Evaluation of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils score for predicting inpatient mortality among patients with traumatic subdural hematoma at United States trauma centers.

OBJECTIVE: The Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score has been suggested to better predict patient outcomes compared with GCS alone, while avoiding the need for more complex clinical models. This study aimed to compare the prognostic ability of GCS-P versus GCS in a national cohort of traumatic subdural hematoma (SDH) patients. METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the National Trauma Data Bank (2017-2019). Inclusion criteria were traumatic SDH diagnosis with available data on presenting GCS score, pupillary reactivity, and discharge disposition. Patients with severe polytrauma or nonsurvivable head injury at presentation were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of GCS-P versus GCS scores for inpatient mortality prediction were evaluated across the entire cohort, as well as in subgroups based on age and traumatic brain injury (TBI) type (blunt vs penetrating). Calibration curves were plotted based on predicted probabilities and actual outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 196,747 traumatic SDH patients met the study inclusion criteria. Sensitivity (0.707 vs 0.702), specificity (0.821 vs 0.823), and AUC (0.825 vs 0.814, p < 0.001) of GCS-P versus GCS scores for prediction of inpatient mortality were similar. Calibration curve analysis revealed that GCS scores slightly underestimated inpatient mortality risk, whereas GCS-P scores did not. In patients > 65 years of age with blunt TBI (51.9%, n = 102,148), both GCS-P and GCS scores underestimated inpatient mortality risk. In patients with penetrating TBI (2.4%, n = 4,710), the AUC of the GCS-P score was significantly higher (0.902 vs 0.851, p < 0.001). In this subgroup, both GCS-P and GCS scores underestimated inpatient mortality risk among patients with lower rates of observed mortality and overestimated risk among patients with higher rates of observed mortality. This effect was more pronounced in the GCS-P calibration curve. CONCLUSIONS: The GCS-P score provides better short-term prognostication compared with the GCS score alone among traumatic SDH patients with penetrating TBI. The GCS-P score overestimates inpatient mortality risk among penetrating TBI patients with higher rates of observed mortality. For penetrating TBI patients, which comprised 2.4% of our SDH cohort, a low GCS-P score should not justify clinical nihilism or forgoing aggressive treatment.

Global predictors of tracheostomy-related pressure injury in the COVID-19 era: A study of secondary data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and risk factors of tracheostomy-related pressure injuries (TRPI) and examine the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on TRPI incidence. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of Global Tracheostomy Collaborative database and a multi-center hospital system's electronic medical records. SETTING: 27 hospitals, primarily in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australasia. PATIENTS: 6,400 adults and 2,405 pediatric patients hospitalized with tracheostomy between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021. MEASUREMENT: TRPI as a binary outcome, reported as odds ratios. RESULTS: TRPI incidence was 4.69 % in adults and 5.65 % in children. For adults, associated risks were female sex (OR: 0.64), severe obesity (OR: 2.62), ICU admission (OR: 2.05), cuffed tracheostomy (OR: 1.49), fenestrated tracheostomy (OR: 15.37), percutaneous insertion (OR: 2.03) and COVID-19 infection (OR: 1.66). For children, associated risks were diabetes mellitus (OR: 4.31) and ICU admission (OR: 2.68). TRPI odds increased rapidly in the first 60 days of stay. Age was positively associated with TRPI in adults (OR: 1.014) and children (OR: 1.060). Black patients had higher TRPI incidence than white patients; no moderating effects of race were found. Hospital cluster effects (adults ICC: 0.227; children ICC: 0.138) indicated unmeasured hospital-level factors played a significant role. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age and length of stay up to 60 days are TRPI risk factors. Other risks for adults were female sex, severe obesity, cuffed/fenestrated tracheostomy, percutaneous insertion, and COVID-19; for children, diabetes mellitus and FlexTend devices were risks. Admission during the COVID-19 pandemic had contrasting effects for adults and children. Additional research is needed on unmeasured hospital-level factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: These findings can guide targeted interventions to reduce TRPI incidence and inform tracheostomy care during public health crises. Hospital benchmarking of tracheostomy-related pressure injuries is needed.

