A joinpoint analysis examining trends in firearm injuries at six us trauma centers from 2016 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: There is an epidemic of firearm injuries in the United States since the mid-2000s. Thus, we sought to examine whether hospitalization from firearm injuries have increased over time, and to examine temporal changes in patient demographics, firearm injury intent, and injury severity. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with a traumatic injury to six US level I trauma centers between 1/1/2016 and 6/30/2022. ICD-10-CM cause codes were used to identify and describe firearm injuries. Temporal trends were compared for demographics (age, sex, race, insured status), intent (assault, unintentional, self-harm, legal intervention, and undetermined), and severity (death, ICU admission, severe injury (injury severity score ≥ 16), receipt of blood transfusion, mechanical ventilation, and hospital and ICU LOS (days). Temporal trends were examined over 13 six-month intervals (H1, January-June; H2, July-December) using joinpoint regression and reported as semi-annual percent change (SPC); significance was p < 0.05. RESULTS: Firearm injuries accounted for 2.6% (1908 of 72,474) of trauma hospitalizations. The rate of firearm injuries initially declined from 2016-H1 to 2018-H2 (SPC = - 4.0%, p = 0.002), followed by increased rates from 2018-H2 to 2020-H1 (SPC = 9.0%, p = 0.005), before stabilizing from 2020-H1 to 2022-H1 (0.5%, p = 0.73). NH black patients had the greatest hospitalization rate from firearm injuries (14.0%) and were the only group to demonstrate a temporal increase (SPC = 6.3%, p < 0.001). The proportion of uninsured patients increased (SPC = 2.3%, p = 0.02) but there were no temporal changes by age or sex. ICU admission rates declined (SPC = - 2.2%, p < 0.001), but ICU LOS increased (SPC = 2.8%, p = 0.04). There were no significant changes over time in rates of death (SPC = 0.3%), severe injury (SPC = 1.6%), blood transfusion (SPC = 0.6%), and mechanical ventilation (SPC = 0.6%). When examined by intent, self-harm injuries declined over time (SPC = - 4.1%, p < 0.001), assaults declined through 2019-H2 (SPC = - 5.6%, p = 0.01) before increasing through 2022-H1 (SPC = 6.5%, p = 0.01), while undetermined injuries increased through 2019-H1 (SPC = 24.1%, p = 0.01) then stabilized (SPC = - 4.5%, p = 0.39); there were no temporal changes in unintentional injuries or legal intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations from firearm injuries are increasing following a period of declines, driven by increases among NH Black patients. Trauma systems need to consider these changing trends to best address the needs of the injured population.

The effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes among geriatric hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study at five level I trauma centers.

Restrictive fluid management (RFM) for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients has reduced mortality rates. The objective was to determine whether RFM benefits geriatric hip fracture patients, who are usually hemodynamically stable. Design: Retrospective propensity-matched study. Setting: Five Level I trauma centers (January 1, 2018-December 12, 2018). Patients: Geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures were included in this study. Patients with multiple injuries, nonoperative management, and preoperative blood products were excluded. Intervention: Patients were grouped by fluid volume (normal saline, lactated Ringer, dextrose, electrolytes, and medications) received preoperatively or ≤24 hours of arrival; patients with standard fluid management (SFM) received ≥150 mL and RFM <150 mL of fluids. Main Outcome Measurements: The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), delayed ambulation (>2 days postoperatively), and mortality. Paired Student t-tests, Wilcoxon paired rank sum tests, and McNemar tests were used; an α value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were 523 patients (40% RFM, 60% SFM); after matching, there were 95 patients per arm. The matched patients were well-balanced, including no difference in time from arrival to surgery. RFM and SFM patients received a median of 80 mL and 1250 mL of preoperative fluids, respectively (P < 0.001). Postoperative fluid volumes were 1550 versus 2000 mL, respectively, (P = 0.73), and LOSs were similar between the two groups (5 versus 5 days, P = 0.83). Mortality and complications, including acute kidney injuries, were similar. Delayed ambulation rates were similar overall. When stratified by preinjury ambulation status, SFM was associated with delayed ambulation for patients not walking independently before injury (P = 0.01), but RFM was not (P = 0.09). Conclusions: RFM seems to be safe in terms of laboratory results, complications, and disposition. SFM may lead to delayed ambulation for patients who are not walking independently before injury.

