Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

Large cost savings realized from the 2006 Field Triage Guideline: reduction in overtriage in U.S. trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance transport of injured patients to the most appropriate medical care facility is an important decision. Trauma centers are designed and staffed to treat severely injured patients and are increasingly burdened by cases involving less-serious injury. Yet, a cost evaluation of the Field Triage national guideline has never been performed. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential cost savings associated with overtriage for the 1999 and 2006 versions of the Field Triage Guideline. METHODS: Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) produced estimates of injury-related ambulatory transports and exposure to the Field Triage guideline. Case costs were approximated using a cost distribution curve of all cases found in the NTDB. A two-way sensitivity analysis was also used to determine the impact of data uncertainty on medical costs and the reduction in trauma center visits (12%) after implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline compared with the 1999 Field Triage guideline. RESULTS: At a 40% overtriage rate, the average case cost was $16,434. The cost average of 44.2% reduction in case costs if patients were treated in a non-trauma center compared with a trauma center was found in the literature. Implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline produced a $7,264 cost savings per case, or an estimated annual national savings of $568,000,000. CONCLUSION: Application of the 2006 Field Triage guideline helps emergency medical services personnel manage overtriage in trauma centers, which could result in a significant national cost savings.

Reduced mortality in injured adults transported by helicopter emergency medical services.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown improved outcomes with helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, while others have not. Safety concerns and cost have prompted reevaluation of the widespread use of HEMS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the mode of transport of trauma patients affects mortality. METHODS: Data for 56,744 injured adults aged ≥ 18 years transported to 62 U.S. trauma centers by helicopter or ground ambulance were obtained from the National Sample Program of the 2007 National Trauma Data Bank. In-hospital mortality was calculated for different demographic and injury severity groups. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were produced by utilizing a logistic regression model measuring the association of mortality and type of transport, controlling for age, gender, and injury severity (Injury Severity Score [ISS] and Revised Trauma Score [RTS]). RESULTS: The odds of death were 39% lower in those transported by HEMS compared with those transported by ground ambulance (AOR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-0.69). Among those aged ≥ 55 years, the odds of death were not significantly different (AOR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.74-1.13). Among all transports, male patients had a higher odds of death (AOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.10-1.38) than female patients. The odds of death increased with each year of age (AOR = 1.040, 95% CI = 1.037-1.043) and each unit of ISS (AOR = 1.080, 95% CI = 1.075-1.084), and decreased with each unit of RTS (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.45-0.48). CONCLUSION: The use of HEMS for the transport of adult trauma patients was associated with reduced mortality for patients aged 18-54 years. In this study, HEMS did not improve mortality in adults aged ≥ 55 years. Identification of additional variables in the selection of those patients who will benefit from HEMS transport is expected to enhance this reduction in mortality.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1--44 years, and the approximately 800,000 emergency medical services (EMS) providers have a substantial impact on the care of injured persons and on public health. At an injury scene, EMS providers determine the severity of injury, initiate medical management, and identify the most appropriate facility to which to transport the patient through a process called "field triage." Although basic emergency services generally are consistent across hospital emergency departments (EDs), certain hospitals have additional expertise, resources, and equipment for treating severely injured patients. Such facilities, called "trauma centers," are classified from Level I (centers providing the highest level of trauma care) to Level IV (centers providing initial trauma care and transfer to a higher level of trauma care if necessary) depending on the scope of resources and services available. The risk for death of a severely injured person is 25% lower if the patient receives care at a Level I trauma center. However, not all patients require the services of a Level I trauma center; patients who are injured less severely might be served better by being transported to a closer ED capable of managing milder injuries. Transferring all injured patients to Level I trauma centers might overburden the centers, have a negative impact on patient outcomes, and decrease cost effectiveness. In 1986, the American College of Surgeons developed the Field Triage Decision Scheme (Decision Scheme), which serves as the basis for triage protocols for state and local EMS systems across the United States. The Decision Scheme is an algorithm that guides EMS providers through four decision steps (physiologic, anatomic, mechanism of injury, and special considerations) to determine the most appropriate destination facility within the local trauma care system. Since its initial publication in 1986, the Decision Scheme has been revised four times. In 2005, with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CDC began facilitating revision of the Decision Scheme by hosting a series of meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, which includes injury-care providers, public health professionals, automotive industry representatives, and officials from federal agencies. The Panel reviewed relevant literature, presented its findings, and reached consensus on necessary revisions. The revised Decision Scheme was published in 2006. This report describes the process and rationale used by the Expert Panel to revise the Decision Scheme.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

