Mechanism of penetrating injury mediates the risk of long-term adverse outcomes for survivors of violent trauma.

BACKGROUND: While hospital-based violence intervention programs are primarily designed to aid youth victims of gun violence at high risk for reinjury, the root causes and complex outcomes of community violence are varied. In this study, we examined the risk factors for violent penetrating injury and how the risk of adverse outcomes for survivors differs by injury type (stabbing vs. gunshot wound). METHODS: This retrospective study was performed using a cohort of patients presenting to the Boston Medical Center emergency department for a penetrating injury due to community violence between 2006 and 2016. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the risk of all-cause mortality and violent reinjury within 3 years after surviving a penetrating injury. RESULTS: Of the 4,280 survivors of the initial violent penetrating injury, there were 88 deaths (2.1%) and 568 violent reinjuries (13.3%) within 3 years. Compared with gunshot wound victims, stab wound victims were 31% less likely to be reinjured with a gunshot wound (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93), 72% more likely to be reinjured with a stab wound (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21-2.43), and 49% more likely to be reinjured by assault (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94). While survivors of stabbing and firearm injuries were equally at risk for 3-year all-cause mortality, stab wound victims were 3.75 times more likely to die by a drug/alcohol overdose (HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.11-20.65). CONCLUSION: Patients surviving a stab wound have a significantly higher risk of violent reinjury by stabbing or assault, and risk of death by drug/alcohol overdose. Hospital-based violence intervention programs with similar patient populations should explore options to expand partnerships with drug treatment programs. These results illustrate two distinct populations of victims of violence-gunshot victims and stabbing/assault victims-with separate risk factors and outcomes, mediated by substance use disorder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; level III.

Physician variability in history taking when evaluating patients presenting with chest pain in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine how physicians in the emergency department ask questions of patients presenting with chest pain and whether this varies by patient demographics. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with convenience sampling. A survey was administered to adult emergency department patients presenting with chest pain after emergency physicians obtained the history and performed the physical examination. No identifying data were collected from the patients. In addition to demographics, patients were asked whether or not their physician asked them about factors related to coronary syndrome and myocardial infarction etiology. RESULTS: A total of 308 of 332 patients (93%) participated. Patients had a mean age of 52 years, 54% were male, and 85% spoke English; classification by race was 31% African American, 28% white, 19% Hispanic, and 13% other. History taking did not differ by gender. Patients who reported being asked about the following were statistically significantly younger than those who reported not being asked: family history, other medical problems, smoking, cocaine use, and alcohol use. Nonwhite patients reported being asked about the following more frequently than white patients: smoking (94% vs. 84%), alcohol use (81% vs. 70%), and cocaine use (64% vs. 42%). In multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, nonwhite patients were more likely than white patients to be asked about smoking (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 6.19), cocaine use (OR, 2.49; 95% CI = 1.50 to 4.12), and alcohol use (OR, 1.77; 95% CI = 1.0 to 3.09). CONCLUSIONS: The variability in questions about behavioral factors associated with chest pain etiology as reported by patients may indicate a possible cultural bias by physicians. Differences in risk identification may lead to differences in treatment decisions.