Social Determinants of Health and Patients With Traumatic Injuries: Is There a Relationship Between Social Health and Orthopaedic Trauma?

BACKGROUND: Although economic stability, social context, and healthcare access are well-known social determinants of health associated with more challenging recovery after traumatic injury, little is known about how these factors differ by mechanism of injury. Our team sought to use the results of social determinants of health screenings to better understand the population that engaged with psychosocial support services after traumatic musculoskeletal injury and fill a gap in our understanding of patient-reported social health needs. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What is the relationship between social determinants of health and traumatic musculoskeletal injury? METHODS: Trauma recovery services is a psychosocial support program at our institution that offers patients and their family members resources such as professional coaching, peer mentorship, post-traumatic stress disorder screening and treatment, educational resources, and more. This team engages with any patient admitted to, treated at, and released from our institution. Their primary engagement population is individuals with traumatic injury, although not exclusively. Between January 2019 and October 2021, the trauma recovery services team interacted with 6036 patients. Of those who engaged with this service, we considered only patients who experienced a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had a completed social determinants of health screening tool. During the stated timeframe, 13% (814 of 6036) of patients engaged with trauma recovery services and had a complete social determinants of health screening tool. Of these, 53% (428 of 814) had no physical injury. A further 26% (99 of 386) were excluded because they did not have traumatic musculoskeletal injuries, leaving 4.8% (287) for analysis in this cross-sectional study. The study population included patients who interacted with trauma recovery services at our institution after a traumatic orthopaedic injury that occurred between January 2019 and October 2021. Social determinants of health risk screening questionnaires were self-administered prospectively using a screening tool developed by our institution based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services social determinants of health screening questions. Mechanisms of injury were separated into intentional (physical assault, sexual assault, gunshot wound, or stabbing) and unintentional (fall, motor vehicle collision, or motorcycle crash). During the study period, 287 adult patients interacted with trauma recovery services after a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had complete social determinant of health screening; 123 injuries were unintentional and 164 were intentional. Patients were primarily women (55% [159 of 287]), single (73% [209 of 287]), and insured by Medicaid or Medicare (78% [225 of 287]). Mechanism category was determined after a thorough medical record review to verify the appropriate category. An initial exploratory univariate analysis was completed for the primary outcome variable using the Pearson chi-squared test for categorical variables and a two-tailed independent t-test for continuous variables. All demographic variables and social determinants of health with p < 0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in a multivariate binary regression analysis to determine independent associations with injury mechanism. All variables with p < 0.05 in the multivariate analysis were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After controlling for potential demographic confounders, younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.96]; p < 0.001), Black race (compared with White race, OR 2.71 [95% CI 1.20 to 6.16]; p = 0.02), Hispanic ethnicity (compared with White race, OR 5.32 [95% CI 1.62 to 17.47]; p = 0.006), and at-risk status for food insecurity (OR 4.27 [95% CI 1.18 to 15.39]; p = 0.03) were independently associated with intentional mechanisms of injury. CONCLUSION: There is a relationship between the mechanism of traumatic orthopaedic injury and social determinants of health risks. Specifically, data showed a correlation between food insecurity and intentional injury. Healthcare systems and providers should be cognizant of this, as well as the additional challenges patients may face in their recovery journey because of social needs. Screening for needs is only the first step in addressing patient's social health needs. Healthcare systems should also allocate resources for personnel and programs that support patients in meeting their social health needs. Future studies should evaluate the impact of such programming in responding to social needs that impact health outcomes and improve health disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic study.

Factors Influencing Nonadherence to Recommended Postdischarge Follow-Up After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.

Post-Trauma Discharge Instructions: Are We Dropping the Ball?

INTRODUCTION: Complex follow-up plans for polytrauma patients are compiled at the end of hospitalization into discharge instructions. We sought to identify how often patient discharge instructions incorrectly communicated specialist recommendations. We hypothesized that patients with more complex hospitalizations would have more discharge instruction errors (DI-errors). METHODS: We reviewed adult trauma inpatients (March 2017-March 2018), excluding those who left against medical advice or were expected to follow up outside our system. Complex hospitalizations were represented using injury severity (ISS), hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit length of stay (iLOS), and number of consultants (NC). We recorded the type of consultant (surgical or nonsurgical), and consultant recommendations for follow-up. DI-errors were defined as either follow-up necessary but omitted or follow-up not necessary yet present on the instructions. Patients with DI-errors were compared to patients without DI-errors. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square (alpha <.05). RESULTS: We included 392 patients (median age 45 [IQR 26-58], ISS 14 [10-21], LOS 6 [3-11]). 55 patients (14%) had DI-errors. Factors associated with DI-errors included the total number of consultants and use of nonsurgical consultants. ISS, LOS, iLOS, were not associated with DI-errors. CONCLUSION: Common measures of admission complexity were not associated with DI-errors, although the number and type of consultants were associated with DI-errors. Non-surgical specialty consultant recommendations were more likely to be omitted. It is crucial for patients to receive accurate discharge instructions, and systematic processes are needed to improve communication with the patients at discharge.