Utility of routine testing for patients with asymptomatic severe blood pressure elevation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure advise assessment for occult, acute hypertensive target-organ damage. This study determines the prevalence of unanticipated, clinically meaningful test abnormalities in ED patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study at 3 urban academic EDs. Consecutive patients with systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 180 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 110 mm Hg on 2 measurements were enrolled if they denied symptoms of hypertensive emergency. A basic metabolic panel, urinalysis, ECG, CBC count, and chest radiograph were obtained. Treating physicians were interviewed about the indication for each test and whether an abnormal result was anticipated according to clinical findings. When test results were available, physicians were asked whether abnormal findings were clinically meaningful, defined as leading to unanticipated hospitalization, medication modification, or further immediate evaluation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of unanticipated clinically meaningful test abnormalities. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure were enrolled. Unanticipated abnormal test results were noted in 57 (52%) patients. Clinically meaningful unanticipated test abnormalities were found in 7 (6%) patients: basic metabolic panel in 2 (2%), CBC count in 3 (3%), urinalysis in 3 (4%), ECG in 2 (2%), and chest radiograph in 1 (1%). Five patients (5%) had abnormalities assessed as possible manifestations of acute hypertensive target-organ injury; none had abnormalities clearly related to severely elevated blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Screening tests of urban ED patients with asymptomatic severely elevated blood pressure infrequently detect unanticipated hypertension-related abnormalities that alter ED management.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

ProTECT: a randomized clinical trial of progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Laboratory evidence indicates that progesterone has potent neuroprotective effects. We conducted a pilot clinical trial to assess the safety and potential benefit of administering progesterone to patients with acute traumatic brain injury. METHODS: This phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center. One hundred adult trauma patients who arrived within 11 hours of injury with a postresuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale score of 4 to 12 were enrolled with proxy consent. Subjects were randomized on a 4:1 basis to receive either intravenous progesterone or placebo. Blinded observers assessed patients daily for the occurrence of adverse events and signs of recovery. Neurologic outcome was assessed 30 days postinjury. The primary safety measures were differences in adverse event rates and 30-day mortality. The primary measure of benefit was the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended 30 days postinjury. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients received progesterone; 23 received placebo. The groups had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Laboratory and physiologic characteristics were similar at enrollment and throughout treatment. No serious adverse events were attributed to progesterone. Adverse and serious adverse event rates were similar in both groups, except that patients randomized to progesterone had a lower 30-day mortality rate than controls (rate ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.99). Thirty days postinjury, the majority of severe traumatic brain injury survivors in both groups had relatively poor Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended and Disability Rating Scale scores. However, moderate traumatic brain injury survivors who received progesterone were more likely to have a moderate to good outcome than those randomized to placebo. CONCLUSION: In this small study, progesterone caused no discernible harm and showed possible signs of benefit.

