Modifiable Factors Related to Firearm Homicides: A Broader View of Our Lane.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify modifiable factors related to firearm homicide (FH). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Many socioeconomic, legislative and behavioral risk factors impact FH. Most studies have evaluated these risk factors in isolation, but they coexist in a complex and ever-changing American society. We hypothesized that both restrictive firearm laws and socioeconomic support would correlate with reduced FH rates. METHODS: To perform our ecologic cross-sectional study, we queried the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) for 2013-2016 state FH data. We retrieved firearm access estimates from the RAND State-Level Firearm Ownership Database. Alcohol use and access to care data were captured from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Detached youth rates, socioeconomic support data and poverty metrics were captured from US Census data for each state in each year. Firearm laws were obtained from the State Firearms Law Database. Variables with significant FH association were entered into a final multivariable panel linear regression with fixed effect for state. RESULTS: A total of 49,610 FH occurred in 2013-2016 (median FH rate: 3.9:100,000, range: 0.07-11.2). In univariate analysis, increases in concealed carry limiting laws ( P =0.012), detached youth rates ( P <0.001), socioeconomic support ( P <0.001) and poverty rates ( P <0.001) correlated with decreased FH. Higher rates of heavy drinking ( P =0.036) and the presence of stand your ground doctrines ( P =0.045) were associated with increased FH. Background checks, handgun limiting laws, and weapon access were not correlated with FH. In multivariable regression, increased access to food benefits for those in poverty [ß: -0.132, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.182 to -0.082, P <0.001] and laws limiting concealed carry (ß: -0.543, 95% CI: -0.942 to -0.144, P =0.008) were associated with decreased FH rates. Allowance of stand your ground was associated with more FHs (ß: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.069-2.960, P <0.040). CONCLUSIONS: The causes and potential solutions to FH are complex and closely tied to public policy. Our data suggests that certain types of socioeconomic support and firearm restrictive legislation should be emphasized in efforts to reduce firearm deaths in America.

Operative and Nonoperative Outcomes of Emergency General Surgery Conditions: An Observational Study Using a Novel Instrumental Variable.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of operative versus nonoperative management of emergency general surgery conditions on short-term and long-term outcomes. BACKGROUND: Many emergency general surgery conditions can be managed either operatively or nonoperatively, but high-quality evidence to guide management decisions is scarce. METHODS: We included 507,677 Medicare patients treated for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. Operative management was compared with nonoperative management using a preference-based instrumental variable analysis and near-far matching to minimize selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Outcomes were mortality, complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: For hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions, operative management was associated with lower risk of mortality at 30 days [-2.6% (95% confidence interval: -4.0, -1.3)], 90 days [-4.7% (-6.50, -2.8)], and 180 days [-6.4% (-8.5, -4.2)]. Among 56,582 intestinal obstruction patients, operative management was associated with a higher risk of inpatient mortality [2.8% (0.7, 4.9)] but no significant difference thereafter. For upper gastrointestinal conditions, operative management was associated with a 9.7% higher risk of in-hospital mortality (6.4, 13.1), which increased over time. There was a 6.9% higher risk of inpatient mortality (3.6, 10.2) with operative management for colorectal conditions, which increased over time. For general abdominal conditions, operative management was associated with 12.2% increased risk of inpatient mortality (8.7, 15.8). This effect was attenuated at 30 days [8.5% (3.8, 13.2)] and nonsignificant thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of operative emergency general surgery management varied across conditions and over time. For colorectal and upper gastrointestinal conditions, outcomes are superior with nonoperative management, whereas surgery is favored for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions. For obstructions and general abdominal conditions, results were equivalent overall. These findings may support patients, clinicians, and families making these challenging decisions.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Under the Lens: Team Perception of Trauma Video Review.

BACKGROUND: Video-based assessment and review are becoming increasingly common, and trauma video review (TVR) has been shown to be an effective educational, quality improvement, and research tool. Yet, trauma team perception of TVR remains incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated positive and negative perceptions of TVR across multiple team member groups. We hypothesized that members of the trauma team would find TVR educational and that anxiety would be low across all groups. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was provided to nurses, trainees, and faculty during weekly multidisciplinary trauma performance improvement conference following each TVR activity. Surveys assessed perception of performance improvement and anxiety or apprehension (Likert scale: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"). We report individual and normalized cumulative scores (average of responses for each positive [n = 6] and negative [n = 4] question stem). RESULTS: We analyzed 146 surveys over 8 months, with 100% completion rate. Respondents were trainees (58%), faculty (29%), and nurses (13%). Of the trainees, 73% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3 and 27% were PGY 4-9. Of all respondents, 84% had participated previously in a TVR conference. Respondents reported an improved perception of resuscitation education quality and personal leadership skills development. Participants found TVR to be more educational than punitive overall. Analysis of team member types showed lower scores for faculty for all positive stemmed questions. Trainees were more likely to agree with negative stemmed questions if they were a lower PGY, and nurses were least likely to agree with negative stemmed questions. CONCLUSIONS: TVR improves trauma resuscitation education in a conference setting, with trainees and nurses reporting the greatest benefit. Nurses were noted to be the least apprehensive about TVR.

