Nationwide Survey of Trauma Center Screening and Intervention Practices for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Firearm Violence, Mental Health, and Substance Use Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, firearm violence events, alcohol and drug use problems, and major depression and suicidal ideation are endemic among patients admitted to US trauma centers. Despite increasing policy importance, the current availability of screening and intervention services for this constellation of conditions in US trauma centers is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Trauma program staff at all Level I and Level II trauma centers in the US. (N = 627) were contacted to complete a survey describing screening and intervention procedures for alcohol and drug use problems, PTSD symptoms, depression and suicidality, and firearm violence. Additional questions asked trauma centers about the delivery of peer interventions and information technology capacity for screening and intervention procedures. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of trauma centers (n = 322) responded to the survey. More than 95% of responding sites endorsed routinely screening and/or intervening for alcohol use problems. Routine services addressing PTSD were less common, with 28% of centers reporting routine screening. More than 50% of sites that screened for PTSD used previously established trauma center alcohol use services. Programmatic screening and intervention for firearm injury sequelae was occurring at 30% of sites. CONCLUSION: Alcohol screening and intervention is occurring frequently at US trauma centers and appears to be responsive to American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification requirements. Routine screening and intervention services for PTSD and firearm injury were occurring less frequently. Regular national surveys may be a key element of tracking progress in national mental health and substance use screening, intervention, and referral policy.

A Pragmatic Approach to Psychometric Comparisons between the DSM-IV and DSM-5 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklists in Acutely Injured Trauma Patients.

Objective: Prior investigations suggest the relative equivalence of the DSM-IV and DSM-5 versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) Checklist, yet no investigations have assessed the psychometric properties of the scales in pragmatic trials of acutely injured trauma survivors. Method: DSM-IV and DSM-5 versions of the PTSD Checklist were included in follow-up interviews of physically injured patients enrolled longitudinally in a pragmatic clinical trial; pragmatic trials aim to efficiently implement research procedures to inform healthcare system policy changes. Psychometric comparisons of the DSM-IV, DSM-5, and a 20-item blended version of the scale included evaluations of internal consistency, correlational assessments, evaluation of item level agreements, and estimation of DSM-5 cutoffs that optimize electronic health record screening protocols. Results: 128 patients were included in the pragmatic psychometric study. Cronbach's alphas for the 3 versions of the PTSD Checklist ranged from 0.93 to 0.95. Correlations between the 3 scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.99. All 3 measures demonstrated excellent convergent and discriminant properties. Item level agreement ranged from 70-80%. For the DSM-5 and blended versions of the scale, a score of 30 and 24, respectively, best approximated the DSM-IV cutoff of ≥35 that had previously optimized PTSD detection in conjunction with EHR screening. Conclusions: Among injured trauma survivors, the psychometric performance of the DSM-IV PTSD Checklist with the addition of the 4 new DSM-5 PTSD Checklist items is nearly equivalent to the DSM-5 PTSD Checklist. The investigation also suggests that pragmatic psychometric methods can catalyze the rapid translation of research findings into real-world practice settings.

A comparative effectiveness trial of an information technology enhanced peer-integrated collaborative care intervention versus enhanced usual care for US trauma care systems: Clinical study protocol.

Annually approximately 2-3 million Americans are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospitalization. The study team, which includes patients, clinical researchers, front-line provider and policy maker stakeholders, has been working together for over a decade to develop interventions that target improvements for US trauma care systems nationally. This pragmatic randomized trial compares a multidisciplinary team collaborative care intervention that integrates front-line trauma center staff with peer interventionists, versus trauma team notification of patient emotional distress with mental health consultation as enhanced usual care. The peer-integrated collaborative care intervention will be supported by a novel emergency department exchange health information technology platform. A total of 424 patients will be randomized to peer-integrated collaborative care (n = 212) and surgical team notification (n = 212) conditions. The study hypothesizes that patient's randomized to peer integrated collaborative care intervention will demonstrate significant reductions in emergency department health service utilization, severity of patient concerns, post traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and physical limitations when compared to surgical team notification. These four primary outcomes will be followed-up at 1- 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-months after injury for all patients. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) method will be used to assess implementation processes. Data from the primary outcome analysis and implementation process assessment will be used to inform an end-of-study policy summit with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. The policy summit will facilitate acute care practice changes related to patient-centered care transitions over the course of a single 5-year funding cycle. Trial registration: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT03569878).