Delayed hospital admission for traumatic hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Concerns of contracting the highly contagious disease COVID-19 have led to a reluctance in seeking medical attention, which may contribute to delayed hospital arrival among traumatic patients. The study objective was to describe differences in time from injury to arrival for patients with traumatic hip fractures admitted during the pandemic to pre-pandemic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers included patients with traumatic hip fractures. Patients with a non-fall mechanism and those who were transferred in were excluded. Patients admitted 16 March 2019-30 June 2019 were in the "pre-pandemic" group, patients were admitted 16 March 2020-30 June 2020 were in the "pandemic" group. The primary outcome was time from injury to arrival. Secondary outcomes were time from arrival to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and mortality. RESULTS: There were 703 patients, 352 (50.1%) pre-pandemic and 351 (49.9%) during the pandemic. Overall, 66.5% were female and the median age was 82 years old. Patients were similar in age, race, gender, and injury severity score. The median time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically shorter for pre-pandemic patients when compared to pandemic patients, 79.5 (56, 194.5) min vs. 91 (59, 420), p = 0.04. The time from arrival to surgical intervention (p = 0.64) was statistically similar between groups. For both groups, the median HLOS was 5 days, p = 0.45. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic, 1.1% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: While time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically longer during the pandemic, the difference may not be clinically important. Time from arrival to surgical intervention remained similar, despite changes made to prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Is preexisting mental illness associated with lower patient satisfaction for older trauma patients? A cross-sectional descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine if satisfaction with care differs among older trauma patients with and without preexisting mental illness (PMI+/PMI-). METHODS: Data from two level I trauma centers were examined from 11/2016 through 12/2017. Trauma patients ≥55 years were included and satisfaction of those who had a diagnosis of mental illness prior to the trauma admission (PMI+) to those without a diagnosis (PMI-) (n = 299; 62 PMI+ and 237 PMI-) were compared. Enrolled patients completed the Family Satisfaction with Advanced Care Cancer Scale Patient Survey (FAMCARE-P13) prior to discharge. Associations between mental illness status and patient baseline characteristics, overall mean satisfaction, and mean satisfaction by question were compared. Generalized linear models adjusted for differences in patient satisfaction by mental illness status. Analyses were stratified by hospital to account for the interaction between hospital and mental illness status. RESULTS: Compared to PMI- patients, PMI+ patients were more likely to be younger, female, have multiple comorbidities, and to report lower overall satisfaction with care. Among PMI+ patients, the most common diagnoses were depression and anxiety. After adjustment, PMI+ was associated with lower patient satisfaction at hospital 1; after examining individual questions lower satisfaction was associated with information provided on procedures and questions surrounding "Physical care." Conversely, PMI+ did not affect satisfaction at hospital 2 after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: At hospital 1, room for improvement was identified in providing information about prognosis and procedures, symptom management, and continuity of care. Reexamining practices for older PMI+ trauma patients is warranted.

Comparing satisfaction of trauma patients 55 years or older to their caregivers during palliative care: Who faces the burden?

BACKGROUND: Many studies report on the patient-caregiver relationship during palliative care (PC); however, this relationship has yet to be examined following traumatic injury. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included trauma patients (≥55 years) and their primary caregivers admitted at two level I trauma centers for 2 years (November 2016 to November 2018), who received PC and who completed satisfaction surveys before discharge; surveys were analyzed by four domains: information giving, availability of care, physical care, and psychosocial care, and by PC assessments: consultations, prognostications, formal family meetings (FFMs), and advanced goals of care discussions. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients and caregivers who were satisfied (defined as ≥80%) and was analyzed using McNemar's test. Adjusted mixed models identified PC assessments that were associated with satisfaction scores ≥80% for patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Of the 441-patient and 441-caregiver pairs, caregivers were significantly less satisfied than patients during prognostications (information giving, physical care), FFMs (information giving, physical care), and consultations (physical care), while caregivers were significantly more satisfied than patients during advanced goals of care discussions (availability of care, psychosocial care). After adjustment, significant predictors of caregiver satisfaction (≥80%) included longer patient hospital length of stay (>4 days), caring for a male patient (physical care, availability of care), higher caregiver age (≥55 years; availability of care), and higher patient age (≥65 years; psychosocial care). Conversely, all PC assessments decreased odds of satisfaction for caregivers in every domain except physical care. Significant predictors of higher patient satisfaction included FFMs (for every domain) and PC consultations (psychosocial care), and decreased odds included advanced goals of care discussions and prognostication assessments (information giving, psychosocial care). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care increased satisfaction of patients, especially family meetings and consultations, while assessments were predictive of lower caregiver satisfaction, suggesting that caregivers may be experiencing some of the patient burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV.