Limited English Proficiency Associated With Suboptimal Pain Assessment in Hospitalized Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic injury causes significant acute and chronic pain, and accurate pain assessment is foundational to optimal pain control. Prior literature has revealed disparities in the treatment of pain by race and ethnicity, but the effect of patient language on pain assessment remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the relationship between Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in pain assessment frequency and pain score magnitude for hospitalized trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study including all hospitalized adult trauma patients from 2012 to 2018 at a single urban Level-1 trauma center. Patient language, 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores, and demographic and clinical covariates were extracted from the electronic medical record. We used multivariable negative binomial regressions to compare NRS pain assessment frequency and multivariable linear regression to compare NRS pain score magnitude between LEP and English Proficient patients. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, 9754 English proficient and 1878 LEP patients were hospitalized for traumatic injury. In multivariable models adjusted for demographic and injury characteristics, LEP patients had 2.4 fewer pain assessments per day compared to English proficient patients (7.21 versus 9.61, P = 0.001). Excluding days spent in the ICU, LEP patients had 2.6 fewer assessments per day (9.28 versus 11.88, P = 0.001). Median pain scores were lower in the LEP group (2.2 versus 3.61, P < 0.001), with a difference of 1.19 points in adjusted multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to English Proficient patients, LEP patients had fewer pain assessments and lower NRS scores. Differences in pain assessment by patient language may be associated with disparities in pain management and morbidity.

Association of Race/Ethnicity With Substance Use Testing After Trauma: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Race/ethnicity has been strongly associated with substance use testing but little is known about this association in injured patients. We sought to identify trends and associations between race/ethnicity and urine toxicology (UTox) or Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) testing in a diverse population after trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult trauma patients admitted to a single Level-1 trauma center from 2012 to 2019. The prevalence of substance use testing was evaluated over time and analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression, with a subgroup analysis to evaluate the interaction of English language proficiency with race/ethnicity in the association of substance use testing. RESULTS: A total of 15,556 patients (40% White, 13% Black, 24% Latinx, 20% Asian, and 3% Native or Unknown) were included. BAC testing was done in 63.2% of all patients and UTox testing was done in 39.2%. The prevalence of substance use testing increased over time across all racial/ethnic groups. After adjustment, Latinx patients had higher odds of receiving a BAC test and Black patients had higher odds of receiving a UTox test (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) compared to White patients. Asian patients had decreased odds of undergoing a UTox or BAC test compared to White patients (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Patients with English proficiency had higher odds of undergoing substance use testing compared to those with limited English proficiency (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in substance use testing over time, inequitable testing remained among racial/ethnic minorities. More work is needed to combat racial/ethnic disparities in substance use testing.

The Association of Limited English Proficiency With Morbidity and Mortality After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities following traumatic injury by race/ethnicity and insurance status are well-documented. However, the relationship between limited English proficiency (LEP) and outcomes after trauma is poorly understood. This study describes the association between LEP and morbidity and mortality after traumatic injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center from 2012 to 2018. Morbidity (length of stay [LOS], intensive care unit admission, intensive care unit LOS, discharge destination) and in-hospital mortality for LEP and English proficient (EP) patients were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and generalized linear models controlling for patient demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance) and clinical characteristics (mechanism, activation level, Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, traumatic brain injury). RESULTS: Of the 13,104 patients, 16% were LEP patients. LEP languages included Chinese (44%) and Spanish (38%), and 18% categorized as "Other," including 33 languages. In multivariable models, LEP was statistically significantly associated with increased hospital LOS (P = 0.003) and increased discharge to home with home health services (P = 0.042) or to skilled nursing facility/rehabilitation (P = 0.006). Mortality rate was 7% for LEP versus 4% for EP patients (P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, speaking an LEP language other than Chinese or Spanish was statistically significantly associated with increased mortality compared to EP (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Following traumatic injury, LEP patients experience increased hospital LOS and are more frequently discharged to home with home health services or to skilled nursing facilities/rehabilitation. LEP patients speaking languages other than Chinese or Spanish experience increased mortality compared to EP patients.

Beyond emergency surgery: redefining acute care surgery.

BACKGROUND: Considerable debate exists regarding the definition, skill set, and training requirements for the new specialty of acute care surgery (ACS). We hypothesized that a patient subset could be identified that requires a level of care beyond general surgical training and justifies creation of this new specialty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reviewed patient admissions over 1-y to the only general surgical service at a level I trauma center-staffed by trauma and/or critical care trained physicians. Patients classified as follows: trauma, ACS, emergency general (EGS), or elective surgery. ACS patients are nonelective, nontrauma patients with significantly altered physiology requiring intensive care unit admission and/or specific complex operative interventions. Differences in demographics, hospital course, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: In-patient service evaluated approximately 5500 patients, including 3300 trauma patients. A total of 2152 admissions include 37% trauma, 30% elective, 28% EGS, and 4% ACS. ACS and trauma patients were more likely to require multiple operations (ACS relative risk [RR] = 11.5; trauma RR = 5.7, P < 0.0001), have longer hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and higher mortality (P < 0.0001). They were less likely to be discharged home (ACS RR = 0.75; trauma RR = 0.67, P < 0.0001) compared with that of the EGS group. EGS and elective patients were most similar to each other in multiple areas. CONCLUSIONS: ACS and EGS patients represent distinct patient cohorts, as reflected by significant differences in critical care needs, likelihood of multiple operations, and need for postdischarge rehabilitation. The skills required to care for ACS patients, including ability to rescue from complications and provide critical care, differ from those required for EGS patients and supports development of ACS training and regionalization of care.

Recent developments in the assessment of the multiply injured trauma patient.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an update on the recent developments and controversies in the assessment of the traumatically injured patient. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature suggests that: whole-body computed tomography (CT) is an effective strategy in more severely injured blunt trauma patients; 64-slice CT scanning now provides an effective noninvasive screening method for blunt cerebrovascular injury; the need for MRI imaging, in addition to CT, for the diagnosis of occult ligamentous injury of the cervical spine remains an unresolved controversy; point-of-care testing has made significant improvements in our ability to predict which patients will need a massive transfusion; and thromboelastography has enhanced our ability to tailor a hemostatic resuscitation more accurately. SUMMARY: The recent advances in the assessment of the multiply injured patient allow clinicians to more efficiently diagnose a patient's injuries and implement treatment in a more timely manner.

Is state trauma funding associated with mortality among injured hospitalized patients?

BACKGROUND: We sought to quantify the association between state trauma funding and (1) in-hospital mortality and (2) transfers of injured patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of states with publicly available trauma funding data. We analyzed in-hospital mortality using linked data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey, and these State Department of Public Health trauma funding data. RESULTS: A total of 594,797 injured adult patients were admitted to acute care hospitals in 17 states. Patients in states with >$1.00 per capita state trauma funding had 0.82 (95 â€‹% CI: 0.78-0.85, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) decreased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality compared to patients in states with less than $1.00 per capita state trauma funding. CONCLUSIONS: Increased state trauma funding is associated with decreased adjusted in-hospital mortality.

Characterizing re-triage guidelines: A scoping review of states' rules and regulations.

BACKGROUND: State guidelines for re-triage, or emergency inter-facility transfer, have never been characterized across the United States. METHODS: All 50 states' Department of Health and/or Trauma System websites were reviewed for publicly available re-triage guidelines within their rules and regulations. Communication was made via phone or email to state agencies or trauma advisory committees to obtain or confirm the absence of guidelines where public data was unavailable. Guideline criteria were abstracted and grouped into domains of Center for Disease Control Field Triage Criteria: pattern/anatomy of injury, vital signs, special populations, and mechanisms of injury. Re-triage criteria were summarized across states using median and interquartile ranges for continuous data and frequencies for categorical data. Demographic data of states with and without re-triage guidelines were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Re-triage guidelines were identified for 22 of 50 states (44%). Common anatomy of injury criteria included head trauma (91% of states with guidelines), spinal cord injury (82%), chest injury (77%), and pelvic injury (73%). Common vital signs criteria included Glasgow Coma Score (91% of states) ranging from 8 to 14, systolic blood pressure (36%) ranging from 90 to 100 mm Hg, and respiratory rate (23%) with all using 10 respirations/minute. Common special populations criteria included mechanical ventilation (73% of states), age (68%) ranging from <2 or >60 years, cardiac disease (59%), and pregnancy (55%). No significant demographic differences were found between states with versus without re-triage guidelines. CONCLUSION: A minority of US states have re-triage guidelines. Characterizing existing criteria can inform future guideline development.

