Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures. METHODS: Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing. CONCLUSIONS: A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Do Transtibial Amputations Outperform Amputations of the Hind- and Midfoot Following Severe Limb Trauma?: A Secondary Analysis of the OUTLET Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare 18-month clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients with severe lower-limb injuries treated with a transtibial amputation or a hind- or midfoot amputation. Despite the theoretical benefits of hind- and midfoot-level amputation, we hypothesized that patients with transtibial amputations would report better function and have fewer complications. METHODS: The study included patients 18 to 60 years of age who were treated with a transtibial amputation (n = 77) or a distal amputation (n = 17) and who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Outcomes Following Severe Distal Tibial, Ankle, and/or Foot Trauma (OUTLET) study. The primary outcome was the difference in Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, and secondary outcomes included pain, complications, amputation revision, and amputation healing. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with distal versus transtibial amputation in any of the domains of the SMFA: dysfunction index [distal versus transtibial], 31.2 versus 22.3 (p = 0.13); daily activities, 37.3 versus 26.0 (p = 0.17); emotional status, 41.4 versus 29.3 (p = 0.07); mobility, 36.5 versus 27.8 (p = 0.20); and bother index, 34.4 versus 23.6 (p = 0.14). Rates of complications requiring revision were higher for distal amputations but not significantly so (23.5% versus 13.3%; p = 0.28). One distal and no transtibial amputees required revision to a higher level (p = 0.18). A higher proportion of patients with distal compared with transtibial amputation required local surgical revision (17.7% versus 13.3%; p = 0.69). There was no significant difference between the distal and transtibial groups in scores on the Brief Pain Index at 18 months post-injury. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical complication rates did not differ significantly between patients who underwent transtibial versus hind- or midfoot amputation for severe lower-extremity injury. The average SMFA scores were higher (worse), although not significantly different, for patients undergoing distal compared with transtibial amputation, and more patients with distal amputation had a complication requiring surgical revision. Of note, more patients with distal amputation required closure with an atypical flap, which likely contributed to less favorable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The 1-Year Economic Impact of Work Productivity Loss Following Severe Lower Extremity Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Severe lower extremity trauma among working-age adults is highly consequential for returning to work; however, the economic impact attributed to injury has not been fully quantified. The purpose of this study was to examine work and productivity loss during the year following lower extremity trauma and to calculate the economic losses associated with lost employment, lost work time (absenteeism), and productivity loss while at work (presenteeism). METHODS: This is an analysis of data collected prospectively across 3 multicenter studies of lower extremity trauma outcomes in the United States. Data were used to construct a Markov model that accumulated hours lost over time due to lost employment, absenteeism, and presenteeism among patients from 18 to 64 years old who were working prior to their injury. Average U.S. wages were used to calculate economic loss overall and by sociodemographic and injury subgroups. RESULTS: Of 857 patients working prior to injury, 47.2% had returned to work at 1 year. The average number of productive hours of work lost was 1,758.8/person, representing 84.6% of expected annual productive hours. Of the hours lost, 1,542.3 (87.7%) were due to working no hours or lost employment, 71.1 (4.0%) were due to missed hours after having returned, and 145.4 (8.3%) were due to decreased productivity while working. The 1-year economic loss due to injury totaled $64,427/patient (95% confidence interval [CI], $63,183 to $65,680). Of the 1,758.8 lost hours, approximately 88% were due to not being employed (working zero hours), 4% were due to absenteeism, and 8% were due to presenteeism. Total productivity loss was higher among older adults (≥40 years), men, those with a physically demanding job, and the most severe injuries (i.e., those leading to amputation as well as Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures and type-III pilon/ankle fractures). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe lower extremity trauma carry a substantial economic burden. The costs of lost productivity should be considered when evaluating outcomes.

