Post-discharge Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Among Hispanic/Latinx Injury Survivors: English Language Proficiency Matters.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare post-discharge outcomes and healthcare utilization between English-speaking non-Hispanic White (NHW), English-speaking Hispanic/Latinx (ESHL), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latinx (SSHL) survivors of traumatic injury. BACKGROUND: While there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare utilization and post-discharge outcomes after injury, the role of English language proficiency in these disparities remains unclear. METHODS: Moderate to severely injured adults from three level-1 trauma centers completed an interview in English or Spanish between 6-12 months post-injury to assess physical health-related quality of life (SF-12-PCS), return to work, and post-discharge healthcare utilization. The language used in the interview was used as a proxy for English-language proficiency, and participants were categorized as either NHW (reference), ESHL, or SSHL. Multivariable regression models estimated independent associations between language and race/ethnicity with SF-12-PCS, return to work, and post-discharge healthcare utilization outcomes. RESULTS: 3,304 injury survivors were followed: 2,977 (90%) NHW, 203 (6%) ESHL, and 124 (4%) SSHL. In adjusted analyses, no significant differences were observed between ESHL and NHW injury survivors for any outcomes at 6-12 months post-injury. However, SSHL injury survivors exhibited a lower mean SF-12-PCS (41.6 vs. 38.5), -3.07 (95% CI=-5.47, -0.66; P=0.012), decreased odds of returning to work (OR=0.47; CI=0.27 to 0.81; P=0.007), and were less likely to engage in non-injury related outpatient visits, such as primary care visits (OR=0.45; 95% CI 0.28, 0.73; P=0.001), compared to NHW patients. CONCLUSION: Hispanic/Latinx injury survivors have worse post-discharge outcomes and lower non-injury-related healthcare utilization than NHW if they have limited English-language proficiency. Addressing LEP-related barriers to care could help mitigate outcome and healthcare utilization disparities among Hispanic/Latinx injury survivors.

The Relationship Between Body Mass Index and Long-Term Outcomes Following Traumatic Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the relationship between body mass index (BMI), a function of mass and height (masskg/height2m) and long-term outcomes among traumatic injury survivors. In this prospective cohort study, we investigate the relationship between BMI and long-term health outcomes in the trauma population. METHODS: Adult trauma survivors with an injury severity score ≥9 admitted to one of three level 1 trauma centers, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022, were surveyed via telephone between 6 and 12 mo postinjury. Participants were stratified into one of five groups by BMI at the time of trauma: L-BMI (BMI <18.5), N-BMI (BMI 18.5-24.9), H1-BMI (BMI 25-29.9), H2-BMI (BMI 30-34.9), and H3-BMI (BMI ≥35); N-BMI was used as the referent. Mental and physical health-related quality of life scores, pain, new functional limitations, and hospital readmissions were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare outcomes between study groups. RESULTS: 3830 patients were included. Of those, 124 were L-BMI (3.2%), 1495 N-BMI (39%), 1318 H1-BMI (34.4%), 541 H2-BMI (14.1%), and 352 H3-BMI (9.2%). L-BMI was associated with adverse physical (b = -3.13, CI = -5.71 to -0.55, P = 0.017) and mental health (b = -3.17, CI = -5.87 to -0.46, P = 0.022) outcomes 6-12 mo postinjury compared to the referent. H1-BMI and H2-BMI had higher odds of wo`rse physical outcomes (b = -1.47, CI = -2.42 to -0.52, P = 0.002; b = -3.11, CI = - 4.33 to -1.88, P ≤ 0.001, respectively) and chronic pain (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.24, CI = 1.04-1.47, P = 0.016; aOR = 1.52, CI = 1.21-1.90, P ≤ 0.001, respectively). Patients with H3-BMI had higher odds of worse physical outcomes compared to N-BMI (b = -4.82, CI = -6.28 to -3.37, P ≤ 0.001), chronic pain (aOR = 2.11, CI = 1.61-2.78, P ≤ 0.001), all-cause hospital readmissions (aOR = 1.62, CI = 1.10-2.34, P = 0.013), and new functional limitations (aOR = 1.39, CI = 1.08-1.79, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BMI variance above or below N-BMI is associated with worse long-term outcomes following traumatic injury.

Patients Lost to Follow-up After Injury: Who are They and What are Their Long-Term Outcomes?