Venous thromboembolism testing practices after orthopaedic trauma: prophylaxis regimen does not influence testing patterns.

Objectives: To determine venous thromboembolism (VTE) testing patterns in an orthopaedic trauma population and to evaluate for differences in VTE surveillance by prophylaxis regimen through a secondary analysis of the ADAPT trial. Design: Prospective randomized trial. Setting: Level I trauma center. Patients: Three hundred twenty-nine adult (18 years and older) trauma patients presenting with an operative extremity fracture proximal to the metatarsals/carpals or any pelvic or acetabular fracture requiring VTE prophylaxis. Intervention: VTE imaging studies recorded within 90 days post injury. Main Outcome Measurements: Percentage of patients tested for VTE were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test. Subsequently, multivariable regression was used to determine patient factors significantly associated with risk of receiving a VTE imaging study. Results: Sixty-seven patients (20.4%) had VTE tests ordered during the study period. Twenty (29.9%) of these 67 patients with ordered VTE imaging tests had a positive finding. No difference in proportion of patients tested for VTE by prophylaxis regimen (18.8% on aspirin vs. 22.0% on LMWH, P = 0.50) was observed. Factors associated with increased likelihood of VTE testing included White race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.26-5.42), increased Injury Severity Score (aOR for every 1-point increase: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05-1.15), and lower socioeconomic status based on the Area Deprivation Index (aOR for every 10-point increase: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00-1.30). Conclusions: VTE surveillance did not significantly differ by prophylaxis regimen. Patient demographic factors including race, injury severity, and socioeconomic status were associated with differences in VTE surveillance. Level of Evidence: Level I, Therapeutic.

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implementation strategies.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis implementation strategies are well-studied in some hospitalized medical and surgical patients. Although VTE is associated with substantial mortality and morbidity in trauma patients, implementation strategies for the prevention of VTE in trauma appear to be based on limited evidence. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature on active implementation strategies for VTE prophylaxis administration in hospitalized trauma patients and the impact on VTE events. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in adult hospitalized trauma patients to assess if active VTE prevention implementation strategies change the proportion of patients who received VTE prophylaxis, VTE events, and adverse effects such as bleeding or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia as well as hospital length of stay and the cost of care. An academic medical librarian searched Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until December 2022. Results: Four studies with a total of 1723 patients in the active implementation strategy group (strategies included education, reminders, human and computer alerts, audit and feedback, preprinted orders, and/or root cause analysis) and 1324 in the no active implementation strategy group (guideline creation and dissemination) were included in the analysis. A higher proportion of patients received VTE prophylaxis with an active implementation strategy (OR=2.94, 95% CI (1.68 to 5.15), p<0.01). No significant difference was found in VTE events. Quality was deemed to be low due to bias and inconsistency of studies. Conclusions: Active implementation strategies appeared to improve the proportion of major trauma patients who received VTE prophylaxis. Further implementation studies are needed in trauma to determine effective, sustainable strategies for VTE prevention and to assess secondary outcomes such as bleeding and costs. Level of evidence: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023390538.