Using a cost-benefit analysis to estimate outcomes of a clinical treatment guideline: testing theBrain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: A decade after promulgation of treatment guidelines by the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF), few studies exist that examine the application of these guidelines for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. These studies have reported both cost savings and reduced mortality. MATERIALS: We projected the results of previous studies of BTF guideline adoption to estimate the impact of widespread adoption across the United States. We used surveillance systems and national surveys to estimate the number of severely injured TBI patients and compared the lifetime costs of BTF adoption to the current state of treatment. RESULTS: After examining the health outcomes and costs, we estimated that a substantial savings in annual medical costs ($262 million), annual rehabilitation costs ($43 million) and lifetime societal costs ($3.84 billion) would be achieved if treatment guidelines were used more routinely. Implementation costs were estimated to be $61 million. The net savings were primarily because of better health outcomes and a decreased burden on lifetime social support systems. We also estimate that mortality would be reduced by 3,607 lives if the guidelines were followed. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread adoption of the BTF guidelines for the treatment of severe TBI would result in substantial savings in costs and lives. The majority of cost savings are societal costs. Further validation work to identify the most effective aspects of the BTF guidelines is warranted.

Evaluation and treatment of patients with severely elevated blood pressure in academic emergency departments: a multicenter study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines advise that emergency department (ED) patients with severely elevated blood pressure be evaluated for acute target organ damage, have their medical regimen adjusted, and be instructed to follow up promptly for reassessment. We examine factors associated with performance of recommended treatment of patients with severely elevated blood pressure. METHODS: Observational study performed during 1 week at 4 urban, academic EDs. Severely elevated blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 180 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 110 mm Hg on at least 1 measurement. ED staff were blinded to the study purpose. Demographics, presenting complaints, vital signs, tests ordered, medications administered, disposition, and discharge instructions were recorded, and associations were tested in bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Severely elevated blood pressure was noted in 423 patients. Serum chemistry was obtained in 73% of patients, ECG in 53% of patients, chest radiograph in 46% of patients, urinalysis in 43% of patients, and funduscopy documented in 36% of patients. All studies were performed in 6% of patients and were associated with complaints of dyspnea (odds ratio [OR] 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 8.7) and chest pain (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 7.6). Oral antihypertensives were administered to 36% of patients and were associated with blood pressure-related complaints (OR 2.0 [1.2 to 3.3]), patient-suspected severely elevated blood pressure (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 15.3), and being uninsured (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Intravenous antihypertensives were given to 4% of patients, associated only with chest pain (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 9.5). Modification of antihypertensive regimen was documented in 19% of discharged patients and associated with patient-suspected severely elevated blood pressure (OR 5.5; 95% CI 2.5 to 12.2) and being uninsured (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: The majority of ED patients with severely elevated blood pressure do not receive the evaluation, medical regimen modification, and discharge instructions advised by current guidelines. Further study is necessary to determine whether these recommendations are appropriate in this setting.

Proxy identification: a time-dependent analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the availability of next-of-kin (NOK) for proxy consent over the 24-hour time period following presentation of major trauma patients to a Level I trauma center. METHODS: The study was conducted by using a prospective, observational study design. Consecutive patients meeting predefined major trauma criteria during a three-month study period were enrolled and followed until NOK were contacted, or up to 24 hours. Survival analysis was used to determine the probability of NOK contact during the 24-hour follow-up period. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty (92%) of 382 subjects had NOK contacted during the follow-up period. The probabilities (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of NOK contact at the time of arrival (t = 0) and 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours postpresentation were 0.25 (95% CI = 0.21 to 0.30), 0.68 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.72), 0.77 (95% CI = 0.73 to 0.82), 0.80 (95% CI = 0.76 to 0.84), and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.90), respectively. The median time to contact was 40 minutes (95% CI = 27 to 54 min). CONCLUSIONS: One third of the trauma patients in this study did not have NOK available two hours following arrival in the emergency department. For time-critical research protocols, the time to NOK contact can significantly impact the ability to ensure prompt enrollment and treatment in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to assess the generalizability and consistency of these data.

What do we know of childhood exposures to metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury) in emerging market countries?

Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury present potential health risks to children who are exposed through inhalation or ingestion. Emerging Market countries experience rapid industrial development that may coincide with the increased release of these metals into the environment. A literature review was conducted for English language articles from the 21st century on pediatric exposures to arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) top 10 Emerging Market countries: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. Seventy-six peer-reviewed, published studies on pediatric exposure to metals met the inclusion criteria. The reported concentrations of metals in blood and urine from these studies were generally higher than US reference values, and many studies identified adverse health effects associated with metals exposure. Evidence of exposure to metals in the pediatric population of these Emerging Market countries demonstrates a need for interventions to reduce exposure and efforts to establish country-specific reference values through surveillance or biomonitoring. The findings from review of these 10 countries also suggest the need for country-specific public health policies and clinician education in Emerging Markets.

Adoption of the 2006 field triage decision scheme for injured patients.

BACKGROUND: When emergency medical services (EMS) providers respond to the scene of an injury, they must decide where to transport the injured patients for further evaluation and treatment. This is done through a process known as "field triage", whereby a patient's injuries are matched to the most appropriate hospital. In 2005-2006 the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, revised the 1999 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Field Triage Decision Scheme. This revision, the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme, was published in 2006. METHODS: State Public Health departments' and EMS' external websites were evaluated to ascertain the current status of implementation of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme. RESULTS: Information regarding field triage was located for 41 states. In nine states no information regarding field triage was available on their websites. Of the 41 states where information was located, seven were classified as "full adopters" of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme; nine were considered "partial adopters"; 17 states were found to be using a full version or modification of the 1999 Field Triage Decision Scheme; and eight states were considered to be using a different protocol or scheme for field triage. CONCLUSION: Many states have adopted the 2006 Decision Scheme (full or partial). Further investigation is needed to determine the reasons why some states do not adopt the guidelines.

Surveillance for traumatic brain injury-related deaths--United States, 1997-2007.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. Approximately 53,000 persons die from TBI-related injuries annually. During 1989-1998, TBI-related death rates decreased 11.4%, from 21.9 to 19.4 per 100,000 population. This report describes the epidemiology and annual rates of TBI-related deaths during 1997-2007. REPORTING PERIOD: January 1, 1997-December 31, 2007. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Data were analyzed from the CDC multiple-cause-of-death public-use data files, which contain death certificate data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. RESULTS: During 1997-2007, an annual average of 53,014 deaths (18.4 per 100,000 population; range: 17.8-19.3) among U.S. residents were associated with TBIs. During this period, death rates decreased 8.2%, from 19.3 to 17.8 per 100,000 population (p = 0.001). TBI-related death rates decreased significantly among persons aged 0-44 years and increased significantly among those aged ≥75 years. The rate of TBI deaths was three times higher among males (28.8 per 100,000 population) than among females (9.1). Among males, rates were highest among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Natives (41.3 per 100,000 population) and lowest among Hispanics (22.7). Firearm- (34.8%), motor-vehicle- (31.4%), and fall-related TBIs (16.7%) were the leading causes of TBI-related death. Firearm-related death rates were highest among persons aged 15-34 years (8.5 per 100,000 population) and ≥75 years (10.5). Motor vehicle-related death rates were highest among those aged 15-24 years (11.9 per 100,000 population). Fall-related death rates were highest among adults aged ≥75 years (29.8 per 100,000 population). Overall, the rates for all causes except falls decreased. INTERPRETATION: Although the overall rate of TBI-related deaths decreased during 1997-2007, TBI remains a public health problem; approximately 580,000 persons died with TBI-related diagnoses during this reporting period in the United States. Rates of TBI-related deaths were higher among young and older adults and certain minority populations. The leading external causes of this condition were incidents related to firearms, motor vehicle traffic, and falls. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Accurate, timely, and comprehensive surveillance data are necessary to better understand and prevent TBI-related deaths in the United States. CDC multiple-cause-of-death public-use data files can be used to monitor the incidence of TBI-related deaths and assist public health practitioners and partners in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies to reduce and prevent TBI-related deaths in the United States. Rates of TBI-related deaths are higher in certain population groups and are primarily related to specific external causes. Better enforcement of existing seat belt laws, implementation and increased coverage of more stringent helmet laws, and the implementation of existing evidence-based fall-related prevention interventions are examples of interventions that can reduce the incidence of TBI in the United States.