Incidence, outcomes and costs of severe sepsis and septic shock in geriatric trauma patients: Analysis of 2,563,463 hospitalizations at 3,284 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis) is a leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients are an increasing proportion of trauma care but little recent, large-scale, research exists in this high-risk demographic. The objectives of this study are to identify incidence, outcomes and costs of sepsis in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients at short-term, nonfederal hospitals 65 years or older with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Sepsis was defined as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes R6520 and R6521. A log-linear model was used to examine the association of Sepsis with mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, Elixhauser score, and Injury Severity Score. Dominance analysis using logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of individual variables in predicting Sepsis. Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study. RESULTS: There were 2,563,436 hospitalizations from 3,284 hospitals (62.8% female; 90.4% White; 72.7% falls; median ISS, 6.0). Incidence of Sepsis was 2.1%. Sepsis patients had significantly worse outcomes. Mortality risk was significantly higher in septic patients (adjusted risk ratio, 3.98, 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.04). Elixhauser score contributed the most to the prediction of Sepsis, followed by ISS (McFadden's R2 = 9.7% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis/septic shock occurs infrequently among geriatric trauma patients but is associated with increased mortality and resource utilization. Pre-existing comorbidities influence Sepsis occurrence more than Injury Severity Score or age in this group, identifying a population at high risk. Clinical management of geriatric trauma patients should focus on rapid identification and prompt aggressive action in high-risk patients to minimize the occurrence of sepsis and maximize survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Predicting Complicated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Adolescent Trauma to Enhance Clinical Decisions in Imaging.

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) traumatic brain injury algorithm is used to identify children at low risk of clinically significant traumatic brain injuries to reduce computed tomography (CT) exposure. Adapting PECARN rules based on population-specific risk stratification has been suggested to improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify center-specific patient variables, beyond PECARN rules, that may enhance the identification of patients requiring neuroimaging. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2020, in a Southwestern U.S. Level II pediatric trauma center. The inclusion criteria were adolescents (10-15 years), Glasgow Coma Scale (13-15), with a confirmed mechanical blow to the head. Patients without a head CT were excluded. Logistic regression was performed to identify additional complicated mild traumatic brain injury predictor variables beyond the PECARN. RESULTS: There were 136 patients studied; 21 (15%) presented with a complicated mild traumatic brain injury. Relative to motorcycle collision or all-terrain vehicle trauma (odds ratio [OR] 211.75, 95% confidence interval, CI [4.51, 9931.41], p < .001), an unspecified mechanism (OR 42.0, 95% CI [1.30, 1350.97], p = .03) and consult activation (OR 17.44, 95% CI [1.75, 173.31], p = .01) were significantly associated with complicated mild traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: We identified additional factors associated with complex mild traumatic brain injury, including motorcycle collision and all-terrain vehicle trauma, unspecified mechanism, and consult activation that are not in the PECARN imaging decision rule. Adding these variables may aid in determining the need for appropriate CT scanning.

Characterizing Interhospital Variability in Neurosurgical Interventions for Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Intracranial Hemorrhage.

The objective of this study was to quantify nation-wide interhospital variation in neurosurgical intervention risk by intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) type in the setting of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) trauma patients included in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2019 with an emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15, diagnosed ICH, no skull fracture. The primary outcome was neurosurgical intervention. Interhospital variation was assessed by examining the best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs) obtained from mixed-effects logistic regression with random slopes and intercepts for hospitals and covariates for time and 14 demographic, injury, and hospital characteristics; one model per ICH type. Intercept BLUPs are estimates of how different each hospital is from the average hospital (after covariate adjustment). The study population included 49,220 (7%) neurosurgical interventions among 666,842 patients in 1060 hospitals. In 2019, after adjusting for patient case-mix and hospital characteristics, the percentage of hospitals with hemorrhage-specific neurosurgical intervention risk significantly different from the average hospital was as follows: isolated unspecified hemorrhage (0% of 995 hospitals); isolated contusion/laceration (0.54% of 929); isolated epidural hemorrhage (0.39% of 778); isolated subarachnoid hemorrhage (0.10% of 1002); multiple hemorrhages (2.49% of 963); and isolated subdural hemorrhage (16.25% of 1028). In the setting of mTBI, isolated subdural hemorrhages were the only ICH type to have considerable interhospital variability. Causes for this significant variation should be elucidated and might include changing hemorrhage characteristics and practice patterns over time.