Inaccuracy of Initial Clinical Mobility Assessment in Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism risk increases in hospitals due to reduced patient mobility. However, initial mobility evaluations for thromboembolism risk are often subjective and lack standardization, potentially leading to inaccurate risk assessments and insufficient prevention. METHODS: A retrospective study at a quaternary academic hospital analyzed patients using the Padua risk tool, which includes a mobility question, and the Johns Hopkins-Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) scores to objectively measure mobility. Reduced mobility was defined as JH-HLM scores ≤3 over ≥3 consecutive days. The study evaluated the association between reduced mobility and hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism using multivariable logistic regression, comparing admitting health care professional assessments with JH-HLM scores. Symptomatic, hospital-acquired thromboembolisms were diagnosed radiographically by treating providers. RESULTS: Of 1715 patients, 33 (1.9%) developed venous thromboembolism. Reduced mobility, as determined by the JH-HLM scores, showed a significant association with thromboembolic events (adjusted OR: 2.53, 95%CI:1.23-5.22, P = .012). In contrast, the initial Padua assessment of expected reduced mobility at admission did not. The JH-HLM identified 19.1% of patients as having reduced mobility versus 6.5% by admitting health care professionals, suggesting 37 high-risk patients were misclassified as low risk and were not prescribed thrombosis prophylaxis; 4 patients developed thromboembolic events. JH-HLM detected reduced mobility in 36% of thromboembolic cases, compared to 9% by admitting health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Initial mobility evaluations by admitting health care professionals during venous thromboembolism risk assessment may not reflect patient mobility over their hospital stay. This highlights the need for objective measures like JH-HLM in risk assessments to improve accuracy and potentially reduce thromboembolism incidents.

Prehospital Trauma Care.

Prehospital trauma evaluation begins with the primary assessment of airway, breathing, circulation, disability, and exposure. This is closely followed by vital signs and a secondary assessment. Key prehospital interventions include management and resuscitation according to the aforementioned principles with a focus on major hemorrhage control, airway compromise, and invasive management of tension pneumothorax. Determining the appropriate time and method for transportation (eg, ground ambulance, helicopter, police, private vehicle) to the hospital or when to terminate resuscitation are also important decisions to be made by emergency medical services clinicians.

Community of trauma care partnering with stakeholders to improve injury outcomes: focus group analysis.

Introduction: Engaging trauma survivors/caregivers results in research findings that are more relevant to patients' needs and priorities. Although their perspectives increase research significance, there is a lack of understanding about how best to incorporate their insights. We aimed to capture stakeholder perspectives to ensure research is meaningful, respectful, and relevant to the injured patient and their caregivers. Methods: A multiphase, inductive exploratory qualitative study was performed, the first phase of which is described here. Virtual focus groups to elicit stakeholder perspectives and preferences were conducted across 19 trauma centers in the USA during 2022. Discussion topics were chosen to identify patients' motivation to join research studies, preferences regarding consent, suggestions for increasing diversity and access, and feelings regarding outcomes, efficacy, and exception from informed consent. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify the range of perspectives expressed and any common themes that emerged. Results: Ten 90-minute focus groups included patients/caregiver (n=21/1) and researchers (n=14). Data analysis identified common themes emerging across groups. The importance of trust and preexisting relationships with the clinical care team were the most common themes across all groups. Conclusion: Our findings reveal common themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase patient/caregiver participation in trauma research. The project's next phases are distribution of a vignette-based survey to establish broad stakeholder consensus; education and dissemination activities to share strategies that increase research engagement and relevance for patients; and the formation of a panel of patients to support future research endeavors. Level of evidence: Level IV.

Advanced and alternative research methods for the acute care surgeon scientist.

Clinical research has evolved significantly over the last few decades to include many advanced and alternative study designs to answer unique questions. Recognizing a potential knowledge gap, the AAST Associate Member Council and Educational Development Committee created a research course at the 2022 Annual Meeting in Chicago to introduce junior researchers to these methodologies. This manuscript presents a summary of this AAST Annual Meeting session, and reviews topics including hierarchical modeling, geospatial analysis, patient-centered outcomes research, mixed methods designs, and negotiating complex issues in multicenter trials.

Weight-based enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in young trauma patients: analysis of the CLOTT-1 registry.