Geographic Disparities in Re-triage Destinations Among Seriously Injured Californians.

Objective: To quantify geographic disparities in sub-optimal re-triage of seriously injured patients in California. Summary of Background Data: Re-triage is the emergent transfer of seriously injured patients from the emergency departments of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers to, ideally, high-level trauma centers. Some patients are re-triaged to a second non-trauma or low-level trauma center (sub-optimal) instead of a high-level trauma center (optimal). Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of seriously injured patients, defined by an Injury Severity Score > 15, re-triaged in California (2009-2018). Re-triages within one day of presentation to the sending center were considered. The sub-optimal re-triage rate was quantified at the state, regional trauma coordinating committees (RTCC), local emergency medical service agencies, and sending center level. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression quantified the association of sub-optimality with the RTCC of the sending center. Geospatial analyses demonstrated geographic variations in sub-optimal re-triage rates and calculated alternative re-triage destinations. Results: There were 8,882 re-triages of seriously injured patients and 2,680 (30.2 %) were sub-optimal. Sub-optimally re-triaged patients had 1.5 higher odds of transfer to a third short-term acute care hospital and 1.25 increased odds of re-admission within 60 days from discharge. The sub-optimal re-triage rates increased from 29.3 % in 2009 to 38.6 % in 2018. 56.0 % of non-trauma and low-level trauma centers had at least one sub-optimal re-triage. The Southwest RTCC accounted for the largest proportion (39.8 %) of all sub-optimal re-triages in California. Conclusion: High population density geographic areas experienced higher sub-optimal re-triage rates.

Does Trauma Center Volume Account for the Association Between Trauma Center Verification Level and In-Hospital Mortality among Children Injured by Firearms in California?

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in trauma center designation and injury volume offer possible explanations for inconsistencies in pediatric trauma center designation's association with lower mortality among children. We hypothesized that rigorous trauma center verification, regardless of volume, would be associated with lower firearm injury-associated mortality in children. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study leveraged the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development patient discharge data. Data from children aged 0 to 14 years in California from 2005 to 2018 directly transported with firearm injuries were analyzed. American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma center verification level was the primary predictor of in-hospital mortality. Centers' annual firearm injury volume data were analyzed as a mediator of the association between center verification level and in-hospital mortality. Two mixed-effects multivariable logistic regressions modeled in-hospital mortality and the estimated association with center verification while adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. One model included the center's firearm injury volume and one did not. RESULTS: The cohort included 2,409 children with a mortality rate of 8.6% (n = 206). Adjusted odds of mortality were lower for children at adult level I (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80), pediatric (aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.61), and dual (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93) trauma centers compared to nontrauma/level III/IV centers. Firearm injury volume did not mediate the association between ACS trauma center verification and mortality (aOR/10 patient increase in volume 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Trauma center verification level, regardless of firearm injury volume, was associated with lower firearm injury-associated mortality, suggesting that the ACS verification process is contributing to achieving optimal outcomes.