Significant National Declines in Neurosurgical Intervention for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with Intracranial Hemorrhage: A 13-Year Review of the National Trauma Data Bank.

There have been large changes over the past several decades to patient demographics in those presenting with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH; complicated mTBI) with the potential to affect the use of neurosurgical interventions. The objective of this study was to characterize long-term trends of neurosurgical interventions in patients with complicated mTBI using 13 years of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) trauma patients included in the NTDB from 2007 to 2019 who had an emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15, an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and no skull fracture. Neurosurgical intervention time trends were quantified for each ICH type using mixed-effects logistic regression with random slopes and intercepts for hospitals, as well as covariates for time and 14 demographic, injury, and hospital characteristics. In total, 666,842 ICH patients across 1060 hospitals were included. The four most common hemorrhages were isolated subdural hemorrhage (36%), isolated subarachnoid hemorrhage (24%), multiple hemorrhage types (24%), and isolated unspecified hemorrhages (9%). Overall, 49,220 (7%) patients received a neurosurgical intervention. After adjustment, the odds of neurosurgical intervention significantly decreased every 10 years by the following odds ratios (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]): 0.85 [0.78, 0.93] for isolated subdural, 0.63 [0.51, 0.77] for isolated subarachnoid, 0.50 [0.41, 0.62] for isolated unspecified, and 0.79 [0.73, 0.86] for multiple hemorrhages. There were no significant temporal trends in neurosurgical intervention odds for isolated epidural hemorrhages (0.87 [0.68, 1.12]) or isolated contusions/lacerations (1.03 [0.75, 1.41]). In the setting of complicated mTBI, the four most common ICH types were associated with significant declines in the odds of neurosurgical intervention over the past decade. It remains unclear whether changing hemorrhage characteristics or practice patterns drove these trends.

Low Prevalence but High Impact of COVID-19 Positive Status in Adult Trauma Patients: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 28 904 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47;P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

Patient Controlled Analgesia and an Alternative Protocol: A Comparison of Outcomes After Thoracic and Lumbar Surgery.

Introduction: Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is a common form of pain management after spine surgeries, in which patients get custom control of their opioid dose. PCA has been demonstrated as a safe form of analgesia; however, use of PCA comes with risks that can be mitigated by opting for alternative pain management. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients using PCA to those with an alternative analgesia protocol that does not involve PCA. Methods: A retrospective chart review from January 2017 to July 2018 was conducted. Patients included in this study were those 18 or older who were admitted to a large midwestern tertiary medical center in Wichita, Kansas, and underwent thoracic or lumbar spinal surgery from a single spine surgeon. Data from patient demographics, comorbidities, and type of procedure were collected and compared to control for possible confounding variables. Patients were divided into two groups: patients receiving a PCA pain protocol post-operatively and those receiving a non-PCA protocol. Statistical analyses were performed and all tests with p < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: This study found patients in the PCA protocol had similar outcomes to those in the alternative analgesia protocol. This was true for both primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome was patient length of stay after the operation. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, frequency of naloxone rescue, transfers to higher levels of care, and total opioid consumption. Conclusions: This study supported that a non-PCA protocol for post-operative pain management yields similar outcomes to a PCA protocol in the setting of thoracic and lumbar surgery.