Extending Trauma Quality Improvement Beyond Trauma Centers: Hospital Variation in Outcomes Among Nontrauma Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) conducts a robust quality improvement program for ACS-verified trauma centers, yet many injured patients receive care at non-accredited facilities. This study tested for variation in outcomes across non-trauma hospitals and characterized hospitals associated with increased mortality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The study included state trauma registry data of 37,670 patients treated between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Clinical data were supplemented with data from the American Hospital Association and US Department of Agriculture, allowing comparisons among 100 nontrauma hospitals. METHODS: Using Bayesian techniques, risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted rates of mortality and interfacility transfer, as well as Emergency Departments length-of-stay (ED-LOS) among patients transferred from EDs were calculated for each hospital. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients ages >55 years and those with decreased Glasgow coma scores (GCS). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. RESULTS: Mortality varied 3-fold (0.9%-3.1%); interfacility transfer rates varied 46-fold (2.1%-95.6%); and mean ED-LOS varied 3-fold (81-231 minutes). Hospitals that were high and low statistical outliers were identified for each outcome, and subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable hospital variation. Metropolitan hospitals were associated increased mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7, P = 0.004], decreased likelihood of interfacility transfer (OR 0.7, P ≤ 0.001), and increased ED-LOS (coef. 0.1, P ≤ 0.001) when compared with nonmetropolitan hospitals and risk-adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in trauma outcomes exists across nontrauma hospitals. Efforts to improve trauma quality should include engagement of nontrauma hospitals to reduce variation in outcomes of injured patients treated at those facilities.

Multimorbidity Confers Greater Risk for Older Patients in Emergency General Surgery Than the Presence of Multiple Comorbidities: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of multimorbidity on outcomes for older emergency general surgery patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to understand whether having multiple comorbidities confers the same amount of risk as specific combinations of comorbidities (multimorbidity) for a patient undergoing emergency general surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using state discharge data. SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent an operation for an emergency general surgery condition in New York, Florida, or Pennsylvania (2012-2013). MEASURES: Patients were classified as multimorbid using Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs). Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay and discharge status. RESULTS: Of 312,160 patients, a large minority (37.4%) were multimorbid. Non-QCS patients did not have a specific combination of comorbidities to satisfy a QCS, but 64.1% of these patients had 3+ comorbid conditions. Multimorbidity was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (10.5% vs. 3.9%, P <0.001), decreased rates of discharge to home (16.2% vs. 37.1%, P <0.001), and longer length of stay (10.4 d±13.5 vs. 6.7 d±9.3, P <0.001) when compared with non-QCS patients. Risks varied between individual QCSs. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity, defined by satisfying a specific QCS, is strongly associated with poor outcomes for older patients requiring emergency general surgery in the United States. Variation in risk of in-hospital mortality, discharge status, and length of stay between individual QCSs suggests that multimorbidity does not carry the same prognostic weight as having multiple comorbidities-the specifics of which are important in setting expectations for individual, complex patients.

Differences Between Center-level Outcomes in Emergency and Elective General Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Center-level outcome metrics have long been tracked in elective surgery (ELS). Despite recent interest in measuring emergency general surgery (EGS) quality, centers are often compared based on elective or combined outcomes. Therefore, quality of care for emergency surgery specifically is unknown. METHODS: We extracted data on EGS and ELS patients from the 2016 State Inpatient Databases of Florida, New York, and Kentucky. Centers that performed >100 ELS and EGS operations were included. Risk-adjusted mortality, complication, and failure to rescue (FTR, death after complication) rates were calculated and observed-to-expected ratios were calculated by center for ELS and EGS patients. Centers were determined to be high or low outliers if the 90% CI for the observed: expected ratio excluded 1. We calculated the frequency with which centers demonstrated a different performance status between EGS and ELS. Kendall's tau values were calculated to assess for correlation between EGS and ELS status. RESULTS: A total of 204 centers with 45,500 EGS cases and 49,380 ELS cases met inclusion criteria. Overall mortality, complication, and FTR rates were 1.7%, 8.0%, and 14.5% respectively. There was no significant correlation between mortality performance in EGS and ELS, with 36 centers in a different performance category (high outlier, low outlier, as expected) in EGS than in ELS. The correlation for complication rates was 0.20, with 60 centers in different categories for EGS and ELS. For FTR rates, there was no correlation, with 16 centers changing category. CONCLUSIONS: There was minimal correlation between outcomes for ELS and EGS. High performers in one category were rarely high performers in the other. There may be important differences between the processes of care that are important for EGS and ELS outcomes that may yield meaningful opportunities for quality improvement.

