A Pilot Project of a Post Discharge Care Team for Firearm Injury Survivors Decreases Emergency Department Utilization, Hospital Readmission Days, and Cost.

BACKGROUND: Persons of low socioeconomic status are overrepresented in the firearm injury patient population and may experience challenges in accessing complex outpatient health systems. Consequently, outpatient care for these patients is plagued by poor follow-up and increased emergency department (ED) utilization. We developed a Post Discharge Care Team (PDCT) consisting of a dedicated trauma nurse navigator and medical social worker to bridge the gap between hospital discharge and outpatient care to improve recovery. METHODS: Adult firearm injury survivors admitted to the trauma service were randomized 1:1 to receive either PDCT services or standard of care (SOC) workflows. The PDCT nurse provided education and set expectations regarding injuries, wound care, and outpatient follow up. The PDCT social worker performed a comprehensive assessment to identify concerns including housing and financial instability, food insecurity, or transportation issues. The primary outcome was ED utilization, with secondary outcomes including readmissions and overall healthcare costs compared between groups. RESULTS: In the first six months of the study, a total of 44 patients were randomized to PDCT and 47 to SOC. There were 10 patients who visited the ED in the PDCT group compared to 16 in the SOC group (p = 0.23) for a total of 14 and 23 ED visits, respectively. There were 14 patients in the PDCT and 11 patients in the SOC groups who were readmitted (p = 0.31), but the PDCT group was readmitted for 27.9 fewer hospital days. After accounting for programmatic costs, the PDCT had a hospital savings of $34,542.71. CONCLUSION: A collaborative, specialized Post Discharge Care Team for firearm injury survivors consisting of a dedicated trauma nurse navigator and medical social worker decreased outpatient ED utilization, readmission days, and was cost effective. Trauma centers with high volumes of penetrating trauma should consider a similar model to improve outpatient care for firearm injury survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Original Research, Quality Improvement, 2.

A comparison of the psychometric properties of a person-administered vs. automated screening tool for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in traumatically injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-CoT) mandated that trauma centers have mental health screening and referral protocols in place by 2023. This study compares the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS) and the Automated Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Screen to assess their performance in predicting risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the same sample of trauma patients to inform trauma centers' decision when selecting a tool to best fit their current clinical practice. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies of traumatically injured patients (N = 255). The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves to predict risk of subsequent PTSD development. PTSD diagnosis at 6-month follow-up was assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5. RESULTS: Just over half the sample screened positive on the ITSS (57.7%), while 67.8% screened positive on the Automated EMR Screen. The area under the curve (AUC) for the two screens was not significantly different (ITSS AUC = 0.745 versus Automated EMR Screen AUC = 0.694, p = 0.21), similar performance in PTSD risk predication within the same general trauma population. The ITSS and Automated EMR Screen had similar sensitivities (86.5%, 89.2%), and specificities (52.5%, 40.9%) respectively at their recommended cut-off points. CONCLUSION: Both screens are psychometrically comparable. Therefore, trauma centers considering screening tools for PTSD risk to comply with the ACS-CoT 2023 mandate should consider their local resources and patient population. Regardless of screen selection, screening must be accompanied by a referral process to address the identified risk.

Improved follow-up care for gun violence survivors in the Trauma Quality of Life Clinic.

Background: Outpatient follow-up represents a crucial opportunity to re-engage with gun violence survivors (GVS) and to facilitate positive health outcomes. Current outpatient models for firearm-related injuries and trauma care are inconsistent and unstandardized across trauma centers. This project describes the patient population served by the multidisciplinary Trauma Quality of Life (TQoL) Clinic for GVS. Also of primary interest was the outpatient follow-up services used by patients prior to their clinic appointment. Subsequent referrals placed during Clinic, as well as rate of attendance, was a secondary aim. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of a quality improvement project of the TQoL Clinic. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record and were supplemented with information from the trauma registry and the hospital-based violence intervention program database. Descriptive statistics characterized the patient population served. A Χ2 analysis was used to compare no-show rates for the TQoL Clinic against two historical cohorts of trauma clinic attendees. Results: Most attendees were young (M=32.0, SD=1.8, range=15-88 years), Black (80.1%), and male (82.0%). Of the 306 total TQoL Clinic attendees, 82.3% attended their initial scheduled appointment. Most non-attendee patients rescheduled their appointments (92.1%), and 89.5% attended the rescheduled appointment. TQoL Clinic demonstrated a significantly lower no-show rate than the traditional trauma clinic model, including after the implementation of the hospital's inpatient violence intervention program (χ2(2)=75.52, p<0.001). Conclusion: The TQoL Clinic has demonstrated improved outpatient follow-up to address the comprehensive needs of GVS. Trauma centers with high gunshot wound volume should consider the implementation of the multidisciplinary TQoL Clinic model to increase access to care and to continue partnership with violence intervention programs to address health outcomes in those most at risk of future morbidity and mortality. Level of evidence: Therapeutic/care management, level III.

Comprehensive Framework of Firearm Violence Survivor Care: A Review.

Importance: Firearm violence is a public health crisis placing significant burden on individuals, communities, and health care systems. After firearm injury, there is increased risk of poor health, disability, and psychopathology. The newest 2022 guidelines from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma require that all trauma centers screen for risk of psychopathology and provide referral to intervention. Yet, implementing these guidelines in ways that are responsive to the unique needs of communities and specific patient populations, such as after firearm violence, is challenging. Observations: The current review highlights important considerations and presents a model for trauma centers to provide comprehensive care to survivors of firearm injury. This model highlights the need to enhance standard practice to provide patient-centered, trauma-informed care, as well as integrate inpatient and outpatient psychological services to address psychosocial needs. Further, incorporation of violence prevention programming better addresses firearm injury as a public health concern. Conclusions and Relevance: Using research to guide a framework for trauma centers in comprehensive care after firearm violence, we can prevent complications to physical and psychological recovery for this population. Health systems must acknowledge the socioecological context of firearm violence and provide more comprehensive care in the hospital and after discharge, to improve long-term recovery and serve as a means of tertiary prevention of firearm violence.

Disparities in disposition from trauma centers to inpatient psychiatric treatment in a national sample of patients with self-inflicted injury.

BACKGROUND: Surgery providers are integral to the treatment of patients with self-inflicted injuries. Patient disposition (eg, home, inpatient psychiatric treatment, rehabilitation) is important to long-term outcomes, but little is known about factors influencing disposition after discharge following traumatic self-inflicted injury. We tested whether patient or injury characteristics were associated with disposition after treatment for self-inflicted injury. METHODS: National Trauma Data Bank query for self-inflicted injuries from 2010 to 2018. RESULTS: There were 77,731 patients treated for self-inflicted injuries during the study period. Discharge home was the most common disposition (45%), and those without insurance were less likely to discharge to inpatient psychiatric treatment than those with insurance. Racial minority patients were less likely to discharge to inpatient psychiatric treatment (18.9%) than nonminority patients (23.8%, P < .001). Additionally, patients discharged to inpatient psychiatric treatment had significantly lower injury severity score (7.24 ± 7.5) than those who did not (8.69 ± 9.1, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic minority patients and those without insurance were significantly less likely to discharge to an inpatient psychiatric facility after treatment at a trauma center for self-inflicted injury. Future research is needed to evaluate the internal factors (eg, trauma center practices) and external factors (eg, inpatient psychiatric facilities not accepting patients with wound care needs) driving disposition variability.

Addressing the educational gap in the role of law enforcement personnel in the resuscitation bay.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers are often uncertain of the role of law enforcement personnel in the resuscitation bay. A cross-sectional, quality improvement project was designed with an educational intervention to address the knowledge gaps. METHODS: There were 2 sessions for trauma surgery and emergency medicine faculty, residents, and staff. The first was a formal presentation by hospital risk management and security focused on answering questions generated by real-life scenarios. After reviewing feedback from the first session, the second session was designed as a panel discussion led by attending physicians who reviewed various clinical scenarios. A pre/postsurvey was administered, including potential clinical scenarios with multiple-choice answers and open feedback. RESULTS: There were 64 presurvey and 31 postsurvey respondents from the first session (48.4%). Significantly more questions were answered correctly from pre to postsurvey (5.5 vs 6.7/16 questions; U = 798.0, P = .048). Of the 14 (45.2%) respondents who provided open-ended feedback, 50% indicated confusion, and 21.4% expressed strong, negative emotions. In the second session, there were 39 presurvey and 18 postsurvey respondents (46.2%). Again, significantly more questions were answered correctly after the second session (2.2 vs 4.5/7 questions; U = 115.0, P ≤ .001). Feedback highlighted that the panel format was considered more helpful than the formal didactic of the first session. CONCLUSION: Confusion about the role of law enforcement personnel in the clinical environment can be partially addressed using multidisciplinary joint conferences that should be led by clinicians to ensure real-life clinical applicability. Further education and law enforcement personnel role clarification for health care workers are critical to protect patient rights.

Trauma video review outperforms prospective real-time data collection for study of resuscitative thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in the study of high-impact, low-frequency procedures in trauma is the lack of accurate data for time-sensitive processes of care. Trauma video review offers a possible solution, allowing investigators to collect extremely granular time-stamped data. Using resuscitative thoracotomy as a model, we compared data collected using review of audiovisual recordings to data prospectively collected in real time with the hypothesis that data collected using video review would be subject to less missingness and bias. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing resuscitative thoracotomy at a single urban academic level 1 trauma center. Key data on the timing and completion of procedural milestones of resuscitative thoracotomy were collected using video review and prospective collection. We used McNemar's test to compare proportions of missing data between the 2 methods and calculated bias in time measurements for prospective collection with respect to video review. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata v. 15.0 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: We included 51 subjects (88% Black, 82% male, 90% injured by gunshot wounds) over the study period. Missingness in resuscitative thoracotomy procedural milestone time measurements ranged from 34% to 63% for prospective collection and 0 to 8% for video review and was less missing for video review for all key variables (P < .001). When not missing, bias in data collected by prospective collection was 10% to 43% compared with data collected by video review. CONCLUSIONS: The data collected using video review have less missingness and bias than prospective collection data collected by trained research assistants. Audiovisual recording should be the gold standard for data collection for the study of time-sensitive processes of care in resuscitation.

Coaching for impact: successful implementation of a multi-national, multi-institutional synchronous research course in Ethiopia.

Purpose: Under the American College of Surgeons' Operation Giving Back, several US institutions collaborated with a teaching and regional referral hospital in Ethiopia to develop a surgical research curriculum. Methods: A virtual, interactive, introductory research course which utilized a web-based classroom platform and live educational sessions via an online teleconferencing application was implemented. Surgical and public health faculty from the US and Ethiopia taught webinars and led breakout coaching sessions to facilitate participants' project development. Both a pre-course needs assessment survey and a post-course participation survey were used to examine the impact of the course. Results: Twenty participants were invited to participate in the course. Despite the majority of participants having connection issues (88%), 11 participants completed the course with an 83% average attendance rate. Ten participants successfully developed structured research proposals based on their local clinical needs. Conclusion: This novel multi-institutional and multi-national research course design was successfully implemented and could serve as a template for greater development of research capacity building in the low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting.

Prevention of Firearm Violence Through Specific Types of Community-based Programming: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Evidence-based Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to provide an evidence-based recommendation for community-based programs to mitigate gun violence, from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Firearm Injury leads to >40,000 annual deaths and >115,000 injuries annually in the United States. Communities have adopted culturally relevant strategies to mitigate gun related injury and death. Two such strategies are gun buyback programs and community-based violence prevention programs. METHODS: The Injury Control and Violence Prevention Committee of EAST developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) questions and performed a comprehensive literature and gray web literature search. Using GRADE methodology, they reviewed and graded the literature and provided consensus recommendations informed by the literature. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included for analysis of gun buyback programs. Twenty-six studies were reviewed for analysis for community-based violence prevention programs. Gray literature was added to the discussion of PICO questions from selected websites. A conditional recommendation is made for the implementation of community-based gun buyback programs and a conditional recommendation for community-based violence prevention programs, with special emphasis on cultural appropriateness and community input. CONCLUSIONS: Gun violence may be mitigated by community-based efforts, such as gun buybacks or violence prevention programs. These programs come with caveats, notably community cultural relevance and proper support and funding from local leadership.Level of Evidence: Review, Decision, level III.

A calculator for mortality following emergency general surgery based on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: The complex nature of current morbidity and mortality predictor models do not lend themselves to clinical application at the bedside of patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). Our aim was to develop a simplified risk calculator for prediction of early postoperative mortality after EGS. METHODS: EGS cases other than appendectomy and cholecystectomy were identified within the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2014. Seventy-five percent of the cases were selected at random for model development, whereas 25% of the cases were used for model testing. Stepwise logistic regression was performed for creation of a 30-day mortality risk calculator. Model accuracy and reproducibility was investigated using the concordance index (c statistic) and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: A total of 79,835 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, 30-day mortality was 12.6%. A simplified risk model formula was derived from five readily available preoperative variables as follows: 0.034*age + 0.8*nonindependent status + 0.88*sepsis + 1.1 (if bun ≥ 29) or 0.57 (if bun ≥18 and < 29) + 1.16 (if albumin < 2.7), or 0.61 (if albumin ≥ 2.7 and < 3.4). The risk of 30-day mortality was stratified into deciles. The risk of 30-day mortality ranged from 2% for patients in the lowest risk level to 31% for patients in the highest risk level. The c statistic was 0.83 in both the derivation and testing samples. CONCLUSION: Five readily available preoperative variables can be used to predict the 30-day mortality risk for patients undergoing EGS. Further studies are needed to validate this risk calculator and to determine its bedside applicability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiological study, level III.