Re-triage moderates association between state trauma funding and lower mortality of trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Severely injured patients who are re-triaged (emergently transferred from an emergency department to a high-level trauma center) experience lower in-hospital mortality. Patients in states with trauma funding also experience lower in-hospital mortality. This study examines the interaction of re-triage, state trauma funding, and in-hospital mortality. STUDY DESIGN: Severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) were identified from 2016 to 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases in five states (FL, MA, MD, NY, WI). Data were merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and state trauma funding data. Patients were linked across hospital encounters to determine if they were appropriately field triaged, field under-triaged, optimally re-triaged, or sub-optimally re-triaged. A hierarchical logistic regression modeling in-hospital mortality was used to quantify the effect of re-triage on the association between state trauma funding and in-hospital mortality, while adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 241,756 severely injured patients were identified. Median age was 52 years (IQR: 28, 73) and median ISS was 17 (IQR: 16, 25). Two states (MA, NY) allocated no funding, while three states (WI, FL, MD) allocated $0.09-$1.80 per capita. Patients in states with trauma funding were more broadly distributed across trauma center levels, with a higher proportion of patients brought to Level III, IV, or non-trauma centers, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (54.0% vs. 41.1%, p < 0.001). Patients in states with trauma funding were more often re-triaged, compared to patients in states without trauma funding (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). Patients who were optimally re-triaged in states with trauma funding experienced 0.67 lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (95% CI: 0.50-0.89), compared to patients in states without trauma funding. We found that re-triage significantly moderated the association between state trauma funding and lower in-hospital mortality (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Severely injured patients in states with trauma funding are more often re-triaged and experience lower odds of mortality. Re-triage of severely injured patients may potentiate the mortality benefit of increased state trauma funding.

Evaluating age in the field triage of injured persons.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate trauma undertriage by age group, the association between age and serious injury after accounting for other field triage criteria and confounders, and the potential effect of a mandatory age triage criterion for field triage. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to 105 hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. We used probabilistic linkage to match EMS records to hospital records, including trauma registries, state discharge databases, and emergency department databases. The primary outcome measure was serious injury, as measured by an Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16. We assessed undertriage (Injury Severity Score ≥16 and triage-negative or transport to a nontrauma center) by age decile and used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association (linear and nonlinear) between age and Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16, adjusted for important confounders. We also evaluated the potential influence of age on triage efficiency and trauma center volume. RESULTS: Injured patients (260,027) were evaluated and transported by EMS during the 3-year study period. Undertriage increased for patients older than 60 years, reaching approximately 60% for those older than 90 years. There was a strong nonlinear association between age and Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16. For patients not meeting other triage criteria, the probability of serious injury was most notable after 60 years. A mandatory age triage criterion would have decreased undertriage at the expense of overtriage, with 1 patient with Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16 identified for every 60 to 65 additional patients transported to major trauma centers. CONCLUSION: Trauma undertriage increases in patients older than 60 years. Although the probability of serious injury increases among triage-negative patients with increasing age, the use of a mandatory age triage criterion appears inefficient for improving field triage.

Defining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Retriage is the emergency transfer of severely injured patients from nontrauma and lower-level trauma centers to higher-level trauma centers. We identified the barriers to retriage at sending centers in a single health system. METHODS: We conducted a failure modes effects and criticality analysis at 4 nontrauma centers and 5 lower-level trauma centers in a single health system. Clinicians from each center described the steps in the trauma assessment and retriage process to create a process map. We used standardized scoring to characterize each failure based on frequency, impact on retriage, and prevention safeguards. We ranked each failure using the scores to calculate a risk priority number. RESULTS: We identified 26 steps and 93 failures. The highest-risk failure was refusal by higher-level trauma centers (receiving hospitals) to accept a patient. The most critical failures in the retriage process based on total risk, frequency, and safeguard scores were (1) refusal from a receiving higher-level trauma center to accept a patient (risk priority number = 191), (2) delay in a sending center's consultant examination of a patient in the emergency department (risk priority number = 177), and (3) delay in receiving hospital's consultant calling back (risk priority number = 177). CONCLUSION: We identified (1) addressing obstacles to determining clinical indications for retriage and (2) identifying receiving level I trauma centers who would accept the patient as opportunities to increase timely retriage. Establishing clear clinical indications for retriage that sending and receiving hospitals agree on represents an opportunity for intervention that could improve the retriage of injured patients.

Service: 2010 Western Trauma Association presidential address.