INTRODUCTION: Trauma patients are at high risk for loss to follow-up (LTFU) after hospital discharge. We sought to identify risk factors for LTFU and investigate associations between LTFU and long-term health outcomes in the trauma population. METHODS: Trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥9 admitted to one of three Level-I trauma centers, 2015-2020, were surveyed via telephone 6 mo after injury. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with LTFU and several long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3609 patients analyzed, 808 (22.4%) were LTFU. Patients LTFU were more likely to be male (71% versus 61%, P = 0.001), Black (22% versus 14%, P = 0.003), have high school or lower education (50% versus 42%, P = 0.003), be publicly insured (23% versus 13%, P < 0.001), have a penetrating injury (13% versus 8%, P = 0.006), have a shorter length of stay (3.64 d ± 4.09 versus 5.06 ± 5.99, P < 0.001), and be discharged home without assistance (79% versus 50%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, patients who followed up were more likely to require assistance at home (6% versus 11%; odds ratio [OR] 2.23, 1.26-3.92, P = 0.005), have new functional limitations (11% versus 26%; OR 2.91, 1.97-4.31, P = < 0.001), have daily pain (30% versus 48%; OR 2.11, 1.54-2.88, P = < 0.001), and have more injury-related emergency department visits (7% versus 10%; OR 1.93, 1.15-3.22, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable populations are more likely to be LTFU after injury. Clinicians should be aware of potential racial and socioeconomic disparities in follow-up care after traumatic injury. Future studies investigating improvement strategies in follow-up care should be considered.

Moderation Effects of Daily Behavior on Associations Between Symptoms and Social Participation Outcomes After Burn Injury: A 6-Month Digital Phenotyping Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the moderation effects of daily behavior on the associations between symptoms and social participation outcomes after burn injury. DESIGN: A 6-month prospective cohort study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adult burn survivors. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptoms and social participation outcomes were assessed weekly using smartphone surveys, including symptoms of pain (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Pain Intensity and Pain Interference), anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), as well as outcomes of social interactions and social activities (Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation [LIBRE] Social Interactions and Social Activities). Daily behaviors were automatically recorded by a smartphone application and smartphone logs, including physical activity (steps, travel miles, and activity minutes), sleep (sleep hours), and social contact (number of phone calls and message contacts). RESULTS: Multilevel models controlling for demographic and burn injury variables examined the associations between symptoms and social participation outcomes and the moderation effects of daily behaviors. Lower (worse) LIBRE Social Interactions and LIBRE Social Activities scores were significantly associated with higher (worse) PROMIS Pain Intensity, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Anxiety, and Patient Health Questionnaire-8 scores (P<.05). Additionally, daily steps and activity minutes were associated with LIBRE Social Interactions and LIBRE Social Activities (P<.05), and significantly moderated the association between PROMIS Anxiety and LIBRE Social Activities (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Social participation outcomes are associated with pain, anxiety, and depression symptoms after burn injury, and are buffered by daily physical activity. Future intervention studies should examine physical activity promotion to improve social recovery after burns.

The Social Vulnerability Index and Long-term Outcomes After Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a predictor of long-term outcomes after injury. BACKGROUND: The SVI is a measure used in emergency preparedness to identify need for resources in the event of a disaster or hazardous event, ranking each census tract on 15 demographic/social factors. METHODS: Moderate-severely injured adult patients treated at 1 of 3 level-1 trauma centers were prospectively followed 6 to 14 months post-injury. These data were matched at the census tract level with overall SVI percentile rankings. Patients were stratified based on SVI quartiles, with the lowest quartile designated as low SVI, the middle 2 quartiles as average SVI, and the highest quartile as high SVI. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess whether SVI was associated with long-term outcomes after injury. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included [54% male, mean age 61.6 (SD = 21.6)]. The median overall SVI percentile rank was 35th (IQR: 16th-65th). compared to low SVI patients, high SVI patients were more likely to have new functional limitations [odds ratio (OR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.92), to not have returned to work (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40-2.89), and to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17). Similar results were obtained when comparing average with low SVI patients, with average SVI patients having significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The SVI has potential utility in predicting individuals at higher risk for adverse long-term outcomes after injury. This measure may be a useful needs assessment tool for clinicians and researchers in identifying communities that may benefit most from targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

