Screening and intervention for intimate partner violence at trauma centers and emergency departments: an evidence-based systematic review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue with a substantial burden on society. Screening and intervention practices vary widely and there are no standard guidelines. Our objective was to review research on current practices for IPV prevention in emergency departments and trauma centers in the USA and provide evidenced-based recommendations. Methods: An evidence-based systematic review of the literature was conducted to address screening and intervention for IPV in adult trauma and emergency department patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was used to determine the quality of evidence. Studies were included if they addressed our prespecified population, intervention, control, and outcomes questions. Case reports, editorials, and abstracts were excluded from review. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All seven were centered around screening for IPV; none addressed interventions when abuse was identified. Screening instruments varied across studies. Although it is unclear if one tool is more accurate than others, significantly more victims were identified when screening protocols were implemented compared with non-standardized approaches to identifying IPV victims. Conclusion: Overall, there were very limited data addressing the topic of IPV screening and intervention in emergency medical settings, and the quality of the evidence was low. With likely low risk and a significant potential benefit, we conditionally recommend implementation of a screening protocol to identify victims of IPV in adults treated in the emergency department and trauma centers. Although the purpose of screening would ultimately be to provide resources for victims, no studies that assessed distinct interventions met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, we cannot make specific recommendations related to IPV interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020219517.

Readmission following surgical stabilization of rib fractures: Analysis of incidence, cost, and risk factors using the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has become increasingly common for the treatment of traumatic rib fractures; however, little is known about related postoperative readmissions. The aims of this study were to determine the rate and cost of readmissions and to identify patient, hospital, and injury characteristics that are associated with risk of readmission in patients who underwent SSRF. The null hypotheses were that readmissions following rib fixation were rare and unrelated to the SSRF complications. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the 2015 to 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database. Adult patients with rib fractures treated by SSRF were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare patients readmitted within 30 days with those who were not, based on demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Financial information examined included average visit costs and national extrapolations. RESULTS: A total of 2,522 patients who underwent SSRF were included, of whom 276 (10.9%) were readmitted within 30 days. In 36.2% of patients, the reasons for readmissions were related to complications of rib fractures or SSRF. The rest of the patients (63.8%) were readmitted because of mostly nontrauma reasons (32.2%) and new traumatic injuries (21.1%) among other reasons. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ventilator use, discharge other than home, hospital size, and medical comorbidities were significantly associated with risk of readmission. Nationally, an estimated 2,498 patients undergo SSRF each year, with costs of US $176 million for initial admissions and US $5.9 million for readmissions. CONCLUSION: Readmissions after SSRF are rare and mostly attributed to the reasons not directly related to sequelae of rib fractures or SSRF complications. Interventions aimed at optimizing patients' preexisting medical conditions before discharge should be further investigated as a potential way to decrease rates of readmission after SSRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.

Acute Care Surgery Service Is Essential During a Nonsurgical Catastrophic Event, the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The role of an acute care surgery (ACS) service during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well established. METHODS: A retrospective review of the ACS service performance in an urban tertiary academic medical center. The study was performed between January and May 2020. The demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients treated by the ACS service 2 months prior to the COVID surge (pre-COVID group) and during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic (surge group) were compared. RESULTS: Trauma and emergency general surgery volumes decreased during the surge by 38% and 57%, respectively; but there was a 64% increase in critically ill patients. The proportion of patients in the Department of Surgery treated by the ACS service increased from 40% pre-COVID to 67% during the surge. The ACS service performed 32% and 57% of all surgical cases in the Department of Surgery during the pre-COVID and surge periods, respectively. The ACS service managed 23% of all critically ill patients in the institution during the surge. Critically ill patients with and without confirmed COVID-19 infection treated by ACS and non-ACS intensive care units during the surge did not differ in demographics, indicators of clinical severity, or hospital mortality:13.4% vs. 13.5% (P = .99) for all critically ill patients; and 13.9% vs. 27.4% (P = .12) for COVID-19 critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: Acute care surgery is an "essential" service during the COVID-19 pandemic, capable of managing critically ill nonsurgical patients while maintaining the provision of trauma and emergent surgical services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic.

Self-Inflicted Abdominal Stab Wounds Have a Higher Rate of Non-therapeutic Laparotomy/Laparoscopy and a Lower Risk of Injury.

BACKGROUND: The profile and management of self-inflicted abdominal stab wounds (SI-ASW) patients is still obscure. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (2012) was queried for adults with abdominal stab wounds (n = 9544). Patients with SI-ASW (n = 1724) and non-SI-ASW (n = 7820) were compared. Predictors for non-therapeutic laparotomy/laparoscopy (non-TL) in SI-ASW patients were identified. RESULTS: SI-ASW patients were older, had more females and behavioral disorders, similar physiology, but a lower Injury Severity Score. They had more laparotomies overall (54 versus 48%, p < 0.0001) and more non-TL (42 versus 32%, p < 0.0001), but less injuries (43 versus 53%, p < 0.0001), although peritoneal violation rate was similar. Complications and mortality were similar. In the SI-ASW cohort, non-TL patients were more likely to be female and younger, and to have Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≥13 and a higher systolic blood pressure. History of psychiatric, drug and alcohol disorders was associated with SI-ASW, but did not independently predict the need for treatment in adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Patients with SI-ASW underwent more non-TL than patients with non-SI-ASW. Female gender, younger age, and a higher GCS and systolic blood pressure predicted non-TL in this group.

Is it safe to admit patients with acute injuries to nonsurgical services? A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Given potential safety risks when admitting injured patients to nonsurgical services (NSS), the American College of Surgeons mandates trauma centers justification. However, evidence supporting this requirement is lacking. METHODS: Adult patients cleared for admission to a NSS at a level 1 trauma center between 2012 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic, injury, and outcome characteristics were compared between nonsurgical (NSA) and surgical admission patients and analyzed for predictive value. RESULTS: Compared with surgical admission patients, NSA patients were significantly older, had a higher number of comorbidities and/or patient and a lower Injury Severity Score, while hospital length of stay, complications, and missed injury and adjusted mortality rates were similar. NSA did not predict mortality whereas increased age, increased Injury Severity Score, and number of comorbidities and/or patient did. CONCLUSIONS: As all complications and mortalities were unrelated to injuries per se, admission to a NSS, after protocoled clearance by a trauma or Emergency Department attending, appears to be safe.

Magnitude of rib fracture displacement predicts opioid requirements.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether the magnitude of rib fracture (RF) displacement predicts pain medication requirements in blunt chest trauma patients. METHODS: Adult blunt RF patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) of the chest admitted to an urban Level 1 trauma center (2007-2012) were retrospectively reviewed. Pain management in those with displaced RF (DRF), nondisplaced RF (NDRF), or combined DRF and NDRF (CRF) was compared by univariate analysis. Linear regression models were developed to determine whether total opioid requirements [expressed as log morphine equianalgesic dose (MED)] could be predicted by the magnitude of RF displacement (expressed as the sum of the Euclidean distance of all displaced RF) or number of RF, after adjusting for patient and injury characteristics. RESULTS: There were 245 patients, of whom 39 (16%) had DRF only, 77 (31%) had NDRF only, and 129 (53%) had CRF. Opioids were given to 224 patients (91%). Compared to DRF (mean, 1.7 RF per patient) and NDRF patients (2.4 RF per patient), those with CRF (6.8 RF per patient) were older and had more RF per patient and a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and MED (251 vs 53 and 105 mg, respectively, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0045). They also more frequently received patient-controlled analgesia. Patients with displaced RF had a lower mean ISS and MED and received more epidural analgesia compared with patients with NDRF. Total MED was associated with both the magnitude of RF displacement (p < 0.0001) and the number of RF (p < 0.0001). Every 5-mm increase in total displacement predicted a 6.3% increase in mean MED (p = 0.0035), while every additional RF predicted an 11.2% increase in MED (p = 0.0001). These associations included adjustment for age, ISS, and presence of chest tubes. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of RF displacement and the number of RF predicted opioid requirements. This information may assist in anticipating patients with blunt RF who might have higher analgesic requirements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Variability in interhospital trauma data coding and scoring: A challenge to the accuracy of aggregated trauma registries.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of data aggregated in state and national trauma registries provide the platform for clinical, research, development, and quality improvement efforts in trauma systems. However, the interhospital variability and accuracy in data abstraction and coding have not yet been directly evaluated. METHODS: This multi-institutional, Web-based, anonymous study examines interhospital variability and accuracy in data coding and scoring by registrars. Eighty-two American College of Surgeons (ACS)/state-verified Level I and II trauma centers were invited to determine different data elements including diagnostic, procedure, and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coding as well as selected National Trauma Data Bank definitions for the same fictitious case. Variability and accuracy in data entries were assessed by the maximal percent agreement among the registrars for the tested data elements, and 95% confidence intervals were computed to compare this level of agreement to the ideal value of 100%. Variability and accuracy in all elements were compared (χ testing) based on Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) membership, level of trauma center, ACS verification, and registrar's certifications. RESULTS: Fifty registrars (61%) completed the survey. The overall accuracy for all tested elements was 64%. Variability was noted in all examined parameters except for the place of occurrence code in all groups and the lower extremity AIS code in Level II trauma centers and in the Certified Specialist in Trauma Registry- and Certified Abbreviated Injury Scale Specialist-certified registrar groups. No differences in variability were noted when groups were compared based on TQIP membership, level of center, ACS verification, and registrar's certifications, except for prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), where TQIP respondents agreed more than non-TQIP centers (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: There is variability and inaccuracy in interhospital data coding and scoring of injury information. This finding casts doubt on the validity of registry data used in all aspects of trauma care and injury surveillance.

The initial response to the Boston marathon bombing: lessons learned to prepare for the next disaster.

OBJECTIVE: We discuss the strengths of the medical response to the Boston Marathon bombings that led to the excellent outcomes. Potential shortcomings were recognized, and lessons learned will provide a foundation for further improvements applicable to all institutions. BACKGROUND: Multiple casualty incidents from natural or man-made incidents remain a constant global threat. Adequate preparation and the appropriate alignment of resources with immediate needs remain the key to optimal outcomes. METHODS: A collaborative effort among Boston's trauma centers (2 level I adult, 3 combined level I adult/pediatric, 1 freestanding level I pediatric) examined the details and outcomes of the initial response. Each center entered its respective data into a central database (REDCap), and the data were analyzed to determine various prehospital and early in-hospital clinical and logistical parameters that collectively define the citywide medical response to the terrorist attack. RESULTS: A total of 281 people were injured, and 127 patients received care at the participating trauma centers on that day. There were 3 (1%) immediate fatalities at the scene and no in-hospital mortality. A majority of the patients admitted (66.6%) suffered lower extremity soft tissue and bony injuries, and 31 had evidence for exsanguinating hemorrhage, with field tourniquets in place in 26 patients. Of the 75 patients admitted, 54 underwent urgent surgical intervention and 12 (22%) underwent amputation of a lower extremity. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate preparation, rapid logistical response, short transport times, immediate access to operating rooms, methodical multidisciplinary care delivery, and good fortune contributed to excellent outcomes.

Management and outcome of patients with blunt splenic injury and preexisting liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The response of liver cirrhosis (LC) patients to abdominal trauma, including blunt splenic injury (BSI) is unfavorable. To better understand the response to BSI in LC patients, the present study reviewed a much larger group of such patients, derived from the National Trauma Data Bank. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for 2002 to 2010, and all adult BSI patients without severe brain trauma were identified. LC and non-LC patients were compared using nonoperative management (NOM) failure and mortality as primary outcomes. Predictors of these outcomes in LC patients were identified. RESULTS: Of the 77,753 identified BSI patients, 289 (0.37%) had LC. Overall, 90% of the patients underwent initial NOM (86% in LC and 90% in non-LC patients, p = 0.091) with a global 90% success rate. Compared with non-LC patients, LC patients had a lower NOM success rate (83% vs. 90%, p = 0.004) despite increased use of splenic artery angioembolization (13% vs. 8%, p = 0.001). LC patients also had more complications per patient, an increased hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, and a higher mortality (22% vs. 6%, p < 0.0001), which was independent of the treatment paradigm. In the LC group, mortality in those who underwent immediate surgery was 35% versus 46% in failed NOM (p = 0.418) and 14% (p = 0.019) in successful NOM patients. LC patients who did not require surgery were more likely to survive than those who had surgery alone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.30). Preexisting coagulopathy (AOR, 3.28) and Grade 4 to 5 BSI (AOR, 11.6) predicted NOM failure in LC patients, whereas male sex (AOR, 4.34), hypotension (AOR, 3.15), preexisting coagulopathy (AOR, 3.06), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of less than 13 (AOR, 6.33) predicted mortality. CONCLUSION: LC patients have a higher rate of complications, mortality, and NOM failure compared with non-LC patients. Because LC patients with failed NOM have a mortality rate similar to those undergoing immediate surgery, judgment must be exerted in selecting initial management options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Blood pressure regulation to prevent progression of blunt traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in stable patients.

BACKGROUND: Target blood pressure (BP) in stable (non-hypotensive) patients with acute isolated blunt traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (TICH) is unknown. To address this issue, our study correlated BP with radiological volumetric progression (RP) and neurological deterioration (ND) in these patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of hemodynamically stable adults (n = 184) with isolated TICH not requiring emergent surgery consecutively admitted to a Level I trauma center. BPs before admission computed tomography (CT) scan (CT1) and between CT1 and a follow-up CT (CT2) were correlated with TICH volume and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) during these time periods. Predictors for deterioration were studied. Primary outcomes were increased measured TICH and decreased GCS at the CT1-CT2 interval. RESULTS: Age (57 years), % male (73), ISS (17), % falls (77), comorbidities (1.2/pt), and % anticoagulation (20) were similar in patients with or without RP (n = 107, 58%) or ND (n = 34, 18%). By univariate analysis, RP patients had an average systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean BP (MAP) similar to non-RP patients; whereas ND patients compared to non-ND patients had a higher mean admission DBP (p < 0.02) and MAP (p < 0.04), a higher mean admission peak MAP (p < 0.01) and DBP (p < 0.01), a higher CT1-CT2 interval peak DBP (p < 0.01) and peak MAP (p < 0.01), and a lower CT1-CT2 nadir SBP (p < 0.04). Spearman rank correlation test did not show association among average SBP, MAP, DBP, absolute or % change in BPs, and absolute or % change in TICH volumes in any phase. Multivariate analysis identified higher nadir admission SBP [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.29 per 10 mmHg increase] and lower peak MAP during the CT1-CT2 period (AOR 0.71 per 10 mmHg decrease) as independent predictors of RP, and a peak DBP in the CT1-CT2 interval (AOR 1.48) as an independent predictor of ND. Other predictors of ND included bilateral admission TICH (AOR 3.31) and increased injury volume (AOR 1.36), while the number of comorbidities/patient (AOR 4.34), bilateral injury (AOR 3.12), and midline shift (AOR 4.34) predicted RD. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive dynamic analysis correlating repeated BP determinations with quantifiable repeated parameters of TICH deterioration (injury volume and GCS) did not demonstrate a clinically relevant protective target BP value. Current practices of BP control in this specific group of patients should be further investigated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Prognostic, Level II study.

Admission patterns of stable patients with isolated orthopedic or neurosurgical injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Although the disposition of stable patients with isolated orthopedic or neurosurgical injuries affects care and resource utilization, no guidelines for optimal admission are available. This study aims to provide the platform for developing such guidelines for these patients by characterizing their admission patterns in trauma centers (TCs). METHODS: This study is a Web-based survey of Trauma Medical Directors of Level I and Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified TCs. RESULTS: E-questionnaire was sent to 234 (98%) of 240 ACS-verified Level I and Level II TCs, and 122 (52%) responded. Responses indicate that stable patients with isolated orthopedic injuries and no indication or with an indication for emergent surgery are mostly (58 vs. 31%, p < 0.0001, 59 vs. 37%, p < 0.0001) admitted to the trauma service (TS). Conversely, when surgery was urgent, patients are equally admitted to the TS and orthopedic service (OS). When specific injuries were queried, patients with closed pelvic fractures are mostly admitted to the TS (81 vs. 18%, p < 0.0001), whereas patients with upper extremity injuries are preferentially admitted to the OS (58% vs. 31%, p < 0.05). Patients with isolated lower extremity fractures are equally admitted to the two services. Patients with isolated major traumatic brain injury (TBI) are mostly (78.6% vs. 21.4%, p < 0.0001) admitted to the TS, regardless of the need for emergent surgery. Similarly, most patients with minor TBI are admitted to the TS, independent of the presence of CT scan findings. The majority (73.9% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.0001) of patients with isolated spine injury are admitted to the TS, independent of the level of injury, the presence of multilevel injury, an indication for surgery, or the existence of neurological deficits. CONCLUSION: Most stable patients with isolated neurosurgical injuries in ACS-verified Level I and Level II TCs are initially admitted to the TS. The admission of patients with isolated orthopedic injuries is selective. These findings can facilitate investigating the clinical, logistical, and financial effect of this practice.