The Military Extremity Trauma Amputation/Limb Salvage (METALS) Study: Outcomes of Amputation Compared with Limb Salvage Following Major Upper-Extremity Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Severe upper-extremity injuries account for almost one-half of all extremity trauma in recent conflicts in the Global War on Terror. Few long-term outcomes studies address severe combat-related upper-extremity injuries. This study's objective was to describe long-term functional outcomes of amputation compared with those of limb salvage in Global War on Terror veterans who sustained severe upper-extremity injuries. Limb salvage was hypothesized to result in better arm and hand function scores, overall functional status, and quality of life, with similar pain interference. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Military Extremity Trauma Amputation/Limb Salvage (METALS) study for a subset of 155 individuals who sustained major upper-extremity injuries treated with amputation or limb salvage. Participants were interviewed by telephone 40 months after injury, assessing social support, personal habits, and patient-reported outcome instruments for function, activity, depression, pain, and posttraumatic stress. Outcomes were evaluated for participants with severe upper-extremity injuries and were compared with participants with concomitant severe, lower-extremity injury. The analysis of outcomes comparing limb salvage with amputation was restricted to the 137 participants with a unilateral upper-extremity injury because of the small number of patients with bilateral upper-extremity injuries (n = 18). RESULTS: Overall, participants with upper-extremity injuries reported moderate to high levels of physical and psychosocial disability. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores were high across domains; 19.4% screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 12.3% were positive for depression. Nonetheless, 63.6% of participants were working, were on active duty, or were attending school, and 38.7% of participants were involved in vigorous recreational activities. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between patients who underwent limb salvage and those who underwent amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Severe, combat-related upper-extremity injuries result in diminished self-reported function and psychosocial health. Our results suggest that long-term outcomes are equivalent for those treated with amputation or limb salvage. Addressing or preventing PTSD, depression, chronic pain, and associated health habits may result in less disability burden in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association Between 6-Week Postdischarge Risk Classification and 12-Month Outcomes After Orthopedic Trauma.

Importance: Numerous studies have demonstrated that long-term outcomes after orthopedic trauma are associated with psychosocial and behavioral health factors evident early in the patient's recovery. Little is known about how to identify clinically actionable subgroups within this population. Objectives: To examine whether risk and protective factors measured at 6 weeks after injury could classify individuals into risk clusters and evaluate whether these clusters explain variations in 12-month outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective observational study was conducted between July 16, 2013, and January 15, 2016, among 352 patients with severe orthopedic injuries at 6 US level I trauma centers. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 9, 2017, to July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: At 6 weeks after discharge, patients completed standardized measures for 5 risk factors (pain intensity, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use) and 4 protective factors (resilience, social support, self-efficacy for return to usual activity, and self-efficacy for managing the financial demands of recovery). Latent class analysis was used to classify participants into clusters, which were evaluated against measures of function, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and self-rated health collected at 12 months. Results: Among the 352 patients (121 women and 231 men; mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.5] years), latent class analysis identified 6 distinct patient clusters as the optimal solution. For clinical use, these clusters can be collapsed into 4 groups, sorted from low risk and high protection (best) to high risk and low protection (worst). All outcomes worsened across the 4 clinical groupings. Bayesian analysis shows that the mean Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment dysfunction scores at 12 months differed by 7.8 points (95% CI, 3.0-12.6) between the best and second groups, by 10.3 points (95% CI, 1.6-20.2) between the second and third groups, and by 18.4 points (95% CI, 7.7-28.0) between the third and worst groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates that during early recovery, patients with orthopedic trauma can be classified into risk and protective clusters that account for a substantial amount of the variance in 12-month functional and health outcomes. Early screening and classification may allow a personalized approach to postsurgical care that conserves resources and targets appropriate levels of care to more patients.