The Impact of Socially Stigmatized Preexisting Conditions on Outcomes After Injury.

BACKGROUND: Socially stigmatized preexisting conditions (SSPECs), including alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), and major psychiatric illness, may lead to provider minimization of patient symptoms and have been associated with negative outcomes. However, the impact of SSPECs on failure to rescue (FTR) has not been evaluated. We hypothesized that SSPEC patients would have increased probability of complications, mortality, and FTR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Trauma Data Bank, including patients aged ≥18 y and excluding burn victims, patients with Injury Severity Score <9, and non-SSPEC patients with drug or alcohol withdrawal. We defined SSPECs using the National Trauma Data Bank's comorbidity recording codes for AUD, DUD, and major psychiatric illnesses. We built multivariable logistic regression models to determine the relationships between SSPECs and complications, mortality, and FTR. RESULTS: We included 365,801 patients (62% male, 76% White, median age 56 y [interquartile range 35-74], median Injury Severity Score 10 [interquartile range 9-17]). After adjusting for patient and injury characteristics, SSPEC patients were more likely to have complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-1.79), less likely to die (OR 0.43, CI 0.38-0.48), and less likely to have FTR (OR 0.34, CI 0.26-0.43). SSPEC patients had a significantly higher complication rate (12.4% versus 7.2%; P < 0.001). After excluding drug or alcohol withdrawal, the complication rate remained significantly higher for SSPEC patients (9.3% versus 7.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although SSPEC patients have lower odds of mortality and FTR, they are at higher probability of complications after injury. Further investigation into the causality behind the higher complications despite lower mortality and FTR is warranted.

The Short and the Long of it: Timing of Mortality for Older Adults in a State Trauma System.

BACKGROUND: The impact of injury extends beyond the hospital stay, but trauma center performance metrics typically focus on in-hospital mortality. We compared risk adjusted rates of in-hospital and long-term mortality among Pennsylvania trauma centers. We hypothesized that centers with low rates of in-hospital mortality would also have low rates of long-term mortality. METHODS: We identified injured patients (age ≥ 65) admitted to Pennsylvania trauma centers in 2013 and 2014 using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study, a robust, state-wide trauma registry. We matched trauma registry records to Medicare claims from the y 2013 to 2015. Matching variables included admission date and patient demographics including date of birth, zip, sex, and race and/or ethnicity. Outcomes examined were inpatient, 30-day, and 1-y mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models including presenting physiology, comorbidities, injury characteristics, and demographics were developed to calculate expected mortality rates for each trauma center at each time point. Trauma center performance was assessed using observed-to-expected ratios and ranking for in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-y mortality. RESULTS: Of the 15,451 patients treated at 28 centers, 8.1% died before discharge or were discharged to hospice. Another 3.4% died within 30 d, and another 14.7% died within 1 y of injury. Of patients who survived hospitalization but died within 30 d, 92.5% were injured due to fall, and 75.0% sustained head injuries. Survival at 1 y was higher in patients discharged home (88.4%), compared to those discharged to a skilled nursing facility or long-term acute care hospital (72.7% and 52.6%, respectively). Three centers were identified as outliers (two low and one high) for in-hospital mortality, none of which were outliers when the horizon was stretched to 30 d from injury. At 30 d, two different low and two different high outliers were found. CONCLUSION: Nearly one-in-three injured older adults who die within 30 d of injury dies after hospital discharge. Hospital rankings for in-hospital mortality correlate poorly with long-term outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of looking beyond survival to discharge for quality improvement and benchmarking.

