Dollars and Sense: The Financial Argument for Dedicated Posttrauma Center Care.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that the creation of a Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) is not cost-prohibitive but is a revenue generator for the institution. BACKGROUND: A dedicated CTS has been demonstrated to increase adherence with follow-up visits and improve overall aftercare in severely injured patients discharged from the trauma center. A potential impediment to the creation of similar centers is its assumed prohibitive cost. METHODS: This pre and post-cohort study examines the financial impact of patients treated by the CTS. Patients in the PRE cohort were those treated in the year before CTS inception. Eligibility criteria are trauma patients admitted who are ≥18 years of age and have a New Injury Severity Score ≥16 or intensive care unit stay ≥2 days. Financial data were obtained from the hospital's billing and cost accounting systems for a 1-year time period after discharge. RESULTS: There were 176 patients in the PRE and 256 in the CTS cohort. The CTS cohort generated 1623 subsequent visits versus 748 in the PRE cohort. CTS patients underwent more follow-up surgery in their first year of recovery as compared with the PRE cohort (98 vs 26 procedures). Each CTS patient was responsible for a $7752 increase in net revenue with a positive contribution margin of $4558 compared with those in the PRE group. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated CTS increases subsequent visits and necessary procedures and is a positive revenue source for the trauma center. The presumptive financial burden of a CTS is incorrect and the creation of dedicated centers will improve patients' outcomes and the institution's bottom line.

Mapping the increasing interest in acute care surgery-Who, why and which fellowship?

BACKGROUND: Interest in acute care surgery (ACS) has increased over the past 10 years as demonstrated by the linear increase in fellowship applicants to the different fellowships leading to ACS careers. It is unclear why interest has increased, whether various fellowship pathways attract different applicants or whether fellowship choice correlates with practice patterns after graduation. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to individuals previously registered with the Surgical critical care and Acute care surgery Fellowship Application Service. Fellowship program directors were also asked to forward the survey to current and former fellows to increase the response rate. Data collected included demographics, clinical interests and motivations, publications, and postfellowship practice patterns. Fisher's exact and Pearson's χ were used to determine significance. RESULTS: Trauma surgery was the primary clinical interest for all fellowship types (n = 273). Fellowship type had no impact on academic productivity or practice patterns. Most fellows would repeat their own fellowship. The 2-year American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-approved fellowship was nearly uniformly reported as the preferred choice among those who would perform a different fellowship. Career motivations were similar across fellowships and over time though recent trainees were more likely to consider predictability of schedule a significant factor in career choice. Respondents reported graduated progression to full responsibility, further exposure to trauma care and additional operative technical training as benefits of a second fellowship year. CONCLUSION: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-approved 2-year fellows appear to be the most satisfied with their fellowship choice. No differences were noted in academic productivity or practice between fellowships. Future research should focus on variability in trauma training and operative experience during residency and in practice to better inform how a second fellowship year would improve training for ACS careers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Descriptive, mixed methods, Level IV.

The Center for Trauma Survivorship: Addressing the great unmet need for posttrauma center care.

BACKGROUND: Returning patients to preinjury status is the goal of a trauma system. Trauma centers (TCs) provide inpatient care, but postdischarge treatment is fragmented with clinic follow-up rates of <30%. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression are common, but few patients ever obtain necessary behavioral health services. We postulated that a multidisciplinary Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) providing comprehensive care would meet patient's needs, improve postdischarge compliance, deliver behavioral health, and decrease unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions. METHODS: Focus groups of trauma survivors were conducted to identify issues following TC discharge. Center for Trauma Survivorship eligible patients are aged 18 to 80 years and have intensive care unit stay of >2 days or have a New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. Center for Trauma Survivorship visits were scheduled by a dedicated navigator and included physical and behavioral health care. Patients were screened for PTSD and depression. Patients screening positive were referred for behavioral health services. Patients were provided 24/7 access to the CTS team. Outcomes include compliance with appointments, mental health visits, unplanned ED visits, and readmissions in the year following discharge from the TC. RESULTS: Patients universally felt abandoned by the TC after discharge. Over 1 year, 107 patients had 386 CTS visits. Average time for each appointment was >1 hour. Center for Trauma Survivorship "no show" rate was 17%. Eighty-six percent screening positive for PTSD/depression successfully received behavioral health services. Postdischarge ED and hospital admissions were most often for infections or unrelated conditions. Emergency department utilization was significantly lower than a similarly injured group of patients 1 year before the inception of the CTS. CONCLUSION: A CTS fills the vast gaps in care following TC discharge leading to improved compliance with appointments and delivery of physical and behavioral health services. Center for Trauma Survivorship also appears to decrease ED visits in the year following discharge. To achieve optimal long-term recovery from injury, trauma care must continue long after patients leave the TC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III.

Older Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: National Variability in Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have higher mortality and morbidity than their younger counterparts. Palliative care (PC) is recommended for all patients with a serious or life-limiting illness. However, its adoption for trauma patients has been variable across the nation. The goal of this study was to assess PC utilization and intensity of care in older patients with severe TBI. We hypothesized that PC is underutilized despite its positive effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database (2009-2013) was queried for patients aged ≥55 y with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for TBI with loss of consciousness ≥24 h. Outcome measures included PC rate, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and intensity of care represented by craniotomy and or craniectomy, ventilator use, tracheostomy, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. RESULTS: Of 5733 patients, 78% died in hospital with a median LOS of 1 d, and 85% of the survivors were discharged to facilities. The overall PC rate was 35%. Almost 40% of deaths received PC, with nearly half within 48 h of admission. PC was used in 26% who had neurosurgical procedures, compared with 35% who were nonoperatively managed (P = 0.003). PC was associated with less intensity of care in the entire population. For survivors, those with PC had significantly shorter LOS, compared with those without PC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high mortality, only one-third of older patients with severe TBI received PC. PC was associated with decreased use of life support and lower intensity of care. Significant efforts need to be made to bridge this quality gap and improve PC in this high-risk population.

Disproportionally low funding for trauma research by the National Institutes of Health: A call for a National Institute of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a major cause of death and disability in all ages. Previous reviews have suggested that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for trauma is not commensurate with its burden of disease, but a detailed analysis has been lacking. We postulated that NIH spending on trauma research was lower than previously thought and was distributed widely, preventing a comprehensive research strategy that could decrease trauma morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was initially screened using a search of over 20 terms including "trauma," "injury," "shock," "MVC," and excluding clearly unrelated conditions, for example, "cancer." The details of all grants that screened positive underwent manual review to identify true trauma-related grants. An expert panel was used to adjudicate any ambiguity. RESULTS: In FY2016, NIH awarded 50,137 grants, of which 6,401 (13%) were captured by our initial screen. Following review, 1,888 (28%) were identified as trauma-related; 3.7% of all NIH grants. These grants (US $720 million) represent only 2.9% of the NIH extramural budget. In addition, the grants were funded and administered by 24 of the institutes and centers across the NIH ranging from 0.01% (National Cancer Institute) to 11% (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases) of their extramural portfolios. CONCLUSION: Given the extreme burden of trauma-related disability and years of life lost, this review of extramural NIH funding definitively demonstrates that trauma is severely underfunded. The lack of a dedicated home for trauma research at NIH leads to a diffusion of grants across many institutes and makes it impossible to direct a focused and effective national research endeavor to improve outcomes. These data demonstrate the need for a National Institute of Trauma at the NIH to help set an agenda to reach the national goal of Zero Preventable Deaths.

Implementation is not enough: Graduated drivers licensing benefits from a comprehensive enforcement, education, and awareness campaigns.

BACKGROUND: Graduated drivers license (GDLs) are required in most states. Graduated drivers licenses are intermediate licenses requiring a supervisory period prior to full licensure. Surveys suggests poor acceptance of GDL restrictions high variability in GDL compliance. New Jersey initiated GDLs in 2002 and introduced a comprehensive public health campaign in 2010. This study analyzed the effect of GDL and the campaign on teen driver-related fatalities and hypothesized that implementation alone was insufficient to decrease deaths. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 1998 to 2016 from New Jersey's Fatal Accident Investigation Unit. In 2005, collaboration with state police added total crash fatalities and teen passenger deaths to the data set. Patterns in data before and after GDL implementation in 2002 and a comprehensive campaign in 2010 were evaluated to determine effects in New Jersey. Paired t tests, analysis of variance, and regression analyses were performed, with p value less than 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Little effect was seen after initiation of GDL, with no change in number of dead teen drivers (44 vs. 49, p > 0.05) or fatal accidents (117 vs.115, p > 0.05) in the 4 years before and after implementation. However, after the comprehensive campaign, decreases are seen in dead teenaged drivers (42 vs. 22, p < 0.005) and total fatal accidents involving teens (107 vs. 61, p < 0.005). Comparing 4 years before and 6 years after the campaign demonstrates decreases in total crash fatalities involving teen drivers (112 vs. 66, p < 0.05) and in the number of dead teenaged passengers in a vehicle operated by another teen (19 vs. 11 p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of GDLs alone may not be an effective strategy in decreasing the number of teen fatalities. A multipronged approach combining comprehensive, public-health based campaign with targeted enforcement is necessary to decrease the number of teen driver-related deaths. Additional studies are needed to assess the relationship between decreased death and compliance with GDLs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective comparative study, level III.

Unrelenting violence: an analysis of 6,322 gunshot wound patients at a Level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Perceptions of violence are too often driven by individual sensational events, yet "routine" gunshot wound (GSW) injuries are largely underreported. Previous studies have mostly focused on fatal GSW. To illuminate this public health problem, we studied the health care burden of interpersonal GSW at a Level I trauma center. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of GSW injuries (excluding self and law enforcement) treated from January 2000 to December 2011. Data collected included body regions injured, number of wounds per patient, and mortality. Costs were calculated using Medicare cost-charge modifiers. Geographic information system mapping of the incident location and home addresses were determined to identify hot spot locations and the characterization of those neighborhoods. RESULTS: A total of 6,322 patients were treated. There were significant increases in patients with three or more wounds (13-22%, p < 0.0001) and three or more body regions injured (6-16%, p < 0.0001). Mortality increased from 9% to 14% (p < 0.0001). Nineteen percent of the patients were never seen by the trauma service. Geographic information system mapping revealed significant clustering of GSWs. Five cities accounted for 85% of the GSWs, with rates per 100,000 ranging from 19 to 108 compared with a national rate of 20. Only 19% of the census tracts had no GSWs during the period, and 39% of the census tracts had at least one GSW per year for 12 years. Fifteen percent of the census tracts accounted for 50% of the GSWs. Seventy percent of the patients were shot in their home city, 25% within 168 m, and 55% within 1,600 m of their home. Total inpatient cost was $115 million, with cost per patient increasing more than three times over the course of the study; 75% were unreimbursed. CONCLUSION: GSW violence remains a significant public health problem, with escalating mortality and health costs. Relying on trauma registry data seriously underestimates GSW numbers. In contrast to episodic mass casualties, routine GSW violence is geographically restricted and not random. To combat this problem, policy makers must understand that the determinants of firearm violence reside at the community level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level II.