When Equality Is Not Equity: The Ethics of Access to Trauma Care: A Surgical Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this surgical perspective is to describe the trauma care needs of the South Side of Chicago and the creation of an adult trauma center at the University of Chicago Medicine and associated hospital-based violence intervention program. BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. Disparities across the continuum of trauma care exist, which are often rooted in the social determinants of health. Trauma center distribution is critical to timely treatment and should be based on the trauma needs of the area. The previous trauma ecosystem of Chicago was incongruent with the concentration of violent injuries on the south and west sides of the city, leading to a fallacy of distributive justice. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of community partners, trauma program leadership, trauma surgeons, and the violence intervention program director was performed. RESULTS: The UCM trauma center opened in May 2018 and has since been one of the busiest trauma centers in the country, with a 40% penetrating trauma rate. There have been significant reductions in patient transport time on the South Side up to 8.9 minutes ( P <0.001). The violence intervention program employs credible messengers with lived experience representing the community and has engaged over 8000 patients since 2018, developing both community-based and medical-legal partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The persistent efforts of the community and key stakeholders led to a system change that improved trauma care for the South Side of Chicago.

State-Level Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence, Abortion Access, and Peripartum Homicide: Call for Screening and Violence Interventions for Pregnant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite representing 4% of the global population, the US has the fifth highest number of intentional homicides in the world. Peripartum people represent a unique and vulnerable subset of homicide victims. This study aimed to understand the risk factors for peripartum homicide. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the 2018 to 2020 National Violent Death Reporting System to compare homicide rates of peripartum and nonperipartum people capable of becoming pregnant (12 to 50 years of age). Peripartum was defined as currently pregnant or within 1-year postpartum. We additionally compared state-level peripartum homicide rates between states categorized as restrictive, neutral, or protective of abortion. Pearson's chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. RESULTS: There were 496 peripartum compared with 8,644 nonperipartum homicide victims. The peripartum group was younger (27.4 ± 71 vs 33.0 ± 9.6, p < 0.001). Intimate partner violence causing the homicide was more common in the peripartum group (39.9% vs 26.4%, p < 0.001). Firearms were used in 63.4% of homicides among the peripartum group compared with 49.5% in the comparison (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed in peripartum homicide between states based on policies regarding abortion access (protective 0.37, neutral 0.45, restrictive 0.64; p < 0.01); the same trend was not seen with male homicides. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonperipartum peers, peripartum people are at increased risk for homicide due to intimate partner violence, specifically due to firearm violence. Increasing rates of peripartum homicide occur in states with policies that are restrictive to abortion access. There is a dire need for universal screening and interventions for peripartum patients. Research and policies to reduce violence against pregnant people must also consider the important role that abortion access plays in protecting safety.

Trauma surgical skill sustainment at the University of Chicago AMEDD Military-Civilian Trauma Team Training Site: an observation report.

Background: The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Military-Civilian Trauma Team Training (AMCT3) Program was developed to enhance the trauma competency and capability of the medical force by embedding providers at busy civilian trauma centers. Few reports have been published on the outcomes of this program since its implementation. Methods: The medical and billing records for the two AMCT3 embedded trauma surgeons at the single medical center were retrospectively reviewed for care provided during August 2021 through July 2022. Abstracted data included tasks met under the Army's Individual Critical Task List (ICTL) for general surgeons. The Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) score was estimated based on previously reported point values for procedures. To assess for successful integration of the embedded surgeons, data were also abstracted for two newly hired civilian trauma surgeons. Results: The annual clinical activity for the first AMCT3 surgeon included 444 trauma evaluations and 185 operative cases. The operative cases included 80 laparotomies, 15 thoracotomies, and 15 vascular exposures. The operative volume resulted in a KSA score of 21 998 points. The annual clinical activity for the second AMCT3 surgeon included 424 trauma evaluations and 194 operative cases. The operative cases included 92 laparotomies, 8 thoracotomies, and 25 vascular exposures. The operative volume resulted in a KSA score of 22 799 points. The first civilian surgeon's annual clinical activity included 453 trauma evaluations and 151 operative cases, resulting in a KSA score of 16 738 points. The second civilian surgeon's annual clinical activity included 206 trauma evaluations and 96 operative cases, resulting in a KSA score of 11 156 points. Conclusion: The AMCT3 partnership at this single center greatly exceeds the minimum deployment readiness metrics established in the ICTLs and KSAs for deploying general surgeons. The AMEDD experience provided a deployment-relevant case mix with an emphasis on complex vascular injury repairs.