Service is central to the mission of a trauma surgeon and inextricably interwoven into our professional lives and activities. It is important to recognize the role that professional associations play in leveraging service as well as the need to continue to cultivate the ethic of service in medical education and in our training programs.

Emergency general surgery utilization and disparities during COVID-19: an interrupted time-series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare general surgery emergency (GSE) volume, demographics and disease severity before and during COVID-19. BACKGROUND: Presentations to the emergency department (ED) for GSEs fell during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to accessing care may be heightened, especially for vulnerable populations, and patients delaying care raises public health concerns. METHODS: We included adult patients with ED presentations for potential GSEs at a single quaternary-care hospital from January 2018 to August 2020. To compare GSE volumes in total and by subgroup, an interrupted time-series analysis was performed using the March shelter-in-place order as the start of the COVID-19 period. Bivariate analysis was used to compare demographics and disease severity. RESULTS: 3255 patients (28/week) presented with potential GSEs before COVID-19, while 546 (23/week) presented during COVID-19. When shelter-in-place started, presentations fell by 8.7/week (31%) from the previous week (p<0.001), driven by decreases in peritonitis (ß=-2.76, p=0.017) and gallbladder disease (ß=-2.91, p=0.016). During COVID-19, patients were younger (54 vs 57, p=0.001), more often privately insured (44% vs 38%, p=0.044), and fewer required interpreters (12% vs 15%, p<0.001). Fewer patients presented with sepsis during the pandemic (15% vs 20%, p=0.009) and the average severity of illness decreased (p<0.001). Length of stay was shorter during the COVID-19 period (3.91 vs 5.50 days, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GSE volumes and severity fell during the pandemic. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be elderly, publicly insured and have limited English proficiency, potentially exacerbating underlying health disparities and highlighting the need to improve care access for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Surviving traumatic injury, only to die of acute drug poisoning: Should trauma centers be a path for intervention?

BACKGROUND: Although death from drug overdose is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, its incidence after traumatic incident is unknown. Moreover, little is known about related risk factors. We sought to determine the incidence and characteristics of and risk factors for trauma patients suffering death by acute drug poisoning ("overdose") after hospitalization for a traumatic incident. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all admitted trauma patients ≥18 y of age at the only level-1 trauma center in our region from 2012 to 2019, matched with unintentional overdose decedents from the California death registry. We assessed associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with risk of overdose death, using cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. RESULTS: Of 9,860 patients residing in San Francisco, CA, USA, at the time of their trauma activation or admission during the study period, 1,418 died (4.3 per 100 person-years), 107 from unintentional overdose (0.3 per 100 person-years). Overdose decedents were 84% male, 50% white, with a mean age of 48 years at the time of presentation; 20% of deaths occurred within 3 months of hospitalization, and 40% were attributed to a prescription opioid. In multivariate analysis, younger age, male sex, white race, and having undergone a urine drug screening were all associated with subsequent death from overdose. CONCLUSION: During a mean 3.4-year follow-up, the mortality rate from overdose among adult patients with traumatic incidents was 0.3/100 person-years. Trauma hospitalization may serve as an opportunity to screen and initiate prevention, harm reduction, and treatment interventions.

Inequity in discharge pain management for trauma patients with limited English proficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Pain management is critical for optimal recovery after trauma. Previous work at our institution revealed differences in pain assessment by patient language, which may impact management. This study aimed to understand differences in discharge opioid prescribing for trauma patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adult trauma patients discharged to the community from a diverse, urban level 1 trauma center in 2018. Opioid prescriptions were obtained from discharge pharmacy records and converted to standard oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Multivariable logistic and quantile regression was used to examine the relationship between LEP, opioid prescriptions, and OMEs at discharge, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1,419 patients included in this study, 83% were English proficient (EP) and 17% were LEP. At discharge, 56% of EP patients received an opioid prescription, compared with 41% of LEP patients. In multivariable models, EP patients were 1.63 times more likely to receive any opioid prescription (95% CI, 1.17-2.25; p = 0.003). Mean OME was 147 for EP and 94 for LEP patients. In multivariable models, the difference between EP and LEP patients was 40 OMEs (95% CI, 21.10-84.22; p = 0.004). In adjusted quantile regression models, differences in total OMEs increased with the amount of OMEs prescribed. There was no difference in OMEs at the 20th and 40th percentile of total OMEs, but LEP patients received 26 fewer OMEs on average at the 60th percentile (95% CI, -3.23 to 54.90; p = 0.081) and 45 fewer OMEs at the 80th percentile (95% CI, 5.48-84.48; p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Limited English proficiency patients with traumatic injuries were less likely to receive any opioid prescription and were prescribed lower quantities of opiates, which could contribute to suboptimal pain management and recovery. Addressing these disparities is an important focus for future quality improvement efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care Management, level IV.