Introduction: Optimal venous thromboembolism (VTE) enoxaparin prophylaxis dosing remains elusive. Weight-based (WB) dosing safely increases anti-factor Xa levels without the need for routine monitoring but it is unclear if it leads to lower VTE risk. We hypothesized that WB dosing would decrease VTE risk compared with standard fixed dosing (SFD). Methods: Patients from the prospective, observational CLOTT-1 registry receiving prophylactic enoxaparin (n=5539) were categorized as WB (0.45-0.55 mg/kg two times per day) or SFD (30 mg two times per day, 40 mg once a day). Multivariate logistic regression was used to generate a predicted probability of VTE for WB and SFD patients. Results: Of 4360 patients analyzed, 1065 (24.4%) were WB and 3295 (75.6%) were SFD. WB patients were younger, female, more severely injured, and underwent major operation or major venous repair at a higher rate than individuals in the SFD group. Obesity was more common among the SFD group. Unadjusted VTE rates were comparable (WB 3.1% vs. SFD 3.9%; p=0.221). Early prophylaxis was associated with lower VTE rate (1.4% vs. 5.0%; p=0.001) and deep vein thrombosis (0.9% vs. 4.4%; p<0.001), but not pulmonary embolism (0.7% vs. 1.4%; p=0.259). After adjustment, VTE incidence did not differ by dosing strategy (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.48); however, early administration was associated with a significant reduction in VTE (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). Conclusion: In young trauma patients, WB prophylaxis is not associated with reduced VTE rate when compared with SFD. The timing of the initiation of chemoprophylaxis may be more important than the dosing strategy. Further studies need to evaluate these findings across a wider age and comorbidity spectrum. Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic/care management.

Concomitant Traumatic Brain Injury Delays Surgery in Patients With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Growing evidence supports prompt surgical decompression for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). Rates of concomitant tSCI and traumatic brain injury (TBI) range from 10% to 30%. Concomitant TBI may delay tSCI diagnosis and surgical intervention. Little is known about real-world management of this common injury constellation that carries significant clinical consequences. This study aimed to quantify the impact of concomitant TBI on surgical timing in a national cohort of patients with tSCI. METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2016). Patients admitted for tSCI and who received surgical intervention were included. Delayed surgical intervention was defined as surgery after 24 hours of admission. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were constructed to measure the risk-adjusted association between concomitant TBI and delayed surgical intervention. Secondary outcome included favorable discharge status. RESULTS: We identified 14 964 patients with surgically managed tSCI across 377 North American trauma centers, of whom 2444 (16.3%) had concomitant TBI and 4610 (30.8%) had central cord syndrome (CCS). The median time to surgery was 20.0 hours for patients without concomitant TBI and 24.8 hours for patients with concomitant TBI. Hierarchical regression modeling revealed that concomitant TBI was independently associated with delayed surgery in patients with tSCI (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). Although CCS was associated with delayed surgery (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.7), we did not observe a significant interaction between concomitant TBI and CCS. In the subset of patients with concomitant tSCI and TBI, patients with severe TBI were significantly more likely to experience a surgical delay than patients with mild TBI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9). CONCLUSION: Concomitant TBI delays surgical management for patients with tSCI. This effect is largest for patients with tSCI with severe TBI. These findings should serve to increase awareness of concomitant TBI and tSCI and the likelihood that this may delay time-sensitive surgery.

Risk-stratified thromboprophylaxis effects of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin in orthopedic trauma patients: A secondary analysis of the PREVENT CLOT trial.

