Evaluating the Feasibility of a Novel Firearm Injury Prevention Program for Pre-adolescent Children Through Health Care and Community-Based Partnerships: The Future Healers Program Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Firearm violence is an American public health crisis that negatively impacts children and disproportionately affects Black youth. Few firearm injury prevention programs have been described in pre-adolescent children. The Future Healers Program is a novel collaboration constructed via partnership between the medical school, trauma center, academic surgery department, and local non-profit community organization. Our study sought to evaluate if (1) partnering with community organizations facilitated recruitment of children with prior exposure to firearm violence and (2) the health care community was a potential trusted partner appropriate for program delivery. METHODS: Children aged 4-13 were recruited to join the program via news outlets and social media and in partnership with a local non-profit organization. Of the children and parents participating in the program, 48% (44/92) and 59% (38/64), respectively, completed an IRB-approved survey study. Pearson's chi-square, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals evaluated differences between children and caregivers on sociodemographic characteristics, firearm exposure (FE), firearm violence exposure (FVE), and perception of health care. Participant's residence was geocoded in relationship to incidents of firearm injury (2008-2021) in the same region. RESULTS: Caregivers (95%) and children (84%) reported substantial exposure to firearm violence and resided in areas with frequent firearm injury incidents. Notably, 82% of caregivers and 66% of children reported having a family member injured by gunfire. A high percentage of caregivers (79%) and children (91%) self-reported trust in the health care system. CONCLUSION: Partnerships between community organizations and health care systems can develop prevention programs that effectively recruit and engage pre-adolescent children impacted by firearm violence.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Metastatic Disease of the Spine.

INTRODUCTION: Some patients, particularly those who are socioeconomically deprived, are diagnosed with primary and/or metastatic cancer only after presenting to the emergency department. Our objective was to determine sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing surgery for metastatic spine disease at our institution. METHODS: This retrospective case series included patients 18 years and older who presented to the emergency department with metastatic spine disease requiring surgery. Demographics and survival data were collected. Sociodemographic characteristics were estimated using the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) for the state of California. Univariate log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess differences in survival for predictors of interest. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2021, 64 patients underwent surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. The mean age was 61.0 ± 12.5 years, with 60.9% being male (n = 39). In this cohort, 89.1% of patients were non-Hispanic (n = 57), 71.9% were White (n = 46), and 62.5% were insured by Medicare/Medicaid (n = 40). The mean SDI and ADI were 61.5 ± 28.0 and 7.7 ± 2.2, respectively. 28.1% of patients (n = 18) were diagnosed with primary cancer for the first time while 39.1% of patients (n = 25) were diagnosed with metastatic cancer for the first time. During index hospitalization, 37.5% of patients (n = 24) received palliative care consult. The 3-month, 6-month, and all-time mortality rates were 26.7% (n = 17), 39.5% (n = 23), and 50% (n = 32), respectively, with 10.9% of patients (n = 7) dying during their admission. Payor plan was significant at 3 months ( P = 0.02), and palliative consultation was significant at 3 months ( P = 0.007) and 6 months ( P = 0.03). No notable association was observed with SDI and ADI in quantiles or as continuous variables. DISCUSSION: In this study, 28.1% of patients were diagnosed with cancer for the first time. Three-month and 6-month mortality rates for patients undergoing surgery were 26.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Furthermore, mortality was markedly associated with palliative care consultation and insurance status, but not with SDI and ADI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level III evidence.

A Comparison of Prognostic Models to Facilitate Surgical Decision-Making for Patients With Spinal Metastatic Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Compare the performance of and provide cutoff values for commonly used prognostic models for spinal metastases, including Revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, Modified Bauer, New England Spinal Metastases Score (NESMS), and Skeletal Oncology Research Group model, at three- and six-month postoperative time points. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery may be recommended for patients with spinal metastases causing fracture, instability, pain, and/or neurological compromise. However, patients with less than three to six months of projected survival are less likely to benefit from surgery. Prognostic models have been developed to help determine prognosis and surgical candidacy. Yet, there is a lack of data directly comparing the performance of these models at clinically relevant time points or providing clinically applicable cutoff values for the models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2022 for spinal metastatic disease were identified. Revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, Modified Bauer, NESMS, and Skeletal Oncology Research Group were calculated for each patient. Model calibration and discrimination for predicting survival at three months, six months, and final follow-up were evaluated using the Brier score and Uno's C, respectively. Hazard ratios for survival were calculated for the models. The Contral and O'Quigley method was utilized to identify cutoff values for the models discriminating between survival and nonsurvival at three months, six months, and final follow-up. RESULTS: Each of the models demonstrated similar performance in predicting survival at three months, six months, and final follow-up. Cutoff scores that best differentiated patients likely to survive beyond three months included the Revised Tokuhashi score=10, Tomita score=four, Modified Bauer score=three, and NESMS=one. CONCLUSION: We found comparable efficacy among the models in predicting survival at clinically relevant time points. Cutoff values provided herein may assist surgeons and patients when deciding whether to pursue surgery for spinal metastatic disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.