Variations in Discharge Destination Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Discharge destination after traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be influenced by non-patient factors such as regional or institutional practice patterns. We hypothesized that non-patient factors would be associated with discharge destination in severe TBI patients. METHODS: All patients in the ACS Trauma Quality Improvement Program 2016 data set with severe TBI, defined as head Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3, were categorized by discharge destination. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with each destination; odds ratios and 95% confidence level are reported. Regressions were adjusted for age, gender, race, insurance, GCS, ISS, polytrauma, mechanism, neurosurgical procedure, geographic region, teaching status, trauma center level, hospital size, and neurosurgeon group size. RESULTS: 75,690 patients met inclusion criteria. 51% were discharged to home, 16% to rehab, 14% to SNF, and 11% deceased. Mortality was similar across geographic region, teaching status, and hospital size. Southern patients were more likely to be discharged to home while Northeastern patients were more likely to be discharged to rehab. Treatment by groups of 3 or more neurosurgeons was associated with SNF discharge as was treatment at community or non-teaching hospitals. Patients treated at larger hospitals were less likely to be discharged to rehab and more likely to go to SNF. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic region, neurosurgeon group size, teaching status, and hospital size are significantly associated with variation in discharge destination following severe TBI. Regional and institutional variation in practice patterns may play important roles in recovery for some patients with severe TBI.

"What Are My Injuries?" Health Literacy and Patient Comprehension of Trauma Care and Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients often have complex injuries treated by multidisciplinary providers with wide-ranging expertise. We hypothesized that trauma patients would frequently incorrectly identify both their injuries and care teams. We also hypothesized that low health literacy level would be correlated with low levels of comprehension about injuries or care teams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of adult trauma inpatients >18 years. Participants were surveyed to report on 1) injured body regions 2) their care teams, and 3) health literacy via a validated survey. Self-reported injuries and care teams were compared to the patient's medical record. We also studied whether health literacy was associated with patient knowledge of injuries and care teams. RESULTS: Fifty participants were surveyed; thirty-two percent could not identify ≥50% of their injuries. Patients reliably identified injuries to the head, but injuries to other body areas were often misidentified. Forty-two percent of patients were not able to identify ≥50% of their medical teams, and 28% could not identify ≥75% of their medical teams. Patients often did not recognize teams such as nutrition, physical/occupationalt, or social work as part of their care. Thirteen participants reported adequate health literacy. Health literacy was not related to participant knowledge of injuries or care teams (both P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Many trauma inpatients were unable to correctly identify their injuries and care teams despite a range of self-reported health literacy scores.

Factors Influencing Nonadherence to Recommended Postdischarge Follow-Up After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.

Home Medication Regimens Increase in Complexity After Admission for Fall in the Older Trauma Patient.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization for the older trauma patient is an opportunity to assess polypharmacy. We hypothesized that medication regimen complexity (RxCS) and pain medication prescriptions (PRxs) would increase in older home-going patients admitted for a fall. METHODS: We retrospectively chart reviewed patients ≥45 years old admitted for a fall at a level 1 trauma center who were discharged home with full medication documentation. RxCS was compared pre-admission and post-discharge with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests; opioid and non-opioid PRxs were compared with Fisher's exact test, α = .05. RESULTS: 103 patients met inclusion criteria; 58% were ≥65 years old. RxCS (9 [.5-13] to 11 [4.5-15], P < .01) increased on discharge. Opioid PRx rates increased significantly in all age groups. Non-opioid PRx rates increased significantly for patients <65 but not for patients ≥65. CONCLUSIONS: Admission for a fall was associated with increases in RxCS, while PRx changes were age-dependent. Providers should recognize that admissions for older patients who fall after trauma are underutilized opportunities to address polypharmacy in high-risk patients.