Multisite Evaluation of a Custom Energy-Storing Carbon Fiber Orthosis for Patients with Residual Disability After Lower-Limb Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) is a custom energy-storing carbon fiber ankle-foot orthosis developed for lower-extremity trauma patients. Studies conducted at the military treatment facility where the IDEO was developed demonstrated benefits of the IDEO when used with the Return to Run Physical Therapy (RTR PT) program. The current study was designed to determine if results could be replicated at other military treatment facilities and to examine whether early performance gains in patient-reported functional outcomes remained at 12 months. METHODS: Study participants included service members who had functional deficits that interfered with daily activities at least 1 year after a traumatic unilateral lower-extremity injury at or below the knee. Participants were evaluated before receiving the IDEO, immediately following completion of RTR PT, and at 6 and 12 months. Agility, strength/power, and speed were assessed using well-established performance tests. Self-reported function was measured using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). The Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey was administered to assess satisfaction with the IDEO. Of 87 participants with complete baseline data, 6 did not complete any physical therapy and were excluded from the analysis. Follow-up rates immediately following completion of the RTR PT and at 6 and 12 months were 88%, 75%, and 79%, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, improvement at completion of RTR PT was observed in all but 1 performance test. SMFA scores for all domains except hand and arm function were lower (improved function) at 6 and 12 months. Satisfaction with the IDEO was high following completion of RTR PT, with some attenuation at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the evidence supporting the efficacy of the IDEO coupled with RTR PT. However, despite improvement in both performance and self-reported functioning, deficits persist compared with population norms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Trauma Collaborative Care Study (TCCS).

Previous research suggests that the care provided to trauma patients could be improved by including early screening and management of emotional distress and psychological comorbidity. The Trauma Collaborative Care (TCC) program, which is based on the principles of well-established models of collaborative care, was designed to address this gap in trauma center care. This article describes the TCC program and the design of a multicenter study to evaluate its effectiveness for improving patient outcomes after major, high-energy orthopaedic trauma at level 1 trauma centers. The TCC program was evaluated by comparing outcomes of patients treated at 6 intervention sites (n = 481) with 6 trauma centers where care was delivered as usual (control sites, n = 419). Compared with standard treatment alone, it is hypothesized that access to the TCC program plus standard treatment will result in lower rates of poor patient-reported function, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

The National Trauma Institute: Lessons learned in the funding and conduct of 16 trauma research studies.

BACKGROUND: To increase trauma-related research and elevate trauma on the national research agenda, the National Trauma Institute (NTI) issued calls for proposals, selected funding recipients, and coordinated 16 federally funded (Department of Defense) trauma research awards over a 4-year period. We sought to collect and describe the lessons learned from this activity to inform future researchers of barriers and facilitators. METHODS: Fifteen principal investigators participated in semistructured interviews focused on study management issues such as securing institutional approvals, screening and enrollment, multisite trials management, project funding, staffing, and institutional support. NTI Science Committee meeting minutes and study management data were included in the analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were generated and textual data were analyzed for common themes. RESULTS: Principal investigators reported challenges in obtaining institutional approvals, delays in study initiation, screening and enrollment, multisite management, and study funding. Most were able to successfully resolve challenges and have been productive in terms of scholarly publications, securing additional research funding, and training future trauma investigators. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned in the conduct of the first two funding rounds managed by NTI are instructive in four key areas: regulatory processes, multisite coordination, adequate funding, and the importance of an established research infrastructure to ensure study success. Recommendations for addressing institution-related and investigator-related challenges are discussed along with ongoing advocacy efforts to secure sustained federal funding of a national trauma research program commensurate with the burden of injury.

