Implementation of a Stepped Care Program to Address Emotional Recovery among Traumatic Injury Patients.

BACKGROUND: Annually, over 600,000 adults served in US trauma centers (≥20%) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or depression in the first year after injury. American College of Surgeons guidelines include screening and addressing mental health recovery in trauma centers. Yet, many trauma centers do not monitor and address mental health recovery, and it is a priority to learn how to implement evidence-informed mental health programs in trauma centers. STUDY DESIGN: This report describes our application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment model to implement the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP) in 3 Level I and II trauma centers to address patients' mental health needs. TRRP is a scalable and sustainable stepped model of care-one of the few in the US-that provides early intervention and direct services after traumatic injury. RESULTS: Trauma centers are well positioned to accelerate patients' mental health recovery via early identification, education, screening, and referrals to mental health agencies that provide best-practice care. We found that TRRP was acceptable to the 3 partnering trauma centers we studied. Early engagement of patient, provider, and hospital administration stakeholders enhanced buy-in during the early stages of the implementation process and promoted sustainability. Active processes to support monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation were critical. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates the feasibility of implementing and adapting TRRP, a cost-efficient and sustainable stepped care intervention, in Level I and II trauma centers. Several factors should be carefully considered by trauma centers seeking to integrate behavioral health interventions into their trauma program.

Behavioral Health Screening and Follow-Up Services in Pediatric Trauma Centers Across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Over 120,000 U.S. children are hospitalized for traumatic injury annually, a major risk factor for behavioral health problems such as acute/posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) are well positioned to address the recent mandate by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma to screen and refer for behavioral health symptoms. However, most PTCs do not provide screening or intervention, or use varying approaches. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess PTCs' availability of behavioral health resources and identify barriers and facilitators to service implementation following pediatric traumatic injury (PTI). METHODS: Survey data were collected from 83 Level I (75%) and Level II (25%) PTC program managers and coordinators across 36 states. Semistructured, qualitative interviews with participants (N = 24) assessed the feasibility of implementing behavioral health education, screening, and treatment for PTI patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Roughly half of centers provide behavioral health screening, predominantly administered by nurses for acute stress/PTSD. Themes from qualitative interviews suggest that (1) service provision varies by behavioral health condition, resource, delivery method, and provider; (2) centers are enthusiastic about service implementation including screening, inpatient brief interventions, and follow-up assessment; but (3) require training and lack staff, time, and funding to implement services. CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable, scalable, evidence-based service models are needed to assess behavioral health symptoms after PTI. Leadership investment is needed for successful implementation. Technology-enhanced, stepped-care approaches seem feasible and acceptable to PTCs to ensure the availability of personalized care while addressing barriers to sustainability.

Implementation of a stepped care program to address posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in a Level II trauma center.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP) is a technology enhanced model of care that includes education, screening, and service referrals to address posttraumatic stress disorder and depression following traumatic injury. TRRP has shown high rates of engagement at a Level I trauma center, but Level II centers have fewer resources and face more challenges to addressing patients' mental health needs. METHODS: We utilized clinical administrative data to examine engagement in TRRP in a Level II trauma center with 816 adult trauma activation patients. RESULTS: Most patients (86%) enrolled in TRRP, but only 30% completed screens during a 30-day follow-up call. Three-quarters of patients who endorsed clinically significant symptoms accepted treatment recommendations/referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement at each step of the model was lower than previously reported in a Level I center. Differences likely correspond to lower rates of mental health symptoms in the trauma patients at this setting. We discuss program adaptations that may be needed to improve patient engagement.

Assessing service quality and access in trauma centers through behavioral health screening, education, and treatment after pediatric injury.

BACKGROUND: Over 120,000 U.S. children are hospitalized annually for traumatic injury, with approximately 20% developing acute stress disorder (ASD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or depression. The ACS COT recommends that trauma centers address emotional recovery after injury; however, few pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) assess behavioral health symptoms. This study describes results from a survey with PTC providers assessing the landscape of behavioral health screening, education, and treatment. METHODS: Trauma program leaders from 83 US Level I and II trauma centers across 36 states completed a survey assessing center characteristics and decision-making, availability, and perceptions of behavioral health resources. RESULTS: Nearly half (46%) of centers provide behavioral health screens for pediatric patients, and 18% screen family members, with screens mostly conducted by nurses or social workers for ASD or PTSD. Two-thirds provide child behavioral health education and 47% provide education to caregivers/family. Two-thirds provide treatment connections, typically via referrals or outpatient clinics. Behavioral health screening, education, and treatment connections were rated as very important (M > 8.5/10), with higher ratings for the importance of screening children versus caregivers. Child maltreatment (59%), observed patient distress (53%), child substance use (52%), injury mechanism (42%) and severity (42%) were prioritized in screening decision-making. CONCLUSION: Service provision varies by method, resource, and provider, highlighting the lack of a roadmap for centers to provide behavioral health services. Adoption of universal education and screening procedures in PTCs is crucial to increase access to services for injured children and caregivers. PTCs are well-positioned to offer these services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Prediction of posttraumatic stress and depression one-month post-injury: A comparison of two screening instruments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the combined and individual utility of 2 screening tools in prediction of depression and PTSD one-month post traumatic injury. METHOD: 484 Level I Trauma Center patients were administered the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) and Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS). Approximately 30 days post-injury, patients completed the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8). RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curves for the PDI suggested a cutoff score of 17.5 predicting PTSD (Sensitivity = 70%; Specificity = 62%) and depression (Sensitivity = 74%; Specificity = 64%). For the ITSS, ROC curves suggested a cutoff score of 1.5 to predict PTSD (Sensitivity = 72%; Specificity = 60%) and depression (Sensitivity = 67%; Specificity = 62%). Inclusion of both instruments in regression analyses accounted for 2.4%-6.8% greater variance than 1 measure alone in predicting PCL-5 and PHQ-8 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The ITSS and PDI each demonstrated significant clinical utility in practice. Use of both measures, versus either alone, likely does not produce sufficient added clinical benefit. Follow-up screening and/or ongoing symptom monitoring is recommended as an adjunct to brief bedside screening. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Patient Engagement in a Technology-Enhanced, Stepped-Care Intervention to Address the Mental Health Needs of Trauma Center Patients.

BACKGROUND: Annually, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or both, develop in the first year after injury in more than 400,000 adults treated in US trauma centers (≥20%). Yet, few trauma centers monitor and address mental health recovery, and there is limited evaluation and high structural variability across existing programs. More research is needed to guide efforts to establish such programs and to inform national standards and recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: This article describes patient engagement in a stepped-care service to address patients' mental health needs. Trauma-activation patients admitted to our Level I trauma center for at least 24 hours were approached before discharge. Patients were provided education in person at the bedside (step 1), symptom monitoring via a 30-day text-messaging tool (step 2), telephone screening approximately 30 days post injury (step 3), and, when appropriate, mental health treatment referrals and treatment (step 4). RESULTS: We approached and educated 1,122 patients (56%) on the floor during a 33-month period. Of these, 1,096 patients (98%) enrolled in our program and agreed to 30-day follow-up mental health screening. We reached 676 patients for the 30-day screen, 243 (36%) of these patients screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder and/or depression. Most of the 243 patients who graduated to step 4 accepted treatment referrals (68%) or were already receiving services from a provider (7%). Home-based telemental health was preferred by 66% of patients who accepted referrals. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the feasibility of an evidence-based, technology-enhanced, stepped-care intervention to address the mental health needs of trauma center patients. Strategies to reach a higher percentage of patients in follow-up are needed. We recommend trauma centers test and adopt broad-based approaches to ensure optimal long-term patient outcomes.