The Posttaumatic Adjustment Scale (PAS) is an effective measure in predicting psychological distress in patients following major trauma

Louise Johnson,Ellie Grant,Paul J Harwood
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.11.019
IF: 2.687
Injury
Abstract:Aims: To determine whether a psychological screening tool - the Posttraumatic Adjustment Scale (PAS), predicts later psychological distress for admissions to a Major Trauma Centre (MTC) and to identify whether there was an unmet need in relation to the psychological support offered. Methods: Patient demographics and details of their injuries were retrieved from the Trauma Audit & Research Network (TARN) database. All patients admitted to Leeds General Infirmary MTC were approached for inclusion in the study over a three-month period. The PAS was administered to all participants at baseline. Following discharge, patients were sent two validated psychological measures via post, the Impact of Events Scale - Revised (IES-R) and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation System (CORE-10). Relationships between continuous variables were examined using a Spearman's rank test (SR). The diagnostic accuracy of the different psychological screening systems was examined and compared using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: Eighty-two patients completed the PAS, 26 of whom had been referred to clinical psychology and 56 who were not. Fifty-seven of these patients (70%) returned follow-up IES-R and CORE-10 data, 20 who had been referred to psychology and 37 who had not. The PAS-P score recorded shortly after admission correlated strongly with the CORE-10 (SR rs 0.54, p<0.0001) and IES-R (SR rs 0.63, p<0.0001) scores recorded at early follow up. A PAS-P of more than 10 predicted the development of PTSD symptoms (IES-R 33 or more) or moderate global psychological distress (CORE-10 15 or more) with 72% sensitivity and 71% specificity. To identify patients who went on to develop psychological symptoms according to either measure (IES-R 33 or more or CORE-10 15 or more), the PAS-P was more sensitive than clinician referral (71% vs 52%, p<0.05) with similar specificity (72% vs 75%, p=0.78). Conclusions: In an unselected group of trauma inpatients treated in a MTC, the PAS is an effective means of identifying those who are likely to go on to suffer PTSD symptoms or psychological distress. It may useful to use the PAS as a measure to formalise psychology referrals.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?