Violence, abuse, and neglect among people with traumatic brain injuries.

BACKGROUND: Violence, abuse, and neglect (VAN) among people with physical and other disabilities has been reported; however, little is known about VAN experiences among people with traumatic brain injuries (TBI). METHODS: Nine people who reported experiencing VAN post-TBI were interviewed for this phenomenological study. The data were analyzed to understand VAN as experienced by those with TBI. RESULTS: Participants detailed many VAN experiences along with contributing factors, barriers in obtaining help, and recommendations for improving preventive and assistance services. CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to identify and prevent VAN among people with TBI. Services following VAN must be improved.

An evidence based alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) curriculum for emergency department (ED) providers improves skills and utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency Departments (EDs) offer an opportunity to improve the care of patients with at-risk and dependent drinking by teaching staff to screen, perform brief intervention and refer to treatment (SBIRT). We describe here the implementation at 14 Academic EDs of a structured SBIRT curriculum to determine if this learning experience improves provider beliefs and practices. METHODS: ED faculty, residents, nurses, physician extenders, social workers, and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) were surveyed prior to participating in either a two hour interactive workshops with case simulations, or a web-based program (www.ed.bmc.org/sbirt). A pre-post repeated measures design assessed changes in provider beliefs and practices at three and 12 months post-exposure. RESULTS: Among 402 ED providers, 74% reported < 10 hours of prior professional alcohol-related education and 78% had < 2 hours exposure in the previous year. At 3-month follow-up, scores for self-reported confidence in ability, responsibility to intervene, and actual utilization of SBIRT skills all improved significantly over baseline. Gains decreased somewhat at 12 months, but remained above baseline. Length of time in practice was positively associated with SBIRT utilization, controlling for gender, race and type of profession. Persistent barriers included time limitations and lack of referral resources. CONCLUSIONS: ED providers respond favorably to SBIRT. Changes in utilization were substantial at three months post-exposure to a standardized curriculum, but less apparent after 12 months. Booster sessions, trained assistants and infrastructure supports may be needed to sustain changes over the longer term.

The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important public health problem in the United States and worldwide. The estimated 5.3 million Americans living with TBI-related disability face numerous challenges in their efforts to return to a full and productive life. This article presents an overview of the epidemiology and impact of TBI.

Elevated blood pressure in urban emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVES: There has been little systematic study of emergency department (ED) patients with elevated blood pressure (BP) values. The authors sought to characterize ED patients with elevated BP values, assess presenting symptoms, and determine the prevalence of elevated BP after discharge. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study performed in four academic EDs. Adults presenting with systolic BP >or=140 mm Hg or diastolic BP >or=90 mm Hg were enrolled over a one-week equivalent period. Demographics, medical history, and symptoms were obtained by chart abstraction and structured interview. A random patient subset underwent a three-week follow-up interview. BP measurements were staged, using Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI) criteria, according to the greatest value noted in the ED. RESULTS: A total of 1,396 patients were enrolled. Stage 1 BP values were noted in 44.3%, stage 2 in 25.3%, and stage 3 in 30.3%. African American patients more frequently had stage 2 and 3 BP values than other ethnic groups. BP measurements were repeated in 61.1% of patients and were the same or greater in 51.3% of patients. Dyspnea was associated with greater BP values. Among the 63.9% of patients who were interviewed, 52.7% were not being treated for hypertension, and 42.1% of those with hypertension had recently missed a medication dose. Follow-up was obtained in 74.7% of those targeted. A visit to a medical practitioner since discharge was reported by 63.2%; of these, 26.1% reported that their BP remained elevated. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated BP is common among ED patients. African American patients are more likely than those of other ethnic groups to have greater BP values. The ED visit may be a good opportunity to identify patients with unrecognized or poorly controlled hypertension.