What Makes a Trauma Patient "Pediatric"? Survey of Providers' Admission Decision Making for Pediatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Only a fraction of pediatric trauma patients are treated in pediatric-specific facilities, leaving the remaining to be seen in centers that must decide to admit the patient to a pediatric or adult unit. Thus, there may be inconsistencies in pediatric trauma admission practices among trauma centers. OBJECTIVE: Describe current practices in admission decision making for pediatric patients. METHODS: An email survey was distributed to members of three professional organizations: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Society of Trauma Nurses, and Pediatric Trauma Society. The survey contained questions regarding pediatric age cutoffs, institutional placement decisions, and scenario-based assessments to determine mitigating placement factors. RESULTS: There were 313 survey responses representing freestanding children's hospitals (114, 36.4%); children's hospitals within general hospitals (107, 34.2%), and adult centers (not a children's hospital; 90, 28.8%). The mean age cutoff for pediatric admission was 16.6 years. The most reported cutoff ages were 18 years (77, 25.6%) and 15 years (76, 25.2%). The most common rationales for the age cutoffs were "institutional experience/tradition" (139, 44.4%) and "physician preference" (89, 28.4%). CONCLUSION: There was no single widely accepted age cutoff that distinguished pediatric from adult trauma patients for admission placement. There was significant variability between and within the types of facilities, with noted ambiguity in the definition of a "pediatric" patient. Thresholds appear to be based primarily on subjective criteria such as traditions or preferences rather than scientific data. Institutions should strive for objective, evidence-based policies for determining the appropriate placement of pediatric patients.

Trauma Prevalence and Resource Utilization During 4 COVID-19 "Surges": A National Analysis of Trauma Patients From 92 Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographics & outcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019. RESULTS: The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

Examining trends in gun violence injuries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across six trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The onset of the national stay-at-home orders accompanied by a surge in firearm sales has elevated the concerns of clinicians and public health authorities. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the stay-at-home orders among gunshot wound (GSW) trauma admissions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers across four states. Patients admitted after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions (March 16, 2020-June 30, 2020) were compared with those admitted during the same period in 2019. We compared (1) rate of patients with GSW and (2) characteristics of patients with GSW, by period using Χ2 tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: There were 6996 trauma admissions across the study period; 3707 (53%) in 2019 and 3289 (47%) in 2020. From 2019 to 2020, there was a significant increase in GSW admissions (4% vs. 6%, p=0.001); 4 weeks specifically had significant increases (March 16-March 23: 4%, April 1-April 8: 5%, April 9-April 16: 6%, and May 11-May 18: 5%). Of the 334 GSWs, there were significant increases in patients with mental illness (5% vs. 11%, p=0.03), alcohol use disorder (2% vs. 10%, p=0.003), substance use disorder (11% vs. 25%, p=0.001), and a significant decrease in mortality (14% vs. 7%, p=0.03) in 2020. No other significant differences between time periods were identified. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that trauma centers admitted significantly more patients with GSW following the national guidelines, including an increase in those with mental illness and substance use-related disorders. This could be attributable to the stay-at-home orders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective study.

Significant variations in preoperative fluid resuscitation volumes delivered to elderly hip fracture patients at six level 1 trauma centers: an observational descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the variations in administration of preoperative (preop) fluids and in the volumes of fluid administered among geriatric hip fracture patients requiring surgical repair. DESIGN: Observational descriptive. SETTING: Six Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS: A total of 595 patients aged ≥65 with ICD-10 codes indicating hip fracture and surgical repair were identified. Of these, 87.9% (n = 525) received preop fluid. The median volume of preop fluid delivered was 1500 mL (IQR: 1000-2250 mL). INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of preop fluids; median volume of fluid received. RESULTS: Receipt of preop fluid was significantly different by inter-hospital transfer, facility, BMI, hospital length of stay, and postop fluid volume. Age, sex, time to surgery, time to ambulation, and hospital disposition were not associated with preop fluid. There were significant differences in median preop fluid volumes by facility and postop fluid volume. CONCLUSION: This descriptive study of current practices among geriatric trauma patients with isolated hip fractures revealed significant differences in the use of preop fluid resuscitation and the resuscitation volumes administered. Treating facility may be the most substantial source of variation highlighting the need for a guideline on fluid resuscitation. These observed variations may be a result of patient characteristics or provider discretion and should be evaluated further.