Military-to-civilian translation of battlefield innovations in operative trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Historic improvements in operative trauma care have been driven by war. It is unknown whether recent battlefield innovations stemming from conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan will follow a similar trend. The objective of this study was to survey trauma medical directors (TMDs) at level 1-3 trauma centers across the United States and gauge the extent to which battlefield innovations have shaped civilian practice in 4 key domains of trauma care. METHODS: Domains were determined by the use of a modified Delphi method based on multiple consultations with an expert physician/surgeon panel: (1) damage control resuscitation (DCR), (2) tourniquet use, (3) use of hemostatic agents, and (4) prehospital interventions, including intraosseous catheter access and needle thoracostomy. A corresponding 47-item electronic anonymous survey was developed/pilot tested before dissemination to all identifiable TMD at level 1-3 trauma centers across the US. RESULTS: A total of 245 TMDs, representing nearly 40% of trauma centers in the United States, completed and returned the survey. More than half (n = 127; 51.8%) were verified by the American College of Surgeons. TMDs reported high civilian use of DCR: 95.1% of trauma centers had implemented massive transfusion protocols and the majority (67.7%) tended toward 1:1:1 packed red blood cell/fresh-frozen plasma/platelets ratios. For the other 3, mixed adoption corresponded to expressed concerns regarding the extent of concomitant civilian research to support military research and experience. In centers in which policies reflecting battlefield innovations were in use, previous military experience frequently was acknowledged. CONCLUSION: This national survey of TMDs suggests that military data supporting DCR has altered civilian practice. Perceived relevance in other domains was less clear. Civilian academic efforts are needed to further research and enhance understandings that foster improved trauma surgeon awareness of military-to-civilian translation.

Beyond incidence: Costs of complications in trauma and what it means for those who pay.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma patients have greater rates of complications than general surgery patients; however, existing surgical pay-for-performance (P4P) guidelines have yet to be adapted for trauma care. To better understand whether current P4P measures are applicable to trauma, this study used nationally representative data to determine the mortality and attributable costs associated with the presence or absence of both Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-recognized complications (urinary tract infections, surgical site infections [SSIs], and pneumonia) and other major trauma-related complications. METHODS: Trauma admissions were extracted from the 2008 National Inpatient Sample using primary ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes (range, 800-905, 910-939, 950-958). Patients aged 18-65 years with a duration of hospital stay of >3 days and isolated complications were included. To account for differences in patient factors, coarsened-exact matching was used to create comparable cohorts of adult patients with and without complications. Multivariable regression was then performed within matched groups to determine differences in cost and mortality, controlling for hospital characteristics and wage index. RESULTS: Of 493,372 trauma patients, 78,156 met inclusion criteria, of whom 24.4% had an isolated complication. Consistent with surgical P4P guidelines, SSI, urinary tract infections, and pneumonia had the greatest incidence (8.0%, 5.2%, and 4.4%, respectively); however, mortality in matched patients with complications was greatest for sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 9.76; 95% CI, 3.84-24.80), myocardial infarction (MI; OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.70-10.44) and stroke (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.40-6.52). Excess costs associated with a complication were similarly greatest for sepsis (relative cost, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.57-2.17), followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; relative cost, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.7-1.99) and MI (relative cost, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.99). CONCLUSION: Consideration of attributable costs and mortality suggest that additional complications have a substantial impact among trauma patients, beyond the conditions used in general surgery P4P guidelines. These aspects of trauma should be prioritized to capture the influence of complications in trauma that the incidence of frequent but less costly conditions overlooks.

Outcomes of trauma care at centers treating a higher proportion of older patients: the case for geriatric trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: The burden of injury among older patients continues to grow and accounts for a disproportionate number of trauma deaths. We wished to determine if older trauma patients have better outcomes at centers that manage a higher proportion of older trauma patients. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank years 2007 to 2011 was used. All high-volume Level 1 and Level 2 trauma centers were included. Trauma centers were categorized by the proportion of older patients seen. Adult trauma patients were categorized as older (≥65 years) and younger adults (16-64 years). Coarsened exact matching was used to determine differences in mortality and length of stay between older and younger adults. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios by proportion of older trauma patients seen were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models and observed-expected ratios. RESULTS: A total of 1.9 million patients from 295 centers were included. Older patients accounted for one fourth of trauma visits. Matched analysis revealed that older trauma patients were 4.2 times (95% confidence interval, 3.99-4.50) more likely to die than younger patients. Older patients were 34% less likely to die if they presented at centers treating a high versus low proportion of older trauma (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81). These differences were independent of trauma center performance. CONCLUSION: Geriatric trauma patients treated at centers that manage a higher proportion of older patients have improved outcomes. This evidence supports the potential advantage of treating older trauma patients at centers specializing in geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Unconscious race and social class bias among acute care surgical clinicians and clinical treatment decisions.

IMPORTANCE: Significant health inequities persist among minority and socially disadvantaged patients. Better understanding of how unconscious biases affect clinical decision making may help to illuminate clinicians' roles in propagating disparities. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinicians' unconscious race and/or social class biases correlate with patient management decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a web-based survey among 230 physicians from surgery and related specialties at an academic, level I trauma center from December 1, 2011, through January 31, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: We administered clinical vignettes, each with 3 management questions. Eight vignettes assessed the relationship between unconscious bias and clinical decision making. We performed ordered logistic regression analysis on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) scores and used multivariable analysis to determine whether implicit bias was associated with the vignette responses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differential response times (D scores) on the IAT as a surrogate for unconscious bias. Patient management vignettes varied by patient race or social class. Resulting D scores were calculated for each management decision. RESULTS: In total, 215 clinicians were included and consisted of 74 attending surgeons, 32 fellows, 86 residents, 19 interns, and 4 physicians with an undetermined level of education. Specialties included surgery (32.1%), anesthesia (18.1%), emergency medicine (18.1%), orthopedics (7.9%), otolaryngology (7.0%), neurosurgery (7.0%), critical care (6.0%), and urology (2.8%); 1.9% did not report a departmental affiliation. Implicit race and social class biases were present in most respondents. Among all clinicians, mean IAT D scores for race and social class were 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.48) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), respectively. Race and class scores were similar across departments (general surgery, orthopedics, urology, etc), race, or age. Women demonstrated less bias concerning race (mean IAT D score, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.29-0.49]) and social class (mean IAT D score, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.75]) relative to men (mean IAT D scores, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.37-0.52] and 0.82 [95% CI, 0.75-0.89], respectively). In univariate analyses, we found an association between race/social class bias and 3 of 27 possible patient-care decisions. Multivariable analyses revealed no association between the IAT D scores and vignette-based clinical assessments. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Unconscious social class and race biases were not significantly associated with clinical decision making among acute care surgical clinicians. Further studies involving real physician-patient interactions may be warranted.

Incremental Cost of Emergency Versus Elective Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine hospital costs and the adjusted risk of death associated with emergent versus elective surgery. BACKGROUND: Emergency surgery has a higher cost and worse outcomes compared with elective surgery. However, no national estimates of the excess burden of emergency surgery exist. METHODS: Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2001 to 2010 were analyzed. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, or colon resection for neoplasm were included. Using generalized linear models with propensity scores, cost differences for emergent versus elective admission were calculated for each procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate the adjusted odds of mortality comparing elective and emergent cases. Discharge-level weights were applied to analyses. RESULTS: A total of 621,925 patients, representing a weighted population of 3,057,443, were included. The adjusted mean cost difference for emergent versus elective care was $8741.22 (30% increase) for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, $5309.78 (17% increase) for coronary artery bypass graft, and $7813.53 (53% increase) for colon resection. If 10% of the weighted estimates of emergency procedures had been performed electively, the cost benefit would have been nearly $1 billion, at $996,169,160 (95% confidence interval [CI], $985,505,565-$1,006,834,104). Elective surgery patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of mortality for all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Even a modest reduction in the proportion of emergent procedures for 3 conditions is estimated to save nearly $1 billion over 10 years. Preventing emergency surgery through improved care coordination and screening offers a tremendous opportunity to save lives and decrease costs.

Unconscious race and class bias: its association with decision making by trauma and acute care surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have found that unconscious biases may influence physicians' clinical decision making. The objective of our study was to determine, using clinical vignettes, if unconscious race and class biases exist specifically among trauma/acute care surgeons and, if so, whether those biases impact surgeons' clinical decision making. METHODS: A prospective Web-based survey was administered to active members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Participants completed nine clinical vignettes, each with three trauma/acute care surgery management questions. Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) and social class IAT assessments were completed by each participant. Multivariable, ordered logistic regression analysis was then used to determine whether implicit biases reflected on the IAT tests were associated with vignette responses. RESULTS: In total, 248 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma participated. Of these, 79% explicitly stated that they had no race preferences and 55% stated they had no social class preferences. However, 73.5% of the participants had IAT scores demonstrating an unconscious preference toward white persons; 90.7% demonstrated an implicit preference toward upper social class persons. Only 2 of 27 vignette-based clinical decisions were associated with patient race or social class on univariate analyses. Multivariable analyses revealed no relationship between IAT scores and vignette-based clinical assessments. CONCLUSION: Unconscious preferences for white and upper-class persons are prevalent among trauma and acute care surgeons. In this study, these biases were not statistically significantly associated with clinical decision making. Further study of the factors that may prevent implicit biases from influencing patient management is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level II.

Benchmarking trauma centers on mortality alone does not reflect quality of care: implications for pay-for-performance.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted κ statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted κ = 0.03, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Developing best practices to study trauma outcomes in large databases: an evidence-based approach to determine the best mortality risk adjustment model.

BACKGROUND: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is an invaluable resource to study trauma outcomes. Recent evidence suggests the existence of great variability in covariate handling and inclusion in multivariable analyses using NTDB, leading to differences in the quality of published studies and potentially in benchmarking trauma centers. Our objectives were to identify the best possible mortality risk adjustment model (RAM) and to define the minimum number of covariates required to adequately predict trauma mortality in the NTDB. METHODS: Analysis of NTDB 2009 was performed to identify the best RAM for trauma mortality. For each plausible NTDB covariate, univariate logistic regression was performed, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC, with 95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated. Covariates with p < 0.01 and an AUROC of 0.6 of greater or with strong previous evidence were included in the subsequent multivariate logistic regression analyses. Manual backward selection was then used to identify the most parsimonious RAM with a similar AUROC (overlapping 95% CI). Similar analyses were performed for penetrating and severely injured patient subsets. All models were validated using NTDB 2010. RESULTS: A total of 630,307 patients from NTDB 2009 were analyzed. A total of 16 of 106 NTDB covariates tested on univariate analyses were selected for inclusion in the initial multivariate model. The best RAM included only six covariates (age, hypotension, pulse, total Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score, Injury Severity Score [ISS], and a need for ventilator use) yet still demonstrated excellent discrimination between survivors and nonsurvivors (AUROC, 0.9578; 95% CI, 0.9565-0.9590). In addition, this model was validated on 665,138 patients included in NTDB 2010 (AUROC, 0.9577; 95% CI, 0.9564-0.9589). Similar results were obtained for the subset analyses. CONCLUSION: This quantitative synthesis proposes a framework and a set of covariates for studying trauma mortality outcomes. Such analytic standardization may prove critical in implementing best practices aimed at improving the quality and consistency of NTDB-based research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Association between intentional injury and long-term survival after trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk-adjusted mortality of intentionally injured patients within 7 to 9 years postinjury, compared with unintentionally injured patients. BACKGROUND: Violent injury contributes significantly to trauma mortality in the United States. Homicide is the second leading killer of American youth, aged 15 to 24 years. Long-term survival among intentionally injured patients has not been well studied. It is also unknown whether intentionally injured patients have worse long-term survival compared with unintentionally or accidentally injured patients with equivalent injuries. METHODS: Adult trauma patients admitted for 24 hours or more and discharged alive from the Johns Hopkins Hospital from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2000, were included. The primary outcome was mortality within 7 to 9 years postinjury. Long-term patient survival was determined using the National Death Index. The association between injury intentionality and mortality was investigated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for confounders such as injury severity and patient race, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions. Overall differences in survival between those with intentional versus unintentional injury were also determined by comparing adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: A total of 2062 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 56.4% were intentionally injured and 43.6% were unintentionally injured. Compared with unintentionally injured patients, intentionally injured patients were younger and more often male and from a zip code with low median household income. Approximately 15% of all patients had died within 7 to 9 years of follow-up. Older age and presence of comorbidities were associated with this outcome; however, intentional injury was not found to be significantly associated with long-term mortality rates. There was also no significant difference in survival curves between groups; intentionally injured patients were much more likely to die of a subsequent injury, whereas those with unintentional injury commonly died of noninjury causes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mortality between intentionally injured and unintentionally injured patients within 7 to 9 years postinjury. These results confirm the long-term effectiveness of lifesaving trauma care for those with intentional injury. However, given that patients with intentional injuries were more likely to suffer a subsequent violent death, interventions focused on breaking the cycle of violence are needed.

