Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 152, Issue 11, pp 1859–1871 | Cite as

The brain monitoring with Information Technology (BrainIT) collaborative network: EC feasibility study results and future direction

  • Ian Piper
  • Iain Chambers
  • Giuseppe Citerio
  • Per Enblad
  • Barbara Gregson
  • Tim Howells
  • Karl Kiening
  • Julia Mattern
  • Pelle Nilsson
  • Arminas Ragauskas
  • Juan Sahuquillo
  • Rob Donald
  • Richard Sinnott
  • Anthony Stell
  • On behalf of the BrainIT Group
Clinical Article

Abstract

Background

The BrainIT group works collaboratively on developing standards for collection and analyses of data from brain-injured patients and to facilitate a more efficient infrastructure for assessing new health care technology with the primary objective of improving patient care. European Community (EC) funding supported meetings over a year to discuss and define a core dataset to be collected from patients with traumatic brain injury using IT-based methods. We now present the results of a subsequent EC-funded study with the aim of testing the feasibility of collecting this core dataset across a number of European sites and discuss the future direction of this research network.

Methods

Over a 3-year period, data collection client- and web-server-based tools were developed and core data (grouped into nine categories) were collected from 200 head-injured patients by local nursing staff in 22 European neuro-intensive care centres. Data were uploaded through the BrainIT website and random samples of received data were selected automatically by computer for validation by data validation staff against primary sources held in each local centre. Validated data were compared with originally transmitted data and percentage error rates calculated by data category. Feasibility was assessed in terms of the proportion of missing data, accuracy of data collected and limitations reported by users of the IT methods.

Findings

Thirteen percent of data files required cleaning. Thirty “one-off” demographic and clinical data elements had significant amounts of missing data (>15%). Validation staff conducted 19,461 comparisons between uploaded database data with local data sources and error rates were commonly less than or equal to 6%, the exception being the surgery data class where an unacceptably high error rate of 34% was found. Nearly 10,000 therapies were successfully recorded with start-times but approximately a third had inaccurate or missing “end-times” which limits the analysis of duration of therapy. Over 40,000 events and procedures were recorded but events with long durations (such as transfers) were more likely to have end-times missed.

Conclusions

The BrainIT core dataset is a rich dataset for hypothesis generation and post hoc analyses, provided that studies avoid known limitations in the dataset. Limitations in the current IT-based data collection tools have been identified and have been addressed. In order for multi-centre data collection projects to be viable, the resource intensive validation procedures will require a more automated process and this may include direct electronic access to hospital-based clinical data sources for both validation purposes and for minimising the duplication of data entry. This type of infrastructure may foster and facilitate the remote monitoring of patient management and protocol adherence in future trials of patient management and monitoring.

Keywords

Clinical network Traumatic brain injury Grid Internet 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the contribution of all data-contributing members of the BrainIT group (www.brainit.org) who supported the EEC project: QLGC-2002-01160.

Investigators and Participating Centres

Barcelona, Spain, Prof J Sahuquillo; Cambridge, UK, Prof JD Pickard; Edinburgh, UK, Prof R Mins, Prof I Whittle; Glasgow, UK, Mr L Dunn; Gothenburg, Sweden, Dr B Rydenhag; Heidelberg, Germany, Dr K Kiening; Iasi, Romania, Dr S Iencean; Kaunas, Lithuania, Prof D Pavalkis; Leipzig, Germany, Prof J Meixensberger; Leuven, Belgium, Prof J Goffin; Mannheim, Germany, Prof P Vajkoczy; Milan, Italy, Prof N Stocchetti; Monza, Italy, Dr G Citerio; Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, Dr IR Chambers; Novara, Italy, Prof F Della Corte; Southampton, UK, Dr J Hell; Uppsala, Sweden, Prof P Enblad; Torino, Italy, Dr L Mascia; Vilnius. Lithuania, Prof E Jarzemaskas; Zurich, Switzerland, Prof R Stocker.