Perceived Socioeconomic Status: A Strong Predictor of Long-Term Outcomes After Injury.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is defined as a total measure of an individual's economic or social position in relation to others. Income and educational level are often used as quantifiable objective measures of SES but are inherently limited. Perceived SES (p-SES), refers to an individual's perception of their own SES. Herein, we assess the correlation between objective SES (o-SES) as defined by income and educational level and p-SES after injury and compare their associations with long-term outcomes after injury. METHODS: Moderate-to-severely injured patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center were asked to complete a phone-based survey assessing functional and mental health outcomes, social dysfunction, chronic pain, and return to work/school 6-12 mo postinjury. o-SES was determined by income and educational level (low educational level: high school or lower; low income: live in zip code with median income/household lower than the national median). p-SES was determined by asking patients to categorize their SES. The correlation coefficient between o-SES and p-SES was calculated. Multivariate logistic regression models were built to determine the associations between o-SES and p-SES and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 729 patients were included in this study. Patients who reported a low p-SES were younger, more likely to suffer penetrating injuries, and to have a weak social support network. Twenty-one percent of patients with high income and high educational level classified their p-SES as low or mid-low, and conversely, 46% of patients with low education and low income classified their p-SES as high or mid-high. The correlation coefficient between p-SES and o-SES was 0.2513. After adjusting for confounders, p-SES was a stronger predictor of long-term outcomes, including functional limitations, social dysfunction, mental health outcomes, return to work/school, and chronic pain than was o-SES. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported p-SES correlates poorly with o-SES indicating that the commonly used calculation of income and education may not accurately capture an individuals' SES. Furthermore, we found p-SES to be more strongly correlated with long-term outcome measures than o-SES. As we strive to improve long-term outcomes after injury, p-SES may be an important variable in the early identification of individuals who are likely to suffer from worse long-term outcomes after injury.

Long-term Outcomes of Firearm Injury Survivors in the United States: The National Trauma Research Action Plan Scoping Review.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes.

Patient-reported Outcomes at 6 to 12 Months Among Survivors of Firearm Injury in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes in survivors of firearm injuries after 6 to 12 months and compared them with a similarly injured trauma population. BACKGROUND: For every individual in the United States who died of a firearm injury in 2017, three survived, living with the burden of their injury. Current firearm research largely focuses on mortality and short-term health outcomes, while neglecting the long-term consequences. METHODS: We contacted adult patients with a moderate-to-severe injury from a firearm or motor vehicle crash (MVC) treated at 3 level I trauma centers in Boston between 2015 and 2018. Patients were contacted 6 to 12 months postinjury to measure: presence of daily pain; screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); new functional limitations; return to work; and physical and mental health-related quality of life. We matched each firearm injury patient to MVC patients using Coarsened Exact Matching. Adjusted Generalized Linear Models were used to compare matched patients. RESULTS: Of 177 eligible firearm injury survivors, 100 were successfully contacted and 63 completed the study. Among them, 67.7% reported daily pain, 53.2% screened positive for PTSD, 38.7% reported a new functional limitation in an activity of daily living, and 59.1% have not returned to work. Compared with population norms, overall physical and mental health-related quality of life was significantly reduced among firearm injury survivors. Compared with matched MVC survivors (n = 255), firearm injury survivors were significantly more likely to have daily pain [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.87], to screen positive for PTSD (adjusted OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.58), and had significantly worse physical and mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for targeted long-term follow-up care, physical rehabilitation, mental health screening, and interventions for survivors of firearm violence.