BACKGROUND: The PREVENT CLOT trial concluded that thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in preventing death after orthopedic trauma. However, it was unclear if these results applied to patients at highest risk of thrombosis. Therefore, we assessed if the effect of aspirin versus LMWH differed based on patients' baseline risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: The PREVENT CLOT trial enrolled 12,211 adult patients with fractures. This secondary analysis stratified the study population into VTE risk quartiles: low (<1%) to high (>10%) using the Caprini score. We assessed stratum-specific treatment effects using the win ratio method, in which each patient assigned to aspirin was paired with each assigned to LMWH. In each pair, we compared outcomes hierarchically, starting with death, then pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and bleeding. The secondary outcome added patients' medication satisfaction as a fifth composite component. RESULTS: In the high-risk quartile (n = 3052), 80% had femur fracture, pelvic, or acetabular fractures. Thoracic (47%) and head (37%) injuries were also common. In the low risk quartile (n = 3053), most patients had a tibia fracture (67%), 5% had a thoracic injury, and less than 1% had head or spinal injuries. Among high risk patients, thromboembolic events did not differ statistically between aspirin and LMWH (win ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.08, p = 0.42). This result was consistent in the low (win ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90-1.47, p = 0.27), low-medium (win ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29, p = 0.68), and medium-high risk quartiles (win ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.11, p = 0.48). When medication satisfaction was considered, favorable outcomes were 68% more likely with aspirin (win ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Thromboembolic outcomes were similar with aspirin or LMWH, even among patients at highest risk of VTE. Aspirin was favored if medication satisfaction was also considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES).

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen's Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting.

Research priorities in venous thromboembolism after trauma: Secondary analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant health care costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE," "venous thromboembo," and "DVT" and then grouped into relevant topic areas. RESULTS: There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. Eighty-five questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority; 60, medium priority; and 1, low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), and the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6). CONCLUSION: National Trauma Research Action Plan panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Establishing a core outcome set for blunt cerebrovascular injury: an EAST modified Delphi method consensus study.

Objectives: Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting. Methods: After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds, and four rounds of deliberation were performed to re-evaluate the variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria. Results: From an initial panel of 15 experts, 12 (80%) completed all rounds. A total of 22 items were considered, with 9 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: incidence of postadmission symptom onset, overall stroke incidence, stroke incidence stratified by type and by treatment category, stroke incidence prior to treatment initiation, time to stroke, overall mortality, bleeding complications, and injury progression on radiographic follow-up. The panel further identified four non-outcome items of high importance for reporting: time to BCVI diagnosis, use of standardized screening tool, duration of treatment, and type of therapy used. Conclusion: Through a well-accepted iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future research on BCVI. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new BCVI research and will allow future projects to generate data suitable for pooled statistical analysis with enhanced statistical power. Level of evidence: Level IV.

Survey of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma patients: current prescribing practices and concordance with clinical practice guidelines.

Objectives: Pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is recommended in the vast majority of trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to characterize current dosing practices and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis at trauma centers. Methods: This was an international, cross-sectional survey of trauma providers. The survey was sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) and distributed to AAST members. The survey included 38 questions about practitioner demographics, experience, level and location of trauma center, and individual/site-specific practices regarding the dosing, selection, and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis in trauma patients. Results: One hundred eighteen trauma providers responded (estimated response rate 6.9%). Most respondents were at level 1 trauma centers (100/118; 84.7%) and had >10 years of experience (73/118; 61.9%). While multiple dosing regimens were used, the most common dose reported was enoxaparin 30 mg every 12 hours (80/118; 67.8%). The majority of respondents (88/118; 74.6%) indicated adjusting the dose in patients with obesity. Seventy-eight (66.1%) routinely use antifactor Xa levels to guide dosing. Respondents at academic institutions were more likely to use guideline-directed dosing (based on the Eastern Association of the Surgery of Trauma and the Western Trauma Association guidelines) of VTE chemoprophylaxis compared with those at non-academic centers (86.2% vs 62.5%; p=0.0158) and guideline-directed dosing was reported more often if the trauma team included a clinical pharmacist (88.2% vs 69.0%; p=0.0142). Wide variability in initial timing of VTE chemoprophylaxis after traumatic brain injury, solid organ injury, and spinal cord injuries was found. Conclusions: A high degree of variability exists in prescribing and monitoring practices for the prevention of VTE in trauma patients. Clinical pharmacists may be helpful on trauma teams to optimize dosing and increase prescribing of guideline-concordant VTE chemoprophylaxis.