care is tailored towards elderly patients who have suffered fragility fractures. The primary objective of this economic analysis was to determine the cost-utility of GFCs compared with usual care centres.

The primary analysis was a cost-utility analysis that measured the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year gained from treatment of hip fracture in GFCs compared with treatment in usual care centres from the societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon. The secondary analysis was a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. We evaluated these outcomes using a cost-utility analysis using data from a large multicentre prospective cohort study comparing GFCs versus usual care centres that took place in Austria, Spain, the USA, the Netherlands, Thailand and Singapore.

GFCs may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. Patients in usual care centre group were slightly older and had fewer comorbidities. For the 1-year analysis, the costs per patient were slightly lower in the GFC group (–$646.42), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.034). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 863.34 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year). The lifetime horizon analysis found that the costs per patient were lower in the GFC group (–$7210.35), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $320 678.77 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year).

This analysis found that GFCs were associated with lower costs compared with usual care centres. The cost-savings were greater when the lifetime time horizon was considered. This comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from an international prospective cohort study, found that GFC may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. A greater number of major adverse events were reported at GFC, nevertheless a lower mortality rate associated with these adverse events at GFC. Due to the minor utility benefits, which may be a result of greater adverse event detection within the GFC group and much greater costs of usual care centres, the GFC may be cost-effective due to the large cost-savings it demonstrated over the lifetime time horizon, while potentially identifying and treating adverse events more effectively. These findings suggest that the GFC may be a cost-effective option over the lifetime of a geriatric patient with hip fracture, although future research is needed to further validate these findings.

Economic, level 2.

NCT02297581.