Pain Interference and Decreased Physical Function After Emergency General Surgery: Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measures in healthcare, but this area remains largely unexplored in emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions. We hypothesized that postoperative patients in our EGS clinic would report detrimental changes in several domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: We administered the PROMIS-29, a HRQoL measurement tool, to postoperative patients in our EGS clinic (11/2019-4/2020). Patients responded to measures of 7 domains. Domain scores were converted to t-scores, allowing comparison to average values within the general US population (set to 50 by definition). We report the mean scores within each domain. Higher scores in negatively worded domains (e.g., "Depression") are worse; vice versa for positively worded domains (e.g., "Physical Function"). Changes in scores at subsequent clinic visits were analyzed using the paired t-test. RESULTS: There were 97 patients who completed the PROMIS-29 at the first postoperative visit. Mean (SD) age was 54.1 (16.2) years; 51% were male. There was no difference in our patients from the average US population in the domains of Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities, Anxiety, Fatigue, and Sleep Disturbance. However, EGS patients experienced significantly greater Pain Interference (56.1 [54.1, 58.1]) and worse Physical Function (40.6 [38.4, 42.7]) than average. For patients seen in follow-up twice (13 patients, median interval between clinic visits 21 days), there were improvements in the domains of Physical Function (42.9 vs 37.3; p = 0.04) and Fatigue. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate room for improvement in the domains of pain interference and physical function. While positive changes over a relatively short period of time are encouraging, consideration should be given to patient perceptions of illness and lifestyle impact when managing EGS patients.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1-Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. RESULTS: Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Complications and Failure to Rescue After Abdominal Surgery for Trauma in Obese Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is considered an epidemic in the United States, there is mixed evidence regarding the impact of obesity on outcomes after traumatic injury and major surgery. We hypothesized that obese patients undergoing trauma laparotomy would be at increased risk of failure to rescue (FTR), defined as death after a complication. METHODS: We analyzed trauma registry data for adult patients who underwent abdominal exploration for trauma at all 30 level I and II Pennsylvania trauma centers, 2011-2014. We used competing risks regression to identify significant risk factors for complications. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify significant risk factors for FTR. RESULTS: Of 95,806 admitted patients, 15,253 (15.9%) were categorized as obese. Overall, 3228 (3.4%) underwent laparotomy, including 2681 (83.1%) nonobese and 547 (17.0%) obese patients. Among obese patients, 47.2% had at least one complication and 28.7% had two or more complications, compared with 33.5% and 18.7% of nonobese patients, respectively. The most common complication was pneumonia (15.0% of obese and 10.5% of nonobese patients; P = 0.003), followed by sepsis (8.8% versus 4.2%; P < 0.001) and deep vein thrombosis (8.4% versus 5.9%; P < 0.001). Obesity was independently associated with complications (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6). In multivariable analysis, obesity was not associated with FTR (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is a risk factor for complications after traumatic injury but not for FTR. The increased risk of complications may reflect processes of care that are not attuned to the needs of this population, offering opportunities for improvement in care.

Failure to Rescue in Emergency Surgery: Is Precedence a Problem?

BACKGROUND: Mortality in emergency general surgery (EGS) is often attributed to patient condition, which may obscure opportunities for improvement in care. Identifying failure to rescue (FTR), or death after complication, may reveal these opportunities. FTR has been problematic in trauma secondary to low precedence rates (proportion of deaths preceded by complication). We sought to evaluate this in EGS, hypothesizing that precedence is lower in EGS than in similar elective operations. METHODS: National Inpatient Sample data from January 2014 through September 2015 were used. 150,027 adult operative EGS complete cases were defined by emergent admission, one of seven International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) procedure group codes for common EGS operations, and timing to operation (<48 h); these represent 750,135 patients under the National Inpatient Sample sampling design. Deaths were precedented if one of eight prespecified complications was identified. Chi-squared tests were used to compare precedence rates between selected emergent and elective operations. RESULTS: There was a 2.5% mortality rate in this cohort of operative EGS patients, with an 84.1% (95% CI: 82.7%-85.4%) precedence rate. Among the seven listed procedure groups, those with clinically reasonable elective analogs were cholecystectomy, colon resection, and laparotomy. Emergent versus elective precedence rates were 90.2% versus 82.0% (P = 0.004) for colon resection, 81.3% versus 86.8% (P = 0.26) for cholecystectomy, and 68.8% versus 92.7% (P < 0.001) for laparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Precedence rates in EGS were higher than expected and were similar to previously published rates in nonemergent surgery, suggesting that FTR is likely to be reliable using standard methodology. Management of complications after emergency operation may represent significant opportunities to prevent mortality.