Are trauma research programs in academic and non-academic centers measured by equal standards? A survey of 137 level I trauma centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers. METHODS: A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources. RESULTS: The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

The Pediatric Trauma Society Annual Meeting: An Analysis of Scholarly Output From the First 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. METHODS: Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). CONCLUSION: Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

A Pilot and Feasibility Study to Evaluate Small and Large Bite Fascial Closure Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled studies have been conducted comparing a small to large fascial bite technique, yet recommendations have been made to standardize small bite closures. However, large scale randomized controlled trials require considerable effort and may benefit from a pilot study. METHODS: This multi-center randomized controlled pilot study of adult patients undergoing median laparotomy incision investigated the feasibility of studying the outcomes between small and large surgical closure techniques. RESULTS: Fifty of 100 planned patients consented, 32 patients completed surgery, and 19 patients completed the one-year ultrasound. Enrollment was 2.7 versus 8 patients per month pre/post addition of a study coordinator. Clinical results are summarized for feasibility demonstration purposes, but not analyzed for hypothesis testing. The total cost of the pilot study was $19,152.50 and took 22 months from first surgery to final one-year ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility assessment demonstrated the complexity of planning a large-scale randomized trial evaluating small and large bite surgical closure technique. To expand this pilot study to a full scaled sample size study would require dedicated personnel and large grant funding.

The Impact of Nursing on Trauma Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of HCAHPS From 112,283 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I-IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018-2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. RESULTS: Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p < .001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution-larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p < .001) or "medical" (58.4%; p < .001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience.

COVID-19 and trauma: how social distancing orders altered the patient population using trauma services during the 2020 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported changes in trauma volumes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing orders (SDOs) implemented by federal and state governments. However, literature is lacking on demographic, injury and outcome patterns. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients aged ≥18 years at six US level 1 trauma centers. Patients not discharged by the date of data acquisition were excluded. Demographic, injury and outcome variables were assessed across four time periods: period 1 (January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019); period 1b (March 16, 2019-June 30, 2019); period 2 (January 1, 2020-March 15, 2020); and period 3 (March 16, 2020-June 30, 2020). Patients admitted in period 3 were compared with patients presenting during all other periods. Categorical data were compared with χ2 and Fisher's exact tests, and continuous data were assessed with Student's t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: We identified 18 567 patients: 12 797 patients in period 1 (including 3707 in period 1b), 2488 in period 2 and 3282 in period 3. Compared with period 1, period 3 had a statistically significant decrease in mean patient volume, increase in portion of penetrating injuries, increase in higher levels of trauma activation, change in emergency department discharge disposition locations, increase in in-hospital mortality and a shorter hospital length of stay. Comparison between period 1b and period 3 demonstrated a decrease in mean patient volume, increase in penetrating injuries, increase in high acuity trauma activations and increase in in-hospital mortality rate. From period 2 to period 3, the penetrating injuries rose from 6.7% to 9.4% (p=0.004), injury severity scale ≥25 increased from 5.9% to 7.7% (p=0.002), full trauma team activations increased from 13.7% to 16.4% (p<0.001), interhospital transfers decreased from 36.7% to 31.6% (p<0.001) and the in-hospital mortality rate increased from 3.3% to 4.2% (p=0.003). DISCUSSION: Beyond altering social interactions among people, the federal SDO is associated with changes in trauma volumes, demographics and injury patterns among patients seeking care at six level 1 hospitals during the pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, prognostic and epidemiological.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of level 1 trauma centers to meet American College of Surgeons research requirements.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major effects on hospitals' ability to perform scientific research while providing patient care and minimizing virus exposure and spread. Many non-COVID-19 research has been halted, and funding has been diverted to COVID-19 research and away from other areas. METHODS: A 28-question survey was administered to all level 1 trauma centers in the USA that included questions about how the pandemic affected the trauma centers' ability to fulfill the volume and research requirements of level 1 verification by the American College of Surgeons (ACS). RESULTS: The survey had a 29% response rate (40/137 successful invitations). Over half of respondents (52%) reported reduced trauma admissions during the pandemic, and 7% reported that their admissions dropped below the volume required for level 1 verification. Many centers diverted resources from research during the pandemic (44%), halted ongoing consenting studies (33%), and had difficulty fulfilling research requirements because of competing clinical priorities (40%). DISCUSSION: Results of this study show a need for flexibility in the ACS verification process during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially including reduction of the required admissions and/or research publication volumes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on health insurance coverage among trauma patients: a study of six level I trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Increased unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic has likely led to widespread loss of employer-provided health insurance. This study examined trends in health insurance coverage among trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, including differences in demographics and clinical characteristics by insurance type. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on adult patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centers between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020. The primary exposure was hospital admission date: January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (Period 1), January 1, 2019 to March 15, 2020 (Period 2), and March 16, 2020 to June 30, 2020 (Period 3). Covariates included demographic and clinical variables. χ² tests examined whether the rates of patients covered by each insurance type differed between the pandemic and earlier periods. Mann-Whiney U and χ² tests investigated whether patient demographics or clinical characteristics differed within each insurance type across the study periods. RESULTS: A total of 31 225 trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019 were included. Forty-one per cent (n=12 651) were admitted in Period 1, 49% (n=15 258) were from Period 2, and 11% (n=3288) were from Period 3. Percentages of uninsured patients increased significantly across the three periods (Periods 1 to 3: 15%, 16%, 21%) (ptrend=0.02); however, there was no accompanying decrease in the percentages of commercial/privately insured patients (Periods 1 to 3: 40%, 39%, 39%) (ptrend=0.27). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of patients on Medicare during the pandemic period (Periods 1 to 3: 39%, 39%, 34%) (p<0.01). DISCUSSION: This study found that job loss during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increases of uninsured trauma patients. However, there was not a corresponding decrease in commercial/privately insured patients, as may have been expected; rather, a decrease in Medicare patients was observed. These findings may be attributable to a growing workforce during the study period, in combination with a younger overall patient population during the pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective, level III study.