Trauma recidivism is pervasive and is associated with mental and social health opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Recidivism after orthopedic trauma results in greater morbidity and costs. Prior studies explored the effects of social and medical factors affecting the frequency of return to the hospital with new, unrelated injury. Identification of mental, social and other risk factors for trauma recidivism may provide opportunities for mitigation. The purposes of this study are to determine the rates of subsequent, unrelated injury noted among orthopedic trauma patients at a large urban trauma center and to evaluate what patient and injury features are associated with greater rates of trauma recidivism. We hypothesize higher rates of new injuries will be related to ballistic trauma and other forms of assault, alcohol and recreational drug use, unemployment, and unmarried status among our trauma patients. METHODS: A series of 954 skeletally mature patients at a level 1 trauma center over a 5 year period were included in the study. All were treated operatively for thoracolumbar, pelvic ring, acetabulum, and/or proximal or shaft femoral fractures from a high energy mechanism. Retrospective review of demographic, injury, medical, and social factors, and subsequent care was performed. Trauma recidivism was defined as returning to the emergency department for treatment of any new injury. A backward stepwise logistic regression statistical analysis was used to identify independent predictors of recidivism. RESULTS: Mean age of all patients was 41.2 years, and 73.2% were male. 136 patients (14.3%) returned with a new injury within a mean of 21 months. These trauma recidivists were more likely to sustain a GSW (22.1% vs 11.4%, p = 0.001). They had higher rates of substance use, including tobacco (57.4% vs 41.8%, p = 0.001) and recreational drugs (50.7% vs 34.4%, p = 0.001), and were less likely to be married (10% vs 25.9%, p<0.001). Mental illness was pervasive, noted in 56.6% of patients with new injury (vs 32.8%, p<0.001). Medicaid insurance was most common in the trauma recidivist population (58.1% vs 35.0%, p = 0.001), and 12.5% were uninsured. Completing high school or more education was protective (93% non-recidivist (vs 79%, p = 0.001). Sixty-nine patients (50.7%) were repeat trauma recidivists within the study period. Independent predictors of new injury included recreational drug use (OR 1.64, p = 0.05) and history of assault due to GSW or other means (OR 1.67, p = 0.05). History of pre-existing mental illness represented the greatest risk factor for trauma recidivism (OR 2.55, p<0.001). DISCUSSION: New injuries resulting in emergency department presentation after prior orthopedic trauma occurred in 14.3% and were associated with history of assault, lower education, Medicaid insurance, tobacco smoking and recreational drug use. Mental illness was the greatest risk factor. Over half of patients with these additional injuries were repeat trauma recidivists, returning for another new injury within less than 2 years. Awareness of risk factors may promote focused education and other interventions to mitigate this burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 retrospective, prognostic.

Post-Trauma Discharge Instructions: Are We Dropping the Ball?

INTRODUCTION: Complex follow-up plans for polytrauma patients are compiled at the end of hospitalization into discharge instructions. We sought to identify how often patient discharge instructions incorrectly communicated specialist recommendations. We hypothesized that patients with more complex hospitalizations would have more discharge instruction errors (DI-errors). METHODS: We reviewed adult trauma inpatients (March 2017-March 2018), excluding those who left against medical advice or were expected to follow up outside our system. Complex hospitalizations were represented using injury severity (ISS), hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit length of stay (iLOS), and number of consultants (NC). We recorded the type of consultant (surgical or nonsurgical), and consultant recommendations for follow-up. DI-errors were defined as either follow-up necessary but omitted or follow-up not necessary yet present on the instructions. Patients with DI-errors were compared to patients without DI-errors. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square (alpha <.05). RESULTS: We included 392 patients (median age 45 [IQR 26-58], ISS 14 [10-21], LOS 6 [3-11]). 55 patients (14%) had DI-errors. Factors associated with DI-errors included the total number of consultants and use of nonsurgical consultants. ISS, LOS, iLOS, were not associated with DI-errors. CONCLUSION: Common measures of admission complexity were not associated with DI-errors, although the number and type of consultants were associated with DI-errors. Non-surgical specialty consultant recommendations were more likely to be omitted. It is crucial for patients to receive accurate discharge instructions, and systematic processes are needed to improve communication with the patients at discharge.

Narrative review of palliative care in trauma and emergency general surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss the goals of palliative care with regards to acute care surgery patients and review the literature regarding administration and implementation of palliative programs. BACKGROUND: For patients who experience unexpected and sometimes catastrophic life changes related to trauma or emergency general surgery, palliative care is a crucial adjunct that can help ensure the provision of optimal symptom management, communication, and goal-concordant care provided. METHODS: Palliative care is medical specialty with a philosophy of care focused on improving the quality of life for patients with serious injury or illness and their loved ones. Palliative care provides significant benefit across the entire spectrum of illness and injury, regardless of prognosis. We will discuss palliative care topics related to trauma and emergency general surgery patients, including symptom management, goal setting, end of life care, communication strategies, addressing implicit/explicit bias, trauma-specific and emergency general surgery-specific considerations, and implementation strategies to reduce barriers for utilization of palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, palliative care is often underutilized in the trauma and emergency general surgery population. Acute care surgeons should be familiar with principles of primary palliative care, as well as understand the added benefits that be provided by consultant palliative care specialists.

Predictors for Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapies in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Trauma Quality Improvement Program Database Study.