Mental Health Burden After Injury: It's About More than Just Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after injury and their association with long-term functional outcomes. BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders (MHD) after injury have been associated with worse long-term outcomes. However, prior studies almost exclusively focused on PTSD. METHODS: Trauma patients with an injury severity score ≥9 treated at 3 Level-I trauma centers were contacted 6-12 months post-injury to screen for anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7), depression (patient health questionnaire-8), PTSD (8Q-PCL-5), pain, and functional outcomes (trauma quality of life instrument, and short-form health survey)). Associations between mental and physical outcomes were established using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 531 patients followed, 108 (20%) screened positive for any MHD: of those who screened positive for PTSD (7.9%, N = 42), all had co-morbid depression and/or anxiety. In contrast, 66 patients (12.4%) screened negative for PTSD but positive for depression and/or anxiety. Compared to patients with no MHD, patients who screened positive for PTSD were more likely to have chronic pain {odds ratio (OR): 8.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.21, 24.08]}, functional limitations [OR: 7.99 (95% CI: 3.50, 18.25)] and reduced physical health [ß: -9.3 (95% CI: -13.2, -5.3)]. Similarly, patients who screened positive for depression/anxiety (without PTSD) were more likely to have chronic pain [OR: 5.06 (95% CI: 2.49, 10.46)], functional limitations [OR: 2.20 (95% CI: 1.12, 4.32)] and reduced physical health [ß: -5.1 (95% CI: -8.2, -2.0)] compared to those with no MHD. CONCLUSIONS: The mental health burden after injury is significant and not limited to PTSD. Distinguishing among MHD and identifying symptom-clusters that overlap among these diagnoses, may help stratify risk of poor outcomes, and provide opportunities for more focused screening and treatment interventions.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-term Recovery From Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the proportion and characteristics of traumatic injury survivors who perceive a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their recovery and to define post-injury outcomes for this cohort. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated physical, psychological, and social stressors that may create a uniquely difficult recovery and reintegration environment for injured patients. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) survivors of moderate-to-severe injury completed a survey 6 to 14 months post-injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey queried individuals about the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery and assessed post-injury functional and mental health outcomes. Regression models were built to identify factors associated with a perceived negative impact of the pandemic on injury recovery, and to define the relationship between these perceptions and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 597 eligible trauma survivors who were contacted, 403 (67.5%) completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent reported that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their recovery and 24% reported difficulty accessing needed healthcare. Younger age, lower perceived-socioeconomic status, extremity injury, and prior psychiatric illness were independently associated with negative perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery. In adjusted analyses, patients who reported a negative impact of the pandemic on their recovery were more likely to have new functional limitations, daily pain, lower physical and mental component scores of the Short-Form-12 and to screen positive for PTSD and depression. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the recovery of trauma survivors. It is essential that we recognize the impact of the pandemic on injured patients while focusing on directed efforts to improve the long-term outcomes of this already at-risk population.

Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Trauma Patients With Facial Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Facial trauma can have long-lasting consequences on an individual's physical, mental, and social well-being. The authors sought to assess the long-term outcomes of patients with facial injuries. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with face abbreviated injury scores ≥1 within the Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies registry. The Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies registry collects patient-reported outcomes data for patients with moderate-severe trauma 6 to 12 months after injury. Outcomes variables included general and trauma-specific quality of life, functional limitations, screening for post-traumatic stress disorder, and postdischarge healthcare utilization. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients with facial trauma were included: 69.1% had an isolated face and/or head injury and 30.9% had a face and/or head injuries as a part of polytrauma injury. After discharge, 11.7% of patients visited the emergency room, and 13.3% were re-admitted to the hospital. Additionally, 36% of patients suffered from functional limitations and 17% of patients developed post-traumatic stress disorder. A total of 34.3% patients reported that their injury scars bothered them, and 49.4% reported that their injuries were hard to deal with emotionally. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who sustain facial trauma suffer significant long-term health-related quality of life consequences stemming from their injuries.

Factors Associated With Long-term Outcomes After Injury: Results of the Functional Outcomes and Recovery After Trauma Emergencies (FORTE) Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with patient-reported outcomes, 6 to 12 months after moderate to severe injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to limitations of trauma registries, we have an incomplete understanding of factors that impact long-term patient-reported outcomes after injury. As 96% of patients survive their injuries, several entities including the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have called for a mechanism to routinely follow trauma patients and determine factors associated with survival, patient-reported outcomes, and reintegration into society after trauma. METHODS: Over 30 months, major trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9] admitted to 3 Level-I trauma centers in Boston were assessed via telephone between 6 and 12 months after injury. Outcome measures evaluated long-term functional, physical, and mental-health outcomes. Multiple regression models were utilized to identify patient and injury factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: We successfully followed 1736 patients (65% of patients contacted). More than half (62%) reported current physical limitations, 37% needed help for at least 1 activity of daily living, 20% screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), all SF-12 physical health subdomain scores were significantly below US norms, and 41% of patients who were working previously were unable to return to work. Age, sex, and education were associated with long-term outcomes, while almost none of the traditional measures of injury severity were. CONCLUSION: The long-term sequelae of trauma are more significant than previously expected. Collection of postdischarge outcomes identified patient factors, such as female sex and low education, associated with worse recovery. This suggests that social support systems are potentially at the core of recovery rather than traditional measures of injury severity.

The Challenge of Implementing the "Stop the Bleed" Campaign in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several initiatives have emerged to empower the public to act as immediate responders in front of hemorrhaging victims. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Stop the Bleed campaign and the association between the instructors' background and the theoretical and practical competences achieved by the participants in Latin America. METHODS: Medical students and general surgeons taught both allied health students and nonallied health students at a local university; the training had a master class followed by a practical component and a written test, as well as tourniquet placement was tested. RESULTS: 265 individuals received the training, and data were available for 243. Of these, 126 (52.07%) were women and the median age was 21 (IQR: 20-22) years. 121 (49.79%) were trained by general surgeons (group A) and 122 (50.21%) by medical students (group B). After the training, more than 98% of all participants perceived that they would most likely be capable of aiding correctly a bleeding victim by applying direct pressure and more than 90% of them felt confident in being able to apply a tourniquet. There were no statistically significant differences among both groups when comparing their post-training competence evaluations [Theoretical test score: group A = 5 (IQR: 4-5); group B = 5 (IQR: 4-5); P = 0.41] and [Practical competency of tourniquet deployment: group A = 119 (66.39%) versus group B = 120 (65.83%); P = 0.93]. CONCLUSIONS: The Stop the Bleed campaign can be effectively implemented in Latin America, and it can be taught by prequalified medical students without altering the learning objectives of the course.

Chest Trauma Outcomes: Public Versus Private Level I Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to evaluate the differences in care and clinical outcomes of patients with chest trauma between two hospitals, including one public trauma center (Pu-TC) and one private trauma center (Pri-TC). METHODS: Patients with thoracic trauma admitted from January 2012 to December 2018 at two level I trauma centers (Pu-TC: Hospital Universitario del Valle, Pri-TC: Fundación Valle del Lili) in Cali, Colombia, were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for differences in in-hospital mortality, adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 482 patients were identified; 300 (62.2%) at the Pri-TC and 182 (37.8%) at the Pu-TC. Median age was 27 years (IQR 21-36) and median Injury Severity Score was 25 (IQR 16-26). 456 patients (94.6%) were male, and the majority had penetrating trauma [total 465 (96.5%); Pri-TC 287 (95.7%), Pu-TC 179 (98.4%), p 0.08]. All patients arrived at the emergency room with unstable hemodynamics. There were no statistically significant differences in post-operative complications, including retained hemothorax [Pri-TC 19 vs. Pu-TC 18], pneumonia [Pri-TC 14 vs. Pu-TC 14], empyema [Pri-TC 13 vs. Pu-TC 13] and mediastinitis [Pri-TC 6 vs. Pu-TC 2]. Logistic regression did, however, show a higher odds of mortality when patients were treated at the Pu-TC [OR 2.27 (95% CI 1.34-3.87, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found significant statistical differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated at a Pu-TC and Pri-TC. The results are intended to stimulate discussions to better understand reasons for outcome variability and ways to reduce it.

Association of Medicaid Expansion Policy with Outcomes in Homeless Patients Requiring Emergency General Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion has reduced obstacles faced in receiving care. Emergency general surgery (EGS) is a clinical event where delays in appropriate care impact outcomes. Therefore, we assessed the association between non-Medicaid expansion policy and multiple outcomes in homeless patients requiring EGS. METHODS: We used 2014 State Inpatient Database to identify homeless individuals admitted with a primary EGS diagnosis who underwent an EGS procedure. States were divided into those that did and did not implement Medicaid expansion. Multivariable quantile regression was used to examine associations between non-Medicaid expansion states and (1) length of stay and (2) total index hospital charges within the homeless population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the associations between non-Medicaid expansion and (1) mortality, (2) surgical complications, (3) discharge against medical advice, and (4) home healthcare. RESULTS: A total of 6930 homeless patients were identified. Of these, 435 (6.2%) were in non-expansion states. Non-Medicaid expansion was associated with higher charges (coef: $46,264, 95% CI 40,388-52,139). There were non-significant differences in mortality (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.79-2.62; p = 0.2) or surgical complications (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.7-1.8; p = 0.4). However, homeless individuals living in non-expansion states did have higher odds of being discharged against medical advice (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.08-4.05; p = 0.02), and lower odds of receiving home healthcare (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Homeless patients living in Medicaid expansion states had lower odds of being discharged against medical advice, higher likelihood of receiving home healthcare and overall lower total index hospital charges.

Comparison of Epidemiology of the Injuries and Outcomes in Two First-Level Trauma Centers in Colombia Using the Pan-American Trauma Registry System.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the epidemiology of traumatic injuries and mortality outcomes between two tertiary-care trauma centers in Colombia using data from Pan-American Trauma Registry (PATR). METHODS: January 1-December 31, 2012, data from the Hospital Universitario del Valle (HUV, public) and Fundacion Valle del Lili (FVL, private) in Cali, Colombia, were considered. Differences in demographic and clinical information were compared using descriptive statistics. Propensity score matching was used to match patients on age, gender, and ISS. Within matched cohorts, multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess for differences in in-hospital mortality, further adjusting for insurance type, employment, heart rate, presence of hypotension (SBP < 90), and GCS score. RESULTS: HUV (8539; 78% male) and FVL (10,456; 60% male) had a combined total of 18,995 trauma cases in 2012 with comparable mean ages of 29.7 years. There were significant differences in insurance status, injury severity, and mechanism of injury between patients at HUV and FLV. On risk-adjusted logistic regression analyses with propensity score matched cohorts, the odds of death in HUV was higher compared to patients presenting at FVL hospital (OR [95% CI]:4.93 [3.37-7.21], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study established the utility of the PATR and revealed important trends in patient demographics, injury epidemiology, and mortality outcomes, which can be used to target trauma initiatives throughout the region. It underscores the profound importance that differences in case mix play in the risk of trauma-related mortality, further emphasizing the need to monitor and evaluate unique aspects of trauma in LMIC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders and Their Association With Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS) are life-threatening conditions that send nearly 180,000 patients to the intensive care unit each year, with mortality rates up to 5-10%. Little is known about the impact of concurrent psychiatric disorders on specific DKA/HHS outcomes. Identifying these relationships offers opportunities to improve clinical management, treatment planning, and mitigate associated morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review including adult DKA/HHS admissions within a large Massachusetts hospital system from 2010 to 2019. We identified patients admitted inpatient for DKA or HHS, then filtered by International Classification of Disease-9-CM and International Classification of Disease-10-CM codes for psychiatric diagnoses that were present in patients electronic medical record at any point in this observational period. Outcomes included the number of inpatient admissions for DKA/HHS, age of death, rates of discharging against medical advice (AMA) from any inpatient admission, and end-stage renal disease/dialysis status. Multivariate regression was conducted using R software to control for variables across patients and evaluate relationships between outcomes and concurrent psychiatric disorders. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Seven thousand seven hundred fifty-six patients were admitted for DKA or HHS, 66.9% of whom had a concurrent psychiatric disorder. Of these patients, 54.5% were male, 70.4% were White, and they had an average age of 61.6 years. This compares with 26.1% with concurrent psychiatric condition within the general diabetes population, 52.1% of whom were male, 72.1% were White, and an average age of 68.2 years. A concurrent psychiatric disorder was associated with increased odds of rehospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.62 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.95, P < 0.001), of being diagnosed with end-stage renal disease and on dialysis (aOR = 1.02 95% CI 1.002-1.035, P = 0.02), and of leaving AMA (aOR = 6.44 95% CI 4.46-9.63, P < 0.001). The average age of death for those with a concurrent psychiatric disorder had an adjusted mean difference in years of -7.5 years (95% CI -9.3 to 5.8) compared to those without a psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients with DKA/HHS, 66.9% have a concurrent psychiatric disorder. Patients with a concurrent psychiatric disorder admitted for DKA/HHS were more likely to have multiple admissions, to leave AMA, to be on renal dialysis, and to have a lower age of mortality.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research. METHODS: Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

The invisible scars: Unseen financial complications worsen every aspect of long-term health in trauma survivors.

BACKGROUND: Trauma survivors are susceptible to experiencing financial toxicity (FT). Studies have shown the negative impact of FT on chronic illness outcomes. However, there is a notable lack of data on FT in the context of trauma. We aimed to better understand prevalence, risk factors, and impact of FT on trauma long-term outcomes. METHODS: Adult trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 treated at Level I trauma centers were interviewed 6 months to 14 months after discharge. Financial toxicity was considered positive if patients reported any of the following due to the injury: income loss, lack of care, newly applied/qualified for governmental assistance, new financial problems, or work loss. The Impact of FT on Patient Reported Outcome Measure Index System (PROMIS) health domains was investigated. RESULTS: Of 577 total patients, 44% (254/567) suffered some form of FT. In the adjusted model, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.2-0.81) and stronger social support networks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74) were protective against FT. In contrast, having two or more comorbidities (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.28), lower education levels (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 95%, 1.26-3.03), and injury mechanisms, including road accidents (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.51-4.77) and intentional injuries (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.44-12.86) were associated with higher toxicity. No significant relationship was found with ISS, sex, or single-family household. Patients with FT had worse outcomes across all domains of health. There was a negative linear relationship between the severity of FT and worse mental and physical health scores. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is associated with long-term outcomes. Incorporating FT risk assessment into recovery care planning may help to identify patients most in need of mitigative interventions across the trauma care continuum to improve trauma recovery. Further investigations to better understand, define, and address FT in trauma care are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.