RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric and substance use disorders are common among trauma and burn patients and are known risk factors for repeat episodes of trauma, known as trauma recidivism. The epidemiology of burn recidivism, specifically, has not been described. This study aimed to characterize cases of burn recidivism at a large US tertiary care burn center and compare burn recidivists (RCs) with non-recidivists (NRCs). METHODS: A 10-year retrospective descriptive cohort study of adult burn patients admitted to the North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center was conducted using data from an electronic burn registry and the medical record. Continuous variables were reported using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare demographic, burn, and hospitalization characteristics between NRCs and RCs. RESULTS: A total of 7134 burn patients were admitted, among which 51 (0.7%) were RCs and accounted for 129 (1.8%) admissions. Of the 51 RCs, 37 had two burn injuries each, totaling 74 admissions as a group, while the remaining 14 RCs had between three and eight burn injuries each, totaling 55 admissions as a group. Compared to NRCs, RCs were younger (median age 36 years vs. 42 years, p = 0.02) and more likely to be white (75% vs. 60%, p = 0.03), uninsured (45% vs. 30%, p = 0.02), have chemical burns (16% vs. 5%, p < 0.0001), and have burns that were ≤ 10% total body surface area (89% vs. 76%, p = 0.001). The mortality rate for RCs vs. NRCs did not differ (0% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.41). Psychiatric and substance use disorders were approximately five times greater among RCs compared to NRCs (75% vs. 15%, p < 0.001). Median total hospital charges per patient were nearly three times higher for RCs vs. NRCs ($85,736 vs. $32,023, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct from trauma recidivism, burn recidivism is not associated with more severe injury or increased mortality. Similar to trauma recidivists, but to a greater extent, burn RCs have high rates of comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions that contribute to increased health care utilization and costs. Studies involving larger samples from multiple centers can further clarify whether these findings are generalizable to national burn and trauma populations.
RESUMO
Objective: This paper sought to review the impact of depression in patients with comorbid medical problems, the importance of bridging the gap between inpatient and outpatient care for medical inpatients with depression (especially for organizations that treat patients in both settings), and the elements necessary to implement a pilot for an outpatient Collaborative Care Management program for patients with depression following medical admissions. Taken into account is the presence of new billing mechanisms and potential cost offsets. Methods: The literature referenced in this paper was identified through a search of online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar. The data used to analyze cost were drawn from national, publicly available sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Results: Collaborative care is an evidence-based intervention for depression that can aid with successful transition of care as patients move from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. It can be considered cost-effective when treating a panel of patients that falls below the recommended caseload for a single case manager (i.e., 19-46 billed encounters, depending on the payer mix), particularly when considering the savings from a reduced length of stay associated with well-controlled depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Organizations should consider implementing collaborative care management for patients with depression to improve depression outcomes, reduce costs, and prepare themselves for a health financing environment that rewards value.