References

  1. 1.
    Bullock R, Chesnut RM, Clifton C (1996) Guidelines for the management of severe head injury. J Neurotrauma 13:643–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chambers IR, Jones PA, Lo TWM, Forsyth RJ, Fulton B, Andrews PJD, Mendelow AD, Minns RA (2006) Critical thresholds of intracranial pressure andcerebral perfusion pressure related to age in paediatric head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77:234–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Citerio G, Stocchetti N, Cormio M, Beretta L (2000) Neuro-Link, a computer assisted database for head injury in intensive care. Acta Neurochir Wien 142:769–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corrie J, Piper I, Housely A, Tocher J, Anderson S, Midgley S, Slattery J, Dearden N, Miller J (1993) Microcomputer based data recording improves identification of secondary insults in head injured patients. Br J Intensive Care 226–233Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enblad P, Nilsson P, Chambers I, Citerio G, Fiddes H, Howells T, Kiening K, Ragauskas A, Sahuquillo J, Yau YH, Contant C, Piper I (2004) Survey of traumatic brain injury management in European Brain IT centres year 2001. Intensive Care Med 30:1058–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghajar J, Hariri RJ, Narayan RK, Iacono LA, Firlik K, Patterson RH (1995) Survey of critical care management of comatose, head-injured patients in the United States. Crit Care Med 23:560–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeevaratnam DR, Menon DK (1996) Survey of intensive care of severely head injured patients in the United Kingdom. BMJ 312:944–947PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maas AI, Dearden M, Teasdale GM, Braakman R, Cohadon F, Iannotti F, Karimi A, Lapierre F, Murray G, Ohman J, Persson L, Servadei F, Stocchetti N, Unterberg A (1997) EBIC-guidelines for management of severe head injury in adults. Acta Neurochir 139:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matta B, Menon D (1996) Severe head injury in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a survey of practice and implications for management. Crit Care Med 24:1743–1748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Braakman R, Cohadon F, Dearden M, Iannotti F, Karimi A, Lapierre F, Maas A, Ohman J, Persson L, Servadei F, Stocchetti N, Trojanowski T, Unterberg A (1999) The European Brain Injury Consortium survey of head injuries. Acta Neurochir 141:223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neuman J, Chambers I, Citerio G, Enblad P, Gregson B, Howells T, Mattern J, Nilsson P, Piper I, Ragauskas A, Sahuquillo J, Yau H, Kiening K, on Behalf of the BrainIT Group (2008) The use of hyperventilation therapy after brain injury in Europe: an analysis of the BrainIT database. Intensive Care Medicine S00134-008:1123–1127Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olesen J, Leonardi M (2003) The burden of brain disease in Europe. Eur J Neurol 10:471–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piper I, Citerio C, Chambers I, Enblad P, Nilsson P, Chambers I, Citerio G, Fiddes H, Howells T, Kiening K, Ragauskas A, Sahuquillo J, Yau YH, Contant C (2003) The BrainIT group: concept and core dataset definition. Acta Neurochir 145:615–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Signorini DF, Andrews PJD, Jones PA, Wardlaw JM, Miller JD (1999) Adding insult to injury: the prognostic value of early secondary insults for survival after traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 66:26–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stochetti N, Penny KI, Dearden M, Braakman R, Cohadon F, Iannotti F, Lapierre F, Karimi A, Maas A, Murray GD, Ohman J, Persson L, Servadei F, Teasdale GM, Trojanowski T, Unterberg A, on behalf of the European Brain Injury Consortium (2001) Intensive care management of head-injured patients in Europe: a survey from the European Brain Injury Consortium. Intensive Care Med 27:400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venkatesh B, Garrett P, Fraenkel DJ, Purdie D (2004) Indices to quantify changes in intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure by assessing agreement between hourly and semi-continuous recordings. Intensive Care Med 30:510–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zanier E, Ortolano F, Ghisoni L, Colombo A, Losappio S, Stochetti N (2007) Intracranial pressure monitoring in intensive care: clinical advantages of computerised monitoring over manual recording. Crit Care 11:R7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Piper
    • 1
  • Iain Chambers
    • 2
  • Giuseppe Citerio
    • 3
  • Per Enblad
    • 4
  • Barbara Gregson
    • 2
  • Tim Howells
    • 4
  • Karl Kiening
    • 5
  • Julia Mattern
    • 5
  • Pelle Nilsson
    • 4
  • Arminas Ragauskas
    • 6
  • Juan Sahuquillo
    • 7
  • Rob Donald
    • 8
  • Richard Sinnott
    • 9
  • Anthony Stell
    • 9
  • On behalf of the BrainIT Group
  1. 1.Department Clinical PhysicsInstitute of Neurological Sciences Southern General HospitalGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Regional Medical Physics DepartmentNewcastle General HospitalNewcastleUK
  3. 3.NeurorianimazioneHospital San GerardoMonzaItaly
  4. 4.NeurosurgeryUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.NeurosurgeryRuprecht-Karls-Universitat Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  6. 6.Kaunas University of TechnologyKaunasLithuania
  7. 7.NeurosurgeryVall d’Hebron HospitalBarcelonaSpain
  8. 8.C3 Global LtdDingwallScotland
  9. 9.National eScience CentreUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations