Beyond surviving: A scoping review of collaborative care models to inform the future of post-discharge trauma care.

ABSTRACT: Trauma centers demonstrate an impressive ability to save lives, as reflected by inpatient survival rates of over 95% in the United States. Nevertheless, we fail to allocate sufficient effort and resources to ensure that survivors and their families receive the necessary care and support after leaving the trauma center. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map the research on collaborative care models (CCM) that have been put forward to improve trauma survivorship. Of 833 articles screened, we included 16 studies evaluating eight collaborative care programs, predominantly in the U.S. The majority of the programs offered care coordination and averaged 9-months in duration. Three-fourths of the programs incorporated a mental health provider within their primary team. Observed outcomes were diverse: some models showed increased engagement (e.g., Center for Trauma Survivorship, trauma quality-of-life follow-up clinic), while others presented mixed mental health outcomes and varied results on pain and healthcare utilization. The findings of this study indicate that collaborative interventions may be effective in mental health screening, PTSD and depression management, effective referrals, and improving patient satisfaction with care. A consensus on core elements and cost-effectiveness of CCMs is necessary to set the standard for comprehensive care in post-trauma recovery.

Determinants of long-term physical and mental health outcomes after intensive care admission for trauma survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Collectively, studies from medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU) suggest that long-term outcomes are poor for patients who have spent significant time in an ICU. We sought to identify determinants of post-intensive care physical and mental health outcomes 6-12 months after injury. METHODS: Adult trauma patients [ISS ≥9] admitted to one of three Level-1 trauma centers were interviewed 6-12 months post-injury to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Patients requiring ICU admission â€‹≥ â€‹3 days ("ICU patients") were compared with those who did not require ICU admission ("non-ICU patients"). Multivariable regression models were built to identify factors associated with poor outcomes among ICU survivors. RESULTS: 2407 patients were followed [598 (25%) ICU and 1809 (75%) non-ICU patients]. Among ICU patients, 506 (85%) reported physical or mental health symptoms. Of them, 265 (52%) had physical symptoms only, 15 (3%) had mental symptoms only, and 226 (45%) had both physical and mental symptoms. In adjusted analyses, compared to non-ICU patients, ICU patients were more likely to have new limitations for ADLs (OR â€‹= â€‹1.57; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹1.21, 2.03), and worse SF-12 mental (mean Δ â€‹= â€‹-1.43; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹-2.79, -0.09) and physical scores (mean Δ â€‹= â€‹-2.61; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹-3.93, -1.28). Age, female sex, Black race, lower education level, polytrauma, ventilator use, history of psychiatric illness, and delirium during ICU stay were associated with poor outcomes in the ICU-admitted group. CONCLUSIONS: Physical impairment and mental health symptoms following ICU stay are highly prevalent among injury survivors. Modifiable ICU-specific factors such as early liberation from ventilator support and prevention of delirium are potential targets for intervention.

The invisible scars: Unseen financial complications worsen every aspect of long-term health in trauma survivors.

BACKGROUND: Trauma survivors are susceptible to experiencing financial toxicity (FT). Studies have shown the negative impact of FT on chronic illness outcomes. However, there is a notable lack of data on FT in the context of trauma. We aimed to better understand prevalence, risk factors, and impact of FT on trauma long-term outcomes. METHODS: Adult trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 treated at Level I trauma centers were interviewed 6 months to 14 months after discharge. Financial toxicity was considered positive if patients reported any of the following due to the injury: income loss, lack of care, newly applied/qualified for governmental assistance, new financial problems, or work loss. The Impact of FT on Patient Reported Outcome Measure Index System (PROMIS) health domains was investigated. RESULTS: Of 577 total patients, 44% (254/567) suffered some form of FT. In the adjusted model, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.2-0.81) and stronger social support networks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74) were protective against FT. In contrast, having two or more comorbidities (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.28), lower education levels (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 95%, 1.26-3.03), and injury mechanisms, including road accidents (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.51-4.77) and intentional injuries (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.44-12.86) were associated with higher toxicity. No significant relationship was found with ISS, sex, or single-family household. Patients with FT had worse outcomes across all domains of health. There was a negative linear relationship between the severity of FT and worse mental and physical health scores. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is associated with long-term outcomes. Incorporating FT risk assessment into recovery care planning may help to identify patients most in need of mitigative interventions across the trauma care continuum to improve trauma recovery. Further investigations to better understand, define, and address FT in trauma care are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Critical systolic blood pressure threshold for endovascular aortic occlusion-A multinational analysis to determine when to place a REBOA.

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a potential indicator that could guide when to use a resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in trauma patients with life-threatening injuries. This study aims to determine the optimal SBP threshold for REBOA placement by analyzing the association between SBP pre-REBOA and 24-hour mortality in severely injured hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) trauma and AORTA registries. These databases record the details related to the use of REBOA and include data from 14 countries worldwide. We included patients who had suffered penetrating and/or blunt trauma. Patients who arrived at the hospital with a SBP pre-REBOA of 0 mm Hg and remained at 0 mm Hg after balloon inflation were excluded. We evaluated the impact that SBP pre-REBOA had on the probability of death in the first 24 hours. RESULTS: A total of 1,107 patients underwent endovascular aortic occlusion, of these, 848 met inclusion criteria. The median age was 44 years (interquartile range [IQR], 27-59 years) and 643 (76%) were male. The median injury severity score was 34 (IQR, 25-45). The median SBP pre-REBOA was 65 mm Hg (IQR, 49-88 mm Hg). Mortality at 24 hours was reported in 279 (32%) patients. Math modeling shows that predicted probabilities of the primary outcome increased steadily in SBP pre-REBOA below 100 mm Hg. Multivariable mixed-effects analysis shows that when SBP pre-REBOA was lower than 60 mm Hg, the risk of death was more than 50% (relative risk, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.92; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, the use of REBOA in SBPs between 60 mm Hg and 80 mm Hg may be a useful tool in resuscitation efforts before further decompensation or complete cardiovascular collapse. The findings from our study are clinically important as a first step in identifying candidates for REBOA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research. METHODS: Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Community-Level Social Vulnerability and Patterns of Adolescent Injury.

Objective: To describe adolescent injuries by the community-level social vulnerability, focusing on injuries related to interpersonal violence. Background: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's social vulnerability index (SVI) is a tool used to characterize community-level vulnerability. Methods: Injured adolescent trauma patients (13-17 years old) cared for at a large Level I trauma center over a 10-year period were identified. Injuries were classified by intent as either intentional or unintentional. Census tract level SVI was calculated by composite score and for 4 subindex scores (socioeconomic, household composition/disability, minority/language, housing type/transportation). Patients were stratified by SVI quartile with the lowest quartile designated as low-, the middle two quartiles as average-, and the highest quartile as high vulnerability. The primary outcome was odds of intentional injury. Demographic and injury characteristics were compared by SVI and intent. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds of intentional injury associated with SVI. Results: A total of 1993 injured adolescent patients (1676 unintentional and 317 intentional) were included. The composite SVI was higher in the intentional injury cohort (mean, SD: 66.7, 27.8 vs. 50.5, 30.2; P < 0.001) as was each subindex SVI. The high SVI cohort comprised 31% of the study population, 49% of intentional injuries, and 51% of deaths. The high SVI cohort had significantly increased unadjusted (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.6) and adjusted (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.8) odds of intentional injury. Conclusions: Adolescents living in the highest SVI areas experience significantly higher odds of intentional injury. SVI and SVI subindex details may provide direction for community-level interventions to decrease the impact of violent injury among adolescents.

The association between childhood opportunity index and pediatric hospitalization for firearm injury or motor vehicle crash.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors can profoundly impact children's health, including the risk of violent injury. This study's objective was to understand the relationship between the Childhood Opportunity Index and pediatric firearm injury owing to interpersonal violence compared with a motor vehicle crash. METHODS: All pediatric patients (<18 years) who presented with an initial encounter with a firearm injury or motor vehicle crash between 2016 to 2021 were identified from 35 children's hospitals included in the Pediatric Health Information System database. The child-specific community-level vulnerability was determined by the Childhood Opportunity Index, a composite score of neighborhood opportunity level data specific to pediatric populations. RESULTS: We identified 67,407 patients treated for injuries related to motor vehicle crashes (n = 61,527) or firearms (n = 5,880). The overall cohort had a mean age of 9.3 (standard deviation 5.4) years; 50.0% were male patients, 44.0% non-Hispanic Black, and were 60.8% publicly insured. Compared with motor vehicle crash injuries, patients with firearm-related injuries were older (12.2 vs 9.0 years), more likely to be male patients (77.7% vs 47.4%), non-Hispanic Black (63.5% vs 42.1%), and had public insurance (76.4 vs 59.3%; all P < .001). In multivariable analysis, children living in communities with lower Childhood Opportunity Index levels were more likely to present with firearm injury than those living in communities with a very high Childhood Opportunity Index. The odds increased as the Childhood Opportunity Index level decreased (odds ratio 1.33, 1.60, 1.73, 2.00 for high, moderate, low, and very low Childhood Opportunity Index, respectively; all P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Children from lower-Childhood Opportunity Index communities are disproportionately impacted by firearm violence, and these findings have important implications for both clinical care and public health policy.

The variation of opioid prescription after injury and its association with long-term chronic pain: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overprescription in trauma contributes to the opioid epidemic through diversion of unused pills. Through our study, we sought to do the following: (1) understand the variation in opioid prescription after injury and its relationship to patient and/or clinical variables, and (2) study the relationship between opioid prescribing and long-term pain and analgesic use. METHOD: Trauma patients with an injury severity score ≥9 admitted to 3 level 1 trauma centers were screened for chronic pain and analgesic use 6 to 12 months postinjury. First, multivariable linear regression models were constructed with "oral morphine equivalents" and "number of opioid pills prescribed" at discharge as dependent variables. The coefficients of determination were calculated to determine how much of the variation in opioid prescription was explained by patient and clinical variables. Second, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was created to study the association between opioid prescription at discharge and chronic pain/analgesic use at 6 to 12 months. Analyses were adjusted for patient demographics, socioeconomics, comorbidities, injury parameters, and hospital course. RESULTS: Of the 2,702 patients included (mean [standard deviation] age: 61.0 [21.5]; 55% males), 74% were prescribed opioids at discharge (mean number of pills [standard deviation]: 24.0 [26.5]; mean oral morphine equivalent [standard deviation]: 204.8 [348.1]). The adjusted coefficients of determination for oral morphine equivalents and number of pills was 0.12 and 0.21, respectively, suggesting that the measured patient and clinical factors explain <21% of the variation in opioid prescribing in trauma. Patients prescribed opioids were more likely to have chronic pain (odds ratio [95%] confidence interval: 1.34 [1.05-1.71]) and use analgesics daily (odds ratio [95%] confidence interval: 1.86 [1.25-2.77]) 6 to 12 months postinjury. CONCLUSION: The variation in opioid prescription after traumatic injury is more affected by system and provider level rather than clinical or patient-related factors, and opioid prescribing correlates independently with long-term chronic pain and continued analgesic use postinjury. Efforts to decrease opioid use should prioritize standardizing prescription practices after traumatic injury.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the long-term outcomes research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

The Social Vulnerability Index and Long-term Outcomes After Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a predictor of long-term outcomes after injury. BACKGROUND: The SVI is a measure used in emergency preparedness to identify need for resources in the event of a disaster or hazardous event, ranking each census tract on 15 demographic/social factors. METHODS: Moderate-severely injured adult patients treated at 1 of 3 level-1 trauma centers were prospectively followed 6 to 14 months post-injury. These data were matched at the census tract level with overall SVI percentile rankings. Patients were stratified based on SVI quartiles, with the lowest quartile designated as low SVI, the middle 2 quartiles as average SVI, and the highest quartile as high SVI. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess whether SVI was associated with long-term outcomes after injury. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included [54% male, mean age 61.6 (SD = 21.6)]. The median overall SVI percentile rank was 35th (IQR: 16th-65th). compared to low SVI patients, high SVI patients were more likely to have new functional limitations [odds ratio (OR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.92), to not have returned to work (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40-2.89), and to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17). Similar results were obtained when comparing average with low SVI patients, with average SVI patients having significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The SVI has potential utility in predicting individuals at higher risk for adverse long-term outcomes after injury. This measure may be a useful needs assessment tool for clinicians and researchers in identifying communities that may benefit most from targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. METHODS: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional and mental health outcomes after trauma.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreased access to care and social isolation, which have the potential for negative psychophysical effects. We examine the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health outcomes after trauma. METHODS: Patients in a prospective study were included. The cohort injured during the pandemic was compared to a cohort injured before the pandemic. We performed regression analyses to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: 1,398 patients were included. In adjusted analysis, patients injured during the pandemic scored significantly worse on the SF-12 physical composite score (OR 2.21; [95% CI 0.69-3.72]; P = 0.004) and were more likely to screen positive for depression (OR 1.46; [1.02-2.09]; P = 0.03) and anxiety (OR 1.56; [1.08-2.26]; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients injured during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse mental health outcomes but not physical health outcomes.

Long-term Outcomes of Firearm Injury Survivors in the United States: The National Trauma Research Action Plan Scoping Review.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes.

Patient reported outcomes 6 to 12 months after interpersonal violence: A multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Violence continues to be a significant public health burden, but little is known about the long-term outcomes of these patients. Our goal was to determine the impact of violence-related trauma on long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: We identified trauma patients with moderate to severe injuries (Injury Severity Score, ≥9) treated at one of three level 1 trauma centers. These patients were asked to complete a survey over the phone between 6 and 12 months after injury evaluating both functional and psychosocial outcomes (12-item Short Form Survey, Trauma Quality of Life, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] screen, chronic pain, return to work). Patients were classified as having suffered a violent injury if the mechanism of injury was a stab, gunshot, or assault. Self-inflicted wounds were excluded. Adjusted logistic regression models were built to determine the association between a violent mechanism of injury and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1,050 moderate to severely injured patients were successfully followed, of whom 176 (16.8%) were victims of violence. For the victims of violence, mean age was 34.4 years (SD, 12.5 years), 85% were male, and 57.5% were Black; 30.7% reported newly needing help with at least one activity of daily living after the violence-related event. Fifty-nine (49.2%) of 120 patients who were working before their injury had not yet returned to work; 47.1% screened positive for PTSD, and 52.3% reported chronic pain. On multivariate analysis, a violent mechanism was significantly associated with PTSD (odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-4.17; p < 0.001) but not associated with chronic pain, return to work, or functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: The physical and mental health burden after violence-related trauma is not insignificant. Further work is needed to identify intervention strategies and social support systems that may be beneficial to reduce this burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-term Recovery From Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the proportion and characteristics of traumatic injury survivors who perceive a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their recovery and to define post-injury outcomes for this cohort. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated physical, psychological, and social stressors that may create a uniquely difficult recovery and reintegration environment for injured patients. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) survivors of moderate-to-severe injury completed a survey 6 to 14 months post-injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey queried individuals about the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery and assessed post-injury functional and mental health outcomes. Regression models were built to identify factors associated with a perceived negative impact of the pandemic on injury recovery, and to define the relationship between these perceptions and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 597 eligible trauma survivors who were contacted, 403 (67.5%) completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent reported that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their recovery and 24% reported difficulty accessing needed healthcare. Younger age, lower perceived-socioeconomic status, extremity injury, and prior psychiatric illness were independently associated with negative perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery. In adjusted analyses, patients who reported a negative impact of the pandemic on their recovery were more likely to have new functional limitations, daily pain, lower physical and mental component scores of the Short-Form-12 and to screen positive for PTSD and depression. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the recovery of trauma survivors. It is essential that we recognize the impact of the pandemic on injured patients while focusing on directed efforts to improve the long-term outcomes of this already at-risk population.

Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Trauma Patients With Facial Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Facial trauma can have long-lasting consequences on an individual's physical, mental, and social well-being. The authors sought to assess the long-term outcomes of patients with facial injuries. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with face abbreviated injury scores ≥1 within the Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies registry. The Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies registry collects patient-reported outcomes data for patients with moderate-severe trauma 6 to 12 months after injury. Outcomes variables included general and trauma-specific quality of life, functional limitations, screening for post-traumatic stress disorder, and postdischarge healthcare utilization. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients with facial trauma were included: 69.1% had an isolated face and/or head injury and 30.9% had a face and/or head injuries as a part of polytrauma injury. After discharge, 11.7% of patients visited the emergency room, and 13.3% were re-admitted to the hospital. Additionally, 36% of patients suffered from functional limitations and 17% of patients developed post-traumatic stress disorder. A total of 34.3% patients reported that their injury scars bothered them, and 49.4% reported that their injuries were hard to deal with emotionally. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who sustain facial trauma suffer significant long-term health-related quality of life consequences stemming from their injuries.

Perceived social support is strongly associated with recovery after injury.

BACKGROUND: The strength of one's social support network is a potentially modifiable factor that may have a significant impact on recovery after injury. We sought to assess the association between one's perceived social support (PSS) and physical and mental health outcomes 6 months to 12 months postinjury. METHODS: Moderate to severely injured patients admitted to one of three Level I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone-based survey assessing physical and mental health outcomes in addition to return to work and chronic pain 6 months to 12 months postinjury. Patients were also asked to rate the strength of their PSS on a 5-point Likert scale. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were built to determine the association between PSS and postdischarge outcome metrics. RESULTS: Of 907 patients included in this study, 653 (72.0%) identified themselves as having very strong/strong, 182 (20.1%) as average, and 72 (7.9%) as weak/nonexistent PSS. Patients who reported a weak/nonexistent PSS were younger and were more likely to be male, Black, and to have a lower level of education than those who reported a very strong/strong PSS. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with a weak/nonexistent PSS were more likely to have new functional limitations and chronic pain in addition to being less likely to be back at work/school and being more likely to screen positive for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety at 6 months to 12 months postinjury than those with a strong/very strong PSS. CONCLUSION: Lower PSS is strongly correlated with worse functional and mental health outcome metrics postdischarge. The strength of one's social support network should be considered when trying to identify patients who are at greatest risk for poor postdischarge outcomes after injury. Our data also lend support to creating a system wherein we strive to build a stronger support network for these high-risk individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic, level III.

Sex differences in long-term outcomes after traumatic injury: A mediation analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the association and potential mediators between sex and long-term trauma outcomes. METHODS: Moderately-to-severely injured patients admitted to 3 level-1 trauma centers were contacted between 6 and 12-months post-injury to assess for functional limitations, use of pain medications, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Multivariable adjusted regression analyses were used to compare long-term outcomes by sex. Potential mediators of the relationship between sex and outcomes was explored using mediation analysis. RESULTS: 2607 patients were followed, of which 45% were female. Compared to male, female patients were more likely to have functional limitations (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.31-1.60), take pain medications (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02-1.38), and screen positive for PTSD (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.46-1.76) post-injury. Age, extremity injury, previous psychiatric illness, and pre-injury unemployment, partially mediated the effect of female sex on long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant sex differences in long-term trauma outcomes, which are partially driven by patient and injury-related factors.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures after injury: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries. METHODS: Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33). CONCLUSION: We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV.