Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age. RESULTS: Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Incidence, outcomes and costs of severe sepsis and septic shock in geriatric trauma patients: Analysis of 2,563,463 hospitalizations at 3,284 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis) is a leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients are an increasing proportion of trauma care but little recent, large-scale, research exists in this high-risk demographic. The objectives of this study are to identify incidence, outcomes and costs of sepsis in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients at short-term, nonfederal hospitals 65 years or older with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Sepsis was defined as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes R6520 and R6521. A log-linear model was used to examine the association of Sepsis with mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, Elixhauser score, and Injury Severity Score. Dominance analysis using logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of individual variables in predicting Sepsis. Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study. RESULTS: There were 2,563,436 hospitalizations from 3,284 hospitals (62.8% female; 90.4% White; 72.7% falls; median ISS, 6.0). Incidence of Sepsis was 2.1%. Sepsis patients had significantly worse outcomes. Mortality risk was significantly higher in septic patients (adjusted risk ratio, 3.98, 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.04). Elixhauser score contributed the most to the prediction of Sepsis, followed by ISS (McFadden's R2 = 9.7% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis/septic shock occurs infrequently among geriatric trauma patients but is associated with increased mortality and resource utilization. Pre-existing comorbidities influence Sepsis occurrence more than Injury Severity Score or age in this group, identifying a population at high risk. Clinical management of geriatric trauma patients should focus on rapid identification and prompt aggressive action in high-risk patients to minimize the occurrence of sepsis and maximize survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Variation in hospice use among trauma centers may impact analysis of geriatric trauma outcomes: An analysis of 1,961,228 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospitalizations from 2,317 facilities.

BACKGROUND: Defining discharges to hospice as "deaths" is vital for properly assessing trauma center outcomes. This is critical with older patients as a higher proportion is discharged to hospice. The goals of this study were to measure rates of hospice use, evaluate hospice discharge rates by trauma center level, and identify variables affecting hospice use in geriatric trauma. METHODS: Patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Standard Analytical Files for 2017 to 2019, 65 years or older, with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision , code, at hospitals with ≥50 trauma patients per year were selected. Total deaths was defined as inpatient deaths plus hospice discharges. Dominance analysis identified the most important contributors to a model of hospice use. RESULTS: A total of 1.96 million hospitalizations from 2,317 hospitals (Level I, 10%; II, 14%; III, 18%; IV, 7%; none, 51%) were included. Level I's had significantly lower raw hospice discharge values compared with Levels II and III (I, 0.030; II, 0.035; III, 0.035; p < 0.05) but not Level IV (0.032) or nontrauma centers (0.030) ( p > 0.05). Adjusted Level I hospice discharge rates were lower than all other facility types (Level I, 0.026; II, 0.031; III, 0.034; IV, 0.033; nontrauma, 0.030; p < 0.05). Hospice discharges as a proportion of total deaths varied by level and were lowest (0.38) at Level I centers. Dominance analysis showed that proportion of patients with Injury Severity Score of >15 contributed most to explaining hospice utilization rates (3.2%) followed by trauma center level (2.3%), proportion White (1.9%), proportion female (1.5%), and urban/rural setting (1.4%). CONCLUSION: In this near population-based geriatric trauma analysis, Level I centers had the lowest hospice discharge rate, but hospice discharge rates varied significantly by trauma level and should be included in mortality assessments of hospital outcomes. As the population ages, accurate assessment of geriatric trauma outcomes becomes more critical. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal utilization of hospice in end-of-life decision making for geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

The burden of geriatric traumatic brain injury on trauma systems: Analysis of 348,800 Medicare inpatient claims.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in older adults. The aim of this study was to characterize the burden of TBI in older adults by describing demographics, care location, diagnoses, outcomes, and payments in this high-risk group. METHODS: Using 2016-2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Standard Analytical Files (IPSAF), patients >65 years with TBI (>1 injury ICD-10 starting with "S06") were selected. Trauma center levels were linked to the IPSAF file via American Hospital Association Hospital Provider ID and fuzzy-string matching. Patient variables were compared across trauma center levels. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight thousand eight hundred inpatients (50.4% female; 87.1% white) from 2963 US hospitals were included. Level I/II trauma centers treated 66.9% of patients; non-trauma centers treated 21.5%. Overall inter-facility transfer rate was 19.2%; in Level I/II trauma centers transfers-in represented 23.3% of admissions. Significant TBI (Head AIS ≥3) was present in 70.0%. Most frequent diagnoses were subdural hemorrhage (56.6%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (30.6%). Neurosurgical operations were performed in 10.9% of patients and operative rates were similar regardless of center level. Total unadjusted mortality for the sample was 13.9%, with a mortality of 8.1% for those who expired in-hospital, and an additional 5.8% for those discharged to hospice. Medicare payments totaled $4.91B, with the majority (73.4%) going to Level I/II trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: This study fills a gap in TBI research by demonstrating that although the majority of older adult TBI patients in the United States receive care at Level I/II trauma centers, a substantial percentage are managed at other facilities, despite 1 in 10 requiring neurosurgical operation regardless of level of trauma center. This analysis provides preliminary data on the function of regionalized trauma care for older adult TBI care. Future studies assessing the efficacy of early care guidelines in this population are warranted.

The public health burden of geriatric trauma: Analysis of 2,688,008 hospitalizations from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient claims.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric trauma care (GTC) represents an increasing proportion of injury care, but associated public health research on outcomes and expenditures is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe GTC characteristics, location, diagnoses, and expenditures. METHODS: Patients at short-term nonfederal hospitals, 65 years or older, with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Trauma center levels were linked to Inpatient Standard Analytical Files data via American Hospital Association Hospital ID and fuzzy string matching. Demographics, care location, diagnoses, and expenditures were compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,688,008 hospitalizations (62% female; 90% White; 71% falls; mean Injury Severity Score, 6.5) from 3,286 hospitals were included, comprising 8.5% of all Medicare inpatient hospitalizations. Level I centers encompassed 7.2% of the institutions (n = 236) but 21.2% of hospitalizations, while nontrauma centers represented 58.5% of institutions (n = 1,923) and 37.7% of hospitalizations. Compared with nontrauma centers, patients at Level I centers had higher Elixhauser scores (9.0 vs. 8.8) and Injury Severity Score (7.4 vs. 6.0; p < 0.0001). The most frequent primary diagnosis at all centers was hip/femur fracture (28.3%), followed by traumatic brain injury (10.1%). Expenditures totaled $32.9 billion for trauma-related hospitalizations, or 9.1% of total Medicare hospitalization expenditures and approximately 1.1% of the annual Medicare budget. The overall mortality rate was 3.5%. CONCLUSION: Geriatric trauma care accounts for 8.5% of all inpatient GTC and a similar percentage of expenditures, the most common injury being hip/femur fractures. The largest proportion of GTC occurs at nontrauma centers, emphasizing their vital role in trauma care. Public health prevention programs and GTC guidelines should be implemented by all hospitals, not just trauma centers. Further research is required to determine the optimal role of trauma systems in GTC, establish data-driven triage guidelines, and define the impact of trauma centers and nontrauma centers on GTC mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, Level III.

Critical Role of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Physicians in Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version Data from 186,779 Patients and 168 Hospitals in a National Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency surgery patients are unique with regard to the sudden and unexpected nature of their hospitalization and this can adversely affect patient satisfaction, but, to our knowledge, no large study exists examining this issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the major factors that affect satisfaction scores in trauma and emergency surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version survey data from patients discharged in 2018-2019 from facilities in a national hospital system were obtained. Patients were categorized as trauma, emergency surgery, or direct admit surgery (elective surgery). Individual Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version question scores were regressed on the score for "overall rating" to determine the primary, secondary, and tertiary satisfaction drivers. RESULTS: There were 186,779 patients from 168 hospitals included. As expected, the primary determinant of patient satisfaction was nursing communication for all groups. However, trauma and emergency surgery patients differed from elective surgery patients in that physician communication was the second most important factor in patient satisfaction, accounting for 12.0% (trauma) and 8.6% (emergency surgery) of the total variability in the overall rating beyond the variability explained by the primary driver. If physician communication received low ratings, it was unlikely that high scores in other metrics could compensate to bring the overall score above the 50th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care surgeons appear to play a uniquely important role in support of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version scores. These data emphasize the importance of physician communication, particularly when a prehospital physician-patient relationship does not exist. Future research should explore specific mechanisms by which physicians effectively communicate with patients.