Trauma recidivism is reduced with engagement in psychosocial programming following orthopaedic trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Recidivism is common following injury. Interventions to enhance patient engagement may reduce trauma recidivism. Education, counseling, peer mentorship, and other resources are known as Trauma Recovery Services (TRS). The authors hypothesized that TRS use would reduce trauma recidivism. METHODS: Over five years at a level 1 trauma center, 954 adults treated operatively for pelvic, spine, and femoral fractures were reviewed. Recidivism was defined as return to trauma center for new injury within 30-months. All patients were offered TRS. Multivariate logistic regression statistical analysis was used to identify predictors of recidivism. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-seven of all patients (42 %) utilized TRS, including educational materials (n = 293), peer visits (n = 360), coaching (n = 284), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening (n = 74), and other services. Within the entire sample, 136 patients (14 %) returned to the emergency department for an unrelated trauma event after mean 21 months. 13 % of TRS users became recidivists. Overall, 49 % of recidivists had history of pre-existing mental illness. High rates of TRS engagement between recidivists and non-recidivists were seen (75 %); however, non-recidivists were more likely to use multiple types of recovery services (49 % vs 34 %, p = 0.002), and were more likely to engage with trauma peer mentors (former trauma survivors) more than once (91 % vs 81 %, p = 0.03). After multivariable analysis, patients using multiple different recovery services had a lower risk of recidivism (p = 0.04, OR 0.42, 95 % CI [0.19-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted engagement with recovery programming is associated with less recidivism following trauma. Future study of resultant reductions in healthcare costs are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II; Prognostic.

Factors influencing participation in psychosocial programming among orthopaedic trauma patients with PTSD.

INTRODUCTION: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) commonly occurs following acute trauma. Post-injury outcomes are negatively impacted by PTSD. Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) programming was developed at our institution in 2013 to provide psychosocial programming that increases patient satisfaction with care and ability to return to work and decreases PTSD symptoms. We sought to identify factors that influence patients' decision to participate in programming. METHODS: Over a 3-year period at a single, urban level 1 trauma center, 172 patients over the age of 18 screened positive for PTSD on the validated PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) screening tool. Demographic, socioeconomic, injury, and medical comorbidity information was collected. Variables were initially compared in a univariate manner via Chi-squared, Fisher exact, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U, as appropriate. Variables that had a p-value <0.2 on univariate analysis were entered into a backward stepwise logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of participation in TRS programming. RESULTS: Mean age was 37.8 years. 70.1% of patients were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were gunshot wound (33.7%), motor vehicle crash (19.0%), and burn. 33.5% of patients participated in TRS programming. Nine predictors had p<.2 on univariate analysis and were entered into the stepwise regression model. Four predictors remained in the final model. Patients with private insurance (RR=2.2, p=.038), high school diploma or greater (RR=1.53, p=.002; Table 1), and PCL-5 score greater than 50 were more likely to participate in TRS programming (RR=1.42, p=.046). Patients who live 20 or more minutes away by car from TRS were less likely to participate in programming (RR=0.47, p=.065). DISCUSSION: Patients with more severe PTSD, higher levels of education, and private insurance were more likely to participate in TRS programming. Participation in TRS and similar psychosocial programs may be improved by minimizing the participant's potential commute to the program location.

"Did You Think You Would Die?": Fear of Death and Its Relationship to the Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After Traumatic Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific factors may influence posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) development and warrant further examination. This study investigates potential association between patient-reported fear of death at the time of injury and development of PTSD. METHODS: Over 35 months, 250 patients were screened for PTSD at their first posthospitalization clinic visit and were asked "Did you think you were going to die from this injury?" (yes or no). PTSD screening was conducted using the PTSD checklist for DSM-5 questionnaire. A score ≥33 was considered positive for PTSD, and patients were offered ancillary psychiatric services. Retrospectively, medical records were reviewed for baseline demographics and injury information. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (17%) indicated a fear of death. The mean age was 46 years, with patients who feared death being younger (36 versus 48, P < 0.001), and 62% were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle or motorcycle collisions (30%) and ground-level falls (21%). Gunshot wounds were more common among patients who feared death from trauma (44% versus 7%, P < 0.001). PTSD questionnaires were completed a median of 26 days after injury, with an average score of 12.6. PTSD scores were higher for patients with fear of death (32.7 versus 8.5), and these patients required more acute interventions (47% versus 7%), both P < 0.001. After multivariable logistic regression, patients who thought that they would die from their trauma had >13 times higher odds of developing PTSD (odds ratios: 13.42, P < 0.0001). Apart from positive psychiatric history (OR: 5.46, P = 0.001), no factors (ie, age, sex, mechanism, or any injury or treatment characteristic) were predictive of positive PTSD scores on regression. DICUSSION: Patients who reported fear of death at the time of injury were 13 times more likely to develop PTSD. Simply asking patients whether they thought that they would die at the time of injury may prospectively identify PTSD risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Implementation of programming for survivors of violence-related trauma at a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Prior investigation of violence intervention programs has been limited. This study will describe resources offered by Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP), their utilization, and effect on recidivism. METHODS: VOCARP was established in 2017 at our center, and all patients who engaged with programming (n=1019) were prospectively recorded. Patients are offered services in the emergency department, on inpatient floors and at outpatient clinic visits. Two control groups (patients sustaining violent injuries without VOCARP use (n=212) and patients with non-violent trauma (n=201)) were similarly aggregated. RESULTS: During 22 months, 96% of patients accepted education materials, 31% received financial compensation, 27% requested referrals, and 22% had crisis interventions. All other resources were used by <20% of patients. Patients who used VOCARP resources were substantially different from those who declined services; they were less often male (56% vs. 71%), more often single (79% vs. 51%), had greater unemployment (63% vs. 51%) and were less frequently shot (gunshot wound: 26% vs. 37%), all p<0.05. Overall recidivism rate was 9.4%, with no difference between groups. Use of mental health services was linked to lower recidivism rates (4.4% vs. 11.7%, p=0.016). While sexual assault survivors who used VOCARP resources had lower associated recidivism (2.4% vs. 12%, p=0.14), this was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: This represents the largest violence intervention cohort reported to date to our knowledge. Despite substantial engagement, efficacy in terms of lower recidivism appears limited to specific subgroups or resource utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. Therapeutic.

Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources. METHODS: Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient's medical records. RESULTS: From May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had 'direct contact' (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2-15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2-10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II therapeutic.

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in acute trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of positive screening for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) amongst trauma patients. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal study. SETTING: Single urban US level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred fifty-two adult trauma patients were administered the PTSD checklist for DSM-V (PCL-5) survey upon posthospital outpatient clinic visit. This included 300 men (66%) and 152 women with mean age 43.8 years and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) 11.3, with 83% having fractures of the pelvis and/or extremities. Medical and injury related variables were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of screening positive for PTSD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Prevalence and risk factors for screening positive for PTSD amongst the trauma patient population. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of trauma patients screened positive for PTSD after mean 86 days following injury. These patients were younger (35 vs 46 years old, P < 0.001) and more commonly African American (56% vs 43% Caucasian, P < 0.001). Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles (OR 4.70, P = 0.040) and victims of crime (OR 4.12, P = 0.013) were more likely to screen positive. Psychiatric history, injury severity (ISS), and injury type did not predict positive screening. CONCLUSION: One-in-four patients suffering traumatic injuries screened positive for PTSD suggesting the prevalence of PTSD among trauma patients far exceeds that of the general population. Predictive factors included victims of crime and pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. Screening measures are needed in orthopaedic trauma surgery clinics to refer these at-risk patients for proper evaluation and treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic; Level II.