"Did You Think You Would Die?": Fear of Death and Its Relationship to the Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After Traumatic Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific factors may influence posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) development and warrant further examination. This study investigates potential association between patient-reported fear of death at the time of injury and development of PTSD. METHODS: Over 35 months, 250 patients were screened for PTSD at their first posthospitalization clinic visit and were asked "Did you think you were going to die from this injury?" (yes or no). PTSD screening was conducted using the PTSD checklist for DSM-5 questionnaire. A score ≥33 was considered positive for PTSD, and patients were offered ancillary psychiatric services. Retrospectively, medical records were reviewed for baseline demographics and injury information. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (17%) indicated a fear of death. The mean age was 46 years, with patients who feared death being younger (36 versus 48, P < 0.001), and 62% were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle or motorcycle collisions (30%) and ground-level falls (21%). Gunshot wounds were more common among patients who feared death from trauma (44% versus 7%, P < 0.001). PTSD questionnaires were completed a median of 26 days after injury, with an average score of 12.6. PTSD scores were higher for patients with fear of death (32.7 versus 8.5), and these patients required more acute interventions (47% versus 7%), both P < 0.001. After multivariable logistic regression, patients who thought that they would die from their trauma had >13 times higher odds of developing PTSD (odds ratios: 13.42, P < 0.0001). Apart from positive psychiatric history (OR: 5.46, P = 0.001), no factors (ie, age, sex, mechanism, or any injury or treatment characteristic) were predictive of positive PTSD scores on regression. DICUSSION: Patients who reported fear of death at the time of injury were 13 times more likely to develop PTSD. Simply asking patients whether they thought that they would die at the time of injury may prospectively identify PTSD risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Implementation of programming for survivors of violence-related trauma at a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Prior investigation of violence intervention programs has been limited. This study will describe resources offered by Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP), their utilization, and effect on recidivism. METHODS: VOCARP was established in 2017 at our center, and all patients who engaged with programming (n=1019) were prospectively recorded. Patients are offered services in the emergency department, on inpatient floors and at outpatient clinic visits. Two control groups (patients sustaining violent injuries without VOCARP use (n=212) and patients with non-violent trauma (n=201)) were similarly aggregated. RESULTS: During 22 months, 96% of patients accepted education materials, 31% received financial compensation, 27% requested referrals, and 22% had crisis interventions. All other resources were used by <20% of patients. Patients who used VOCARP resources were substantially different from those who declined services; they were less often male (56% vs. 71%), more often single (79% vs. 51%), had greater unemployment (63% vs. 51%) and were less frequently shot (gunshot wound: 26% vs. 37%), all p<0.05. Overall recidivism rate was 9.4%, with no difference between groups. Use of mental health services was linked to lower recidivism rates (4.4% vs. 11.7%, p=0.016). While sexual assault survivors who used VOCARP resources had lower associated recidivism (2.4% vs. 12%, p=0.14), this was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: This represents the largest violence intervention cohort reported to date to our knowledge. Despite substantial engagement, efficacy in terms of lower recidivism appears limited to specific subgroups or resource utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. Therapeutic.

Downstream hospital system effects of a comprehensive trauma recovery services program.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are often noted to have poor compliance but high recidivism and readmission rates. Participation in a trauma recovery services (TRS) program, which provides peer support and other psychosocial resources, may impact the trajectory of patient recovery by decreasing barriers to follow-up. We hypothesized that TRS participants would have greater downstream nonemergent use of our hospital system over the year following trauma, manifested by more positive encounters, fewer negative encounters, and lower emergency department (ED) charges. METHODS: We studied trauma survivors (March 2017 to March 2018) offered TRS. Hospital encounters and charges 1 year from index admission were compared between patients who accepted and declined TRS. Positive encounters were defined as outpatient visits and planned admissions; negative encounters were defined as no shows, ED visits, and unplanned admissions. Charges were grouped as cumulative ED and non-ED charges (including outpatient and subsequent admission charges). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with positive/negative encounters and ED charges. RESULTS: Of 511 identified patients (68% male; injury severity score, 14 [9-19]), 362 (71%) accepted TRS. Trauma recovery services patients were older, had higher injury severity, and longer index admission length of stay (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, TRS patients were more likely to have at least one positive encounter and were similarly likely to have negative encounters as patients who declined services. Total aggregate charges for this group was US $74 million, of which US $30 million occurred downstream of the index admission. Accepting TRS was associated with lower ED charges. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive TRS program including education, peer mentors, and a support network may provide value to the patient and the health care system by reducing subsequent care provided by the ED in the year after a trauma without affecting nonemergent care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources. METHODS: Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient's medical records. RESULTS: From May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had 'direct contact' (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2-15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2-10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II therapeutic.

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in acute trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of positive screening for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) amongst trauma patients. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal study. SETTING: Single urban US level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred fifty-two adult trauma patients were administered the PTSD checklist for DSM-V (PCL-5) survey upon posthospital outpatient clinic visit. This included 300 men (66%) and 152 women with mean age 43.8 years and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) 11.3, with 83% having fractures of the pelvis and/or extremities. Medical and injury related variables were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of screening positive for PTSD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Prevalence and risk factors for screening positive for PTSD amongst the trauma patient population. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of trauma patients screened positive for PTSD after mean 86 days following injury. These patients were younger (35 vs 46 years old, P < 0.001) and more commonly African American (56% vs 43% Caucasian, P < 0.001). Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles (OR 4.70, P = 0.040) and victims of crime (OR 4.12, P = 0.013) were more likely to screen positive. Psychiatric history, injury severity (ISS), and injury type did not predict positive screening. CONCLUSION: One-in-four patients suffering traumatic injuries screened positive for PTSD suggesting the prevalence of PTSD among trauma patients far exceeds that of the general population. Predictive factors included victims of crime and pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. Screening measures are needed in orthopaedic trauma surgery clinics to refer these at-risk patients for proper evaluation and treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic; Level II.