Many patients with severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) undergo withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WLSTs) or transition to comfort measures, but noninjury factors that influence this decision have not been well characterized. We hypothesized that WLST would be associated with institutional and geographic noninjury factors. All patients with a head Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3 were identified from 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program data. We analyzed factors that might be associated with WLST, including procedure type, age, sex, race, insurance, Glasgow Coma Scale score, mechanism of injury, geographic region, and institutional size and teaching status. Adjusted logistic regression was performed to examine factors associated with WLST. Sixty-nine thousand fifty-three patients were identified: 66% male, 77% with isolated TBI, and 7.8% had WLST. The median age was 56 years (34-73). A positive correlation was found between increasing age and WLST. Women were less likely to undergo WLST than men (odds ratio 0.91 [0.84-0.98]) and took more time to for WLST (3 vs 2 days, P < .001). African Americans underwent WLST at a significantly lower rate (odds ratio 0.66 [0.58-0.75]). Variations were also discovered based on US region, hospital characteristics, and neurosurgical procedures. WLST in severe TBI is independently associated with noninjury factors such as sex, age, race, hospital characteristics, and geographic region. The effect of noninjury factors on these decisions is poorly understood; further study of WLST patterns can aid health care providers in decision making for patients with severe TBI.

Variation in neurosurgical intervention for severe traumatic brain injury: The challenge of measuring quality in trauma center verification.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure monitor (ICPm) procedure rates are a quality metric for American College of Surgeons trauma center verification. However, ICPm procedure rates may not accurately reflect the quality of care in TBI. We hypothesized that ICPm and craniotomy/craniectomy procedure rates for severe TBI vary across the United States by geography and institution. METHODS: We identified all patients with a severe traumatic brain injury (head Abbreviated Injury Scale, ≥3) from the 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program data set. Patients who received surgical decompression or ICPm were identified via International Classification of Diseases codes. Hospital factors included neurosurgeon group size, geographic region, teaching status, and trauma center level. Two multiple logistic regression models were performed identifying factors associated with (1) craniotomy with or without ICPm or (2) ICPm alone. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range) and odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: We identified 75,690 patients (66.4% male; age, 59 [36-77] years) with a median Injury Severity Score of 17 (11-25). Overall, 6.1% had surgical decompression, and 4.8% had ICPm placement. Logistic regression analysis showed that region of the country was significantly associated with procedure type: hospitals in the West were more likely to use ICPm (OR, 1.34 [1.20-1.50]), while Northeastern (OR, 0.80 [0.72-0.89]), Southern (OR, 0.84 [0.78-0.92]), and Western (OR, 0.88 [0.80-0.96]) hospitals were less likely to perform surgical decompression. Hospitals with small neurosurgeon groups (<3) were more likely to perform surgical intervention. Community hospitals are associated with higher odds of surgical decompression but lower odds of ICPm placement. CONCLUSION: Both geographic differences and hospital characteristics are independent predictors for surgical intervention in severe traumatic brain injury. This suggests that nonpatient factors drive procedural decisions, indicating that ICPm rate is not an ideal quality metric for American College of Surgeons trauma center verification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III; Care management/Therapeutic level III.

Downstream hospital system effects of a comprehensive trauma recovery services program.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are often noted to have poor compliance but high recidivism and readmission rates. Participation in a trauma recovery services (TRS) program, which provides peer support and other psychosocial resources, may impact the trajectory of patient recovery by decreasing barriers to follow-up. We hypothesized that TRS participants would have greater downstream nonemergent use of our hospital system over the year following trauma, manifested by more positive encounters, fewer negative encounters, and lower emergency department (ED) charges. METHODS: We studied trauma survivors (March 2017 to March 2018) offered TRS. Hospital encounters and charges 1 year from index admission were compared between patients who accepted and declined TRS. Positive encounters were defined as outpatient visits and planned admissions; negative encounters were defined as no shows, ED visits, and unplanned admissions. Charges were grouped as cumulative ED and non-ED charges (including outpatient and subsequent admission charges). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with positive/negative encounters and ED charges. RESULTS: Of 511 identified patients (68% male; injury severity score, 14 [9-19]), 362 (71%) accepted TRS. Trauma recovery services patients were older, had higher injury severity, and longer index admission length of stay (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, TRS patients were more likely to have at least one positive encounter and were similarly likely to have negative encounters as patients who declined services. Total aggregate charges for this group was US $74 million, of which US $30 million occurred downstream of the index admission. Accepting TRS was associated with lower ED charges. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive TRS program including education, peer mentors, and a support network may provide value to the patient and the health care system by reducing subsequent care provided by the ED in the year after a trauma without affecting nonemergent care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.