The DISTANCE study: Determining the impact of social distancing on trauma epidemiology during the COVID-19 epidemic-An interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The large-scale social distancing efforts to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission have dramatically changed human behaviors associated with traumatic injuries. Trauma centers have reported decreases in trauma volume, paralleled by changes in injury mechanisms. We aimed to quantify changes in trauma epidemiology at an urban Level I trauma center in a county that instituted one of the earliest shelter-in-place orders to inform trauma care during future pandemic responses. METHODS: A single-center interrupted time-series analysis was performed to identify associations of shelter-in-place with trauma volume, injury mechanisms, and patient demographics in San Francisco, California. To control for short-term trends in trauma epidemiology, weekly level data were analyzed 6 months before shelter-in-place. To control for long-term trends, monthly level data were analyzed 5 years before shelter-in-place. RESULTS: Trauma volume decreased by 50% in the week following shelter-in-place (p < 0.01), followed by a linear increase each successive week (p < 0.01). Despite this, trauma volume for each month (March-June 2020) remained lower compared with corresponding months for all previous 5 years (2015-2019). Pediatric trauma volume showed similar trends with initial decreases (p = 0.02) followed by steady increases (p = 0.05). Reductions in trauma volumes were due entirely to changes in nonviolent injury mechanisms, while violence-related injury mechanisms remained unchanged (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although the shelter-in-place order was associated with an overall decline in trauma volume, violence-related injuries persisted. Delineating and addressing underlying factors driving persistent violence-related injuries during shelter-in-place orders should be a focus of public health efforts in preparation for future pandemic responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.

Describing the density of high-level trauma centers in the 15 largest US cities.

BACKGROUND: There has been a proliferation of urban high-level trauma centers. The aim of this study was to describe the density of high-level adult trauma centers in the 15 largest cities in the USA and determine whether density was correlated with urban social determinants of health and violence rates. METHODS: The largest 15 US cities by population were identified. The American College of Surgeons' (ACS) and states' department of health websites were cross-referenced for designated high-level (levels 1 and 2) trauma centers in each city. Trauma centers and associated 20 min drive radius were mapped. High-level trauma centers per square mile and per population were calculated. The distance between high-level trauma centers was calculated. Publicly reported social determinants of health and violence data were tested for correlation with trauma center density. RESULTS: Among the 15 largest cities, 14 cities had multiple high-level adult trauma centers. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per every 150 square kilometers with a range of one center per every 39 square kilometers in Philadelphia to one center per596 square kilometers in San Antonio. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per 285 034 people with a range of one center per 175 058 people in Columbus to one center per 870 044 people in San Francisco. The median minimum distance between high-level trauma centers in the 14 cities with multiple centers was 8 kilometers and ranged from 1 kilometer in Houston to 43 kilometers in San Antonio. Social determinants of health, specifically poverty rate and unemployment rate, were highly correlated with violence rates. However, there was no correlation between trauma center density and social determinants of health or violence rates. DISCUSSION: High-level trauma centers density is not correlated with social determinants of health or violence rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: VI. STUDY TYPE: Economic/decision.

Where do we go from here? Interim analysis to forge ahead in violence prevention.