Obesity is Associated With Mortality and Complications After Trauma: A State-Wide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: With rising obesity rates in the United States, knowledge of obesity's impact on trauma outcomes is essential to providing high-quality care. The interaction between body mass and outcomes is unclear, with existing literature demonstrating conflicting results. We hypothesized that in a broad cohort of trauma patients, obesity would be associated with in-hospital mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2014-2015 Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study (PTOS) registry, a state-wide registry to which all accredited Pennsylvania trauma centers are required to report. We included nonburn adult trauma patients admitted to level I and II centers. Because PTOS lacks height data, weight thresholds of 111.75 kg for men and 95.05 kg for women were used, which correspond to BMI = 30 kg/m2 at the 99th height percentile in the United States. We tested the association of obesity with in-hospital mortality using logistic regression to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: We included 46,329 patients in a complete case analysis. In univariate logistic regression analysis, injury mechanism, presence of a complication, age, sex, need for blood transfusion, Revised Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score were associated with mortality. On multivariate analysis, including these factors, obesity was significantly associated with mortality (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.69). Respiratory, thromboembolic, and infectious complications, as defined by PTOS, were more common in obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for patient and injury characteristics, obesity is associated with increased mortality following trauma. This information may help resolve previous conflicting evidence and guide providers in caring for the obese patient.

Team Assessment and Decision Making Is Associated With Outcomes: A Trauma Video Review Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is a critical element of trauma resuscitation. Assessment tools such as T-NOTECHS (Trauma NOn-TECHnical Skills) exist, but correlation with patient outcomes is unclear. Using emergency department thoracotomy (EDT), we sought to describe T-NOTECHS scores during resuscitations. We hypothesized that patients undergoing EDT whose resuscitations had better scores would be more likely to have return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). METHODS: Continuously recording video was used to review all captured EDTs over a 24-mo period. We used a modification of the validated T-NOTECHS instrument to measure five domains on a 3-point scale (1 = best, 2 = average, 3 = worst). A total T-NOTECHS score was calculated by one of three reviewers. The primary outcome was ROSC. ROSC was defined as an organized rhythm no longer requiring internal cardiac compressions. Associations between variables and ROSC were examined using univariate regression. RESULTS: Sixty-one EDTs were captured. Nineteen patients had ROSC (31%) and 42 (69%) did not. The median T-NOTECHS score for all resuscitations was 8 [IQR 6-10]. As demographic and injury data (age, gender, mechanism, signs of life) were not associated with ROSC in univariate analysis, they were not considered for inclusion in a multivariable regression model. The association between overall T-NOTECHS score and ROSC did not reach statistical significance, but examination of the individual components of the T-NOTECHS score demonstrated that, compared to resuscitations that had "average" (2) or "worst" (3) scores on "Assessment and Decision Making," resuscitations with a "best" score were 5 times more likely to lead to ROSC. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between overall T-NOTECHS scores and ROSC did not reach statistical significance, better scores in the domain of assessment and decision making are associated with improved rates of ROSC in patients arriving in cardiac arrest who undergo EDT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Therapeutic/Care Management.

Making the news: Victim characteristics associated with media reporting on firearm injury.

Firearm injury is a public health crisis in the United States. Selective media coverage may contribute to incomplete public understanding of firearm injury. To better understand how firearm injury is communicated to the public, we analyzed media coverage of intentional, interpersonal shootings in 3 U.S. cities. We hypothesized that multiple shootings and fatal shootings would be more likely to make the news, as would shootings affecting children, women, and white individuals. We compared police department data on shootings to media reports drawn from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) for 2017 in Philadelphia, PA, Rochester, NY, and Cincinnati, OH. GVA reports were matched to police data by shooting date, location, victim age, and gender. Matched victims were compared to unmatched using chi2 tests for categorical variables and Kruskal Wallis tests for continuous variables. Philadelphia police reported 1216 firearm assault victims; Cincinnati police reported 407; and Rochester police reported 178. News reports covered 562 (46.2%), 222 (54.6%), and 116 (65.2%) victims, respectively. Fatal shootings were more often reported as were shootings involving multiple victims or women. Half of shooting victims did not make the news. Selective reporting likely limits awareness of the public health impact of firearm injury. Researchers and policy makers should work with journalists and editors to improve the quantity and content of reporting on firearm injury.

The Location and Timing of Failure-to-Rescue Events Across a Statewide Trauma System.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR) refers to death after a major complication. Defining the optimal context in which to reduce FTR after injury requires knowledge of where and when FTR events occur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients >16 y with a minimum Abbreviated Injury Score ≥2 at all 30 level I and II Pennsylvania trauma centers (2007-2015). Location and timing of the first major complication were collected. Complication, mortality, and FTR rates were calculated by location (prehospital, emergency department, operating room, stepdown unit, interventional radiology, intensive care unit (ICU), radiology, and the surgical ward) and by postadmission day. Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests were used to compare variables. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 15,388 of 178,602 (8.6%) patients. The median age was 58 y (interquartile range [IQR] 37-77 y), 78% were Caucasian, 68% were male, 89% were bluntly injured, and the median Injury Severity Score was 19 (IQR 10-29). Death occurred in 2512 of 15,388 patients with a major complication, for an FTR rate of 16.3%. Compared with non-FTR, FTR had earlier major complications (median day 2 [IQR 0-5 d] versus day 4 [IQR 2-8 d], P < 0.001). FTR rates were highest in the prehospital setting (42%), the operating room (33%), and the emergency department (32%), but the greatest number (1608 of 2512 total FTR events, 64%) occurred in the ICU. Pulmonary (32%) and cardiac (26%) complications most frequently contributed to FTR deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to reduce FTR after injury should focus on pulmonary and cardiac complications in the ICU.

A Statewide Assessment of Rib Fixation Patterns Reveals Missed Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are a common consequence of traumatic injury and can result in significant debilitation. Rib fixation offers fracture stabilization, resulting in improved outcomes and decreased pulmonary complications, especially in high-risk groups such as those with flail segments. However, commercial rib fixation has only recently become clinically prevalent, and we hypothesize that significant variability exists in its utilization based on injury pattern and trauma center. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Trauma System Foundation database was queried for all multiple rib fracture patients occurring statewide in 2016 and 2017. Demographics including the presence of flail and the occurrence of rib fixation was abstracted. Outcomes were compared between the fixation group and all other rib fracture patients. Deidentified treating trauma center was used to elicit center-level disparities. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 12,910 patients with multiple rib fractures, of which 135 had flail segments. 57 patients underwent rib fixation, and 10 of which had a flail segment. Compared with the nonoperative cohort, those who underwent rib fixation were younger (52.5 versus 61.5, P = 0.0009), similar in gender (68% versus 62% male, P = 0.373), and race (80% versus 86% White, P = 0.239). The rib fixation group had higher Injury Severity Scores (19.4 versus 15.4 P = 0.0011). The timing of rib fixation was most frequent within 1 wk of injury but extended out through 3 wk; the occurrence of pulmonary complications had a similar distribution. The frequency of rib fixation rates within trauma centers was not associated with rib fracture patient volume, and 37.1% of multiple rib fracture patients were cared for at centers that did not perform rib fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Rib fixation is infrequently used at trauma centers in Pennsylvania. It is used more frequently in nonflail injuries, and its use may be associated with the occurrence of pulmonary complications. Significant center-level variation exists in rib fixation rates among multiple fractured patients. A significant number of patients are cared for at centers that do not perform rib fixation. Further research is needed to illicit better-defined indications for operative fixation, and opportunities exist to further the penetrance of this practice to all trauma centers.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: Assessing Need in an Urban Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has emerged as a bridge to definitive hemostasis in select patients with noncompressible torso hemorrhage. The number of patients who might benefit from this procedure, however, remains incompletely defined. We hypothesized that we could quantify the number of patients presenting to our center over a 2-year period who may have benefited from REBOA. METHODS: All patients presenting to our trauma center from 2014 to 2015 were included. Potential REBOA patients were identified based on anatomic injuries. We used ICD-9 codes to identify REBOA-amenable injury patterns and physiology. We excluded patients with injuries contraindicating REBOA. We then used chart review by two REBOA-experienced independent reviewers to assess each potential REBOA candidate, evaluate the accuracy of our algorithm, and to identify a cohort of confirmed REBOA candidates. RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred eighteen patients were included of which 666 had injuries potentially amenable to REBOA. Three hundred thirty-five patients were hemodynamically unstable, and 309 patients had contraindications to REBOA. Sixty-four patients had both injury patterns and physiology amenable to REBOA with no contraindications, and these patients were identified as potential REBOA candidates. Of these, detailed independent two physician chart review identified 29 patients (45%) as confirmed REBOA candidates (interrater reliability kappa = 0.94, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our database query identified patients with indications for REBOA but overestimated the number of REBOA candidates. To accurately quantify the REBOA candidate population at a given center, an algorithm to identify potential patients should be combined with chart review. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic study, level V.