Hospice and palliative care utilization in 16 004 232 medicare claims: comparing trauma to surgical and medical inpatients.

Background: Hospice and palliative care (PC) utilization is increasing in geriatric inpatients, but limited research exists comparing rates among trauma, surgical and medical specialties. The goal of this study was to determine whether there are differences among these three groups in rates of hospice and PC utilization. Methods: Patients from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Standard Analytical Files for 2016-2020 aged ≥65 years were analyzed. Patients with a National Trauma Data Standard-qualifying ICD-10 injury code with abbreviated injury score ≥2 were classified as 'trauma'; the rest as 'surgical' or 'medical' using CMS MS-DRG definitions. Patients were classified as having PC if they had an ICD-10 diagnosis code for PC (Z51.5) and as hospice discharge (HD) if their hospital disposition was 'hospice' (home or inpatient). Use proportions for specialties were compared by group and by subgroups with increasing risk of poor outcome. Results: There were 16M hospitalizations from 1024 hospitals (9.3% trauma, 26.3% surgical and 64.4% medical) with 53.7% women, 84.5% white and 38.7% >80 years. Overall, 6.2% received PC and 4.1% a HD. Both rates were higher in trauma patients (HD: 3.6%, PC: 6.3%) versus surgical patients (HD: 1.5%, PC: 3.0%), but lower than in medical patients (HD: 5.2%, PC: 7.5%). PC rates increased in higher risk patient subgroups and were highest for inpatient HD. Conclusions: In this large study of Medicare patients, HD and PC rates varied significantly among specialties. Trauma patients had higher HD and PC utilization rates than surgical, but lower than medical. The presence of comorbidities, frailty and/or severe traumatic brain injury (in addition to advanced age) may be valuable criteria in selection of trauma patients for hospice and PC services. Further studies are needed to inform the most efficient use of hospice and PC resources, with particular focus on both timing and selection of subgroups most likely to benefit from these valuable yet limited resources. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic/care management.

Would you be surprised? Prospective multicenter study of the Surprise Question as a screening tool to predict mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question (SQ) ("Would I be surprised if the patient died within the next year?") is a validated tool used to identify patients with limited life expectancy. Because it may have potential to expedite palliative care interventions per American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Palliative Care Best Practices Guidelines, we sought to determine if trauma team members could use the SQ to accurately predict 1-year mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study collected data (August 2020 to February 2021) on trauma team members' responses to the SQ at 24 hours from admission. One-year mortality was obtained via social security death index records. Positive/negative predictive values and accuracy were calculated overall, by provider role and by patient age. RESULTS: Ten Level I/II centers enrolled 1,172 patients (87.9% blunt). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 36-74 years), and the median Injury Severity Score was 10 (interquartile range, 5-14 years). Overall 1-year mortality was 13.3%. Positive predictive value was low (30.5%) regardless of role. Mortality prediction minimally improved as age increased (positive predictive value highest between 65 and 74 years old, 34.5%) but consistently trended to overprediction of death, even in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Trauma team members' ability to forecast 1-year mortality using the SQ at 24 hours appears limited perhaps because of overestimation of injury effects, preinjury conditions, and/or team bias. This has implications for the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Guidelines and suggests that more research is needed to determine the optimal time to screen trauma patients with the SQ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Data-Driven Blood Transfusion Thresholds for Severely Injured Patients During Blood Shortages.

INTRODUCTION: Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic create blood product shortages. Patients requiring transfusions are placed at risk and institutions may need to judiciously administer blood during massive blood transfusions protocols (MTP). The purpose of this study is to provide data-driven guidance for the modification of MTP when the blood supply is severely limited. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 47 Level I and II trauma centers (TC) within a single healthcare system whose patients received MTP from 2017 to 2019. All TC used a unifying MTP protocol for balanced blood product transfusions. The primary outcome was mortality as a function of volume of blood transfused and age. Hemoglobin thresholds and measures of futility were also estimated. Risk-adjusted analyses were performed using multivariable and hierarchical regression to account for confounders and hospital variation. RESULTS: Proposed MTP maximum volume thresholds for three age groupings are as follows: 60 units for ages 16-30 y, 48 units for ages 31-55 y, and 24 units for >55 y. The range of mortality under the transfusion threshold was 30%-36% but doubled to 67-77% when the threshold was exceeded. Hemoglobin concentration differences relative to survival were clinically nonsignificant. Prehospital measures of futility were prehospital cardiac arrest and nonreactive pupils. In hospital risk factors of futility were mid-line shift on brain CT and cardiopulmonary arrest. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing MTP threshold practices under blood shortage conditions, such as the COVID pandemic, could sustain blood availability by following relative thresholds for MTP use according to age groups and key risk factors.