Minority trauma patients tend to cluster at trauma centers with worse-than-expected mortality: can this phenomenon help explain racial disparities in trauma outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether minority trauma patients are more commonly treated at trauma centers (TCs) with worse observed-to-expected (O/E) survival. BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in survival after traumatic injury have been described. However, the mechanisms that lead to these inequities are not well understood. METHODS: Analysis of level I/II TCs included in the National Trauma Data Bank 2007-2010. White, Black, and Hispanic patients 16 years or older sustaining blunt/penetrating injuries with an Injury Severity Score of 9 or more were included. TCs with 50% or more Hispanic or Black patients were classified as predominantly minority TCs. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for several patient/injury characteristics was used to predict the expected number of deaths for each TC. O/E mortality ratios were then generated and used to rank individual TCs as low (O/E <1), intermediate, or high mortality (O/E >1). RESULTS: A total of 556,720 patients from 181 TCs were analyzed; 86 TCs (48%) were classified as low mortality, 6 (3%) intermediate, and 89 (49%) as high mortality. More of the predominantly minority TCs [(82% (22/27) vs 44% (67/154)] were classified as high mortality (P < 0.001). Approximately 64% of Black patients (55,673/87,575) were treated at high-mortality TCs compared with 54% Hispanics (32,677/60,761) and 41% Whites (165,494/408,384) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Minority trauma patients are clustered at hospitals with significantly higher-than-expected mortality. Black and Hispanic patients treated at low-mortality hospitals have a significantly lower odds of death than similar patients treated at high-mortality hospitals. Differences in TC outcomes and quality of care may partially explain trauma outcomes disparities.

Improving outcomes at Level I trauma centers: an early evaluation of the Trauma Survivors Network.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma Survivors Network (TSN), a program developed to help patients and families manage the psychosocial impact of their injuries, combines information access, self-management training, peer support, and online social networking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the TSN in improving patient reported outcomes among orthopedic trauma patients at a Level I trauma center. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 251 patients with either severe lower-extremity injuries or polytrauma in two cohorts: one group (n = 125) before implementation of the TSN and one group (n = 126) after implementation. Participants were interviewed during their initial hospital stay and at 6 months. Outcomes evaluated at 6 months included depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, health status, and patient activation. RESULTS: Participation in the individual components of the TSN was low, ranging between 3% for the NextSteps self-management program and 27% for receipt of the Patient and Family Handbook. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups in self-efficacy, anxiety, health status, or activation. There were statistically significant differences in depression (24% of patients with probable depression in the TSN group vs. 40% in the control group, p = 0.02). However, the groups were not balanced with respect to sex, education, and baseline social support. After controlling for these differences, the TSN group still had 49% lower odds (95% confidence interval, 0% to 74%) of depression (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The TSN represents a potentially important step toward the development of comprehensive psychosocial support programs for trauma survivors. Despite improvements in one important outcome, a key finding of this evaluation is the low rate of use of program components. This finding highlights the need for greater understanding of use barriers and efforts to increase adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.