BACKGROUND: The severity and disparity of interpersonal violent injury is staggering. Fifty-three per 100,000 African Americans (AA) die of homicide yearly, 20 per 100,000 in Latinos, whereas the rate is 3 per 100,000 in Caucasians. With the ultimate goal of reducing injury recidivism, which now stands at 35% to 50%, we have designed and implemented a hospital-based, case-managed violence prevention program uniquely applicable to trauma centers. The Wraparound Project (WP) seizes the "teachable moment" after injury to implement culturally competent case management (CM) and shepherd clients through risk reduction resources with city and community partners. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed intermediate evaluation of this multi-modal violence prevention program. We hypothesized that this evaluation would demonstrate feasibility and early programmatic efficacy. We looked to identify areas of programmatic weakness that, if corrected, could strengthen the project and enhance its effectiveness. METHODS: We performed intermediate evaluation on the 18-month-old program. We selected the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended instrument used for unintentional injury prevention programs and applied it to the WP. The four sequential stages in this methodology are formative, process, impact, and outcome. To test feasibility of WP, we used process evaluation. To evaluate intermediate goals of risk reduction and early efficacy, we used impact evaluation. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five people met screening criteria. The two case managers were able to make contact and screen 73% of gun shot victims, and 57% of stab wound victims. Of those not seen, 48% were in the hospital for 6 h/wk with the client. Forty-one percent of the time, they spent 3 hours to 6 hours. Seventeen of 18 people who required >6 hours had two to three needs. Attrition rate is only 4%. The table demonstrates percent success thus far in providing risk reduction resources. CONCLUSIONS: WP case managers served high-risk clients by developing trust, credibility, and a risk reduction plan. Cultural competency has been vital. Six of seven major needs were successfully addressed at least 50% of the time. The value of reporting these results has led WP to gain credibility with municipal stakeholders, who have now agreed to fund a third CM position. Intermediate evaluation provided a framework in our effort to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism through culturally competent CM and risk factor modification.

Protein C depletion early after trauma increases the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanically ventilated trauma patients have a high risk for the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We have recently reported that reduced plasma protein C (PC) levels early after trauma/shock are associated with coagulopathy and mortality. Furthermore, trauma patients with tissue injury and shock are at higher risk for the development of VAP. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that low PC levels early after trauma are associated with an increased susceptibility to VAP in trauma patients. METHODS: Fifty-nine acutely injured, intubated trauma patients were admitted to the critical care unit. Serial blood samples were drawn and coagulation factors were measured. VAP was diagnosed by presence of bacteria on bronchial alveolar lavage specimen, bilateral infiltrates on chest roentgenogram, and fever or elevated white blood cell count. RESULTS: There were no differences in demographic or injury characteristics between patients who developed VAP and those who did not. As expected, patients who developed VAP had more ventilator days, hospital days, intensive care unit days, and greater mortality (all p < 0.05). Patients in both groups had lower mean PC levels at 6 hours compared with baseline. Noninfected patients' PC subsequently returned to near baseline levels, whereas those patients who eventually acquired VAP had significantly lower PC levels at both 12 and 24 hours (12 hours: 79 vs. 96%, p = 0.05; 24 hours: 75 vs. 97% p = 0.02). Soluble endothelial PC receptor (sEPCR) levels were also lower at 24 hours (82 vs. 99% in the noninfected group, p = 0.04). DISCUSSION: The activation of PC pathway early after trauma may protect the vascular endothelium by both its anticoagulant and cytoprotective effects. However, trauma patients who later developed VAP have significantly lower plasma levels of PC within 24 hours after injury, suggesting a possible consumption of this vitamin K-dependent protein and an inhibition of its activation by inflammatory mediators. EPCR is involved in the activation of PC and is also a mediator of its cytoprotective effects. CONCLUSION: Critically ill trauma patients have an early activation of the PC pathway, associated with a rapid decrease in the plasma levels of this protein and increase in EPCR. Plasma levels of PC return to normal levels within 24 hours in most patients. However, patients who go on to acquire VAP have persistently low plasma levels of PC in the immediate period after trauma. Whether PC could play a mechanistic role in the host response against nosocomial lung infection warrants further study.