Incidence, outcomes and costs of severe sepsis and septic shock in geriatric trauma patients: Analysis of 2,563,463 hospitalizations at 3,284 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis) is a leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients are an increasing proportion of trauma care but little recent, large-scale, research exists in this high-risk demographic. The objectives of this study are to identify incidence, outcomes and costs of sepsis in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients at short-term, nonfederal hospitals 65 years or older with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Sepsis was defined as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes R6520 and R6521. A log-linear model was used to examine the association of Sepsis with mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, Elixhauser score, and Injury Severity Score. Dominance analysis using logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of individual variables in predicting Sepsis. Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study. RESULTS: There were 2,563,436 hospitalizations from 3,284 hospitals (62.8% female; 90.4% White; 72.7% falls; median ISS, 6.0). Incidence of Sepsis was 2.1%. Sepsis patients had significantly worse outcomes. Mortality risk was significantly higher in septic patients (adjusted risk ratio, 3.98, 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.04). Elixhauser score contributed the most to the prediction of Sepsis, followed by ISS (McFadden's R2 = 9.7% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis/septic shock occurs infrequently among geriatric trauma patients but is associated with increased mortality and resource utilization. Pre-existing comorbidities influence Sepsis occurrence more than Injury Severity Score or age in this group, identifying a population at high risk. Clinical management of geriatric trauma patients should focus on rapid identification and prompt aggressive action in high-risk patients to minimize the occurrence of sepsis and maximize survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Survey of Diagnostic and Management Practices in Small Bowel Obstruction: Individual and Generational Variation Despite Practice Guidelines.

Background: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common disorder managed by surgeons. Despite extensive publications and management guidelines, there is no universally accepted approach to its diagnosis and management. We conducted a survey of acute care surgeons to elucidate their SBO practice patterns.Methods: A self-report survey of SBO diagnosis and management practices was designed and distributed by email to AAST surgeons who cared for adult SBO patients. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square test of independence at α = .05.Results: There were 201 useable surveys: 53% ≥ 50 years, 77% male, 77% at level I trauma centers. Only 35.8% reported formal hospital SBO management guidelines. Computed tomography (CT) scan was the only diagnostic exam listed as "essential" by the majority of respondents (82.6%). Following NG decompression, 153 (76.1%) would "always/frequently" administer a water-soluble contrast challenge (GC). There were notable age differences in approach. Compared to those ≥50 years, younger surgeons were less likely to deem plain abdominal films as "essential" (16.0% vs 40.2%; P < .01) but more likely to require CT scan (88.3% vs 77.6%; P = .045) for diagnosis and to "always/frequently" administer GC (84.0% vs 69.2%; P < .01). Younger surgeons used laparoscopy "frequently" more often than older surgeons (34.0% vs 21.5%, P = .05).Discussion: There is significant variation in diagnosis and management of SBO among respondents in this convenience sample, despite existing PMGs. Novel age differences in responses were observed, which prompts further evaluation. Additional research is needed to determine whether variation in practice patterns is widespread and affects outcomes.

Variation in hospice use among trauma centers may impact analysis of geriatric trauma outcomes: An analysis of 1,961,228 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospitalizations from 2,317 facilities.

BACKGROUND: Defining discharges to hospice as "deaths" is vital for properly assessing trauma center outcomes. This is critical with older patients as a higher proportion is discharged to hospice. The goals of this study were to measure rates of hospice use, evaluate hospice discharge rates by trauma center level, and