Multicenter study of US trauma centers examining the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury causes, diagnoses and procedures.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nationwide social distancing and shelter-in-place orders meant to curb transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The effect of the pandemic on injury patterns has not been well described in the USA. The study objective is to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the distribution and determinants of traumatic injuries. METHODS: This retrospective multi-institutional cohort study included all hospital admissions for acute traumatic injury at six community level I trauma centers. Descriptive statistics were used to compare injury causes, diagnoses and procedures over two similar time periods: prepandemic (March 11-June 30, 2019) and pandemic (March 11-June 30, 2020). RESULTS: There were 7308 trauma patients included: 3862 (53%) prepandemic and 3446 (47%) during the pandemic. Cause of injury significantly differed by period (p<0.001). During the pandemic, there were decreases in motor vehicle crashes (from 17.0% to 14.0%, p<0.001), worksite injuries (from 5.2% to 4.1%, p=0.02), pedestrian injuries (from 3.0% to 2.2%, p=0.02) and recreational injuries (from 3.0% to 1.7%, p<0.001), while there were significant increases in assaults (6.9% to 8.5%, p=0.01), bicycle crashes (2.8% to 4.2%, p=0.001) and off-road vehicle injuries (1.8% to 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no change by study period in falls, motorcycle injuries, crush/strikes, firearm and self-inflicted injuries, and injuries associated with home-improvement projects. Injury diagnoses differed between time periods; during the pandemic, there were more injury diagnoses to the head (23.0% to 27.3%, p<0.001) and the knee/leg (11.7% to 14.9%, p<0.001). There were also increases in medical/surgical procedures (57.5% to 61.9%, p<0.001), administration of therapeutics/blood products (31.4% to 34.2%, p=0.01) and monitoring (11.0% to 12.9%, p=0.01). DISCUSSION: Causes of traumatic injury, diagnoses, and procedures were significantly changed by the pandemic. Trauma centers must adjust to meet the changing demands associated with altered injury patterns, as they were associated with increased use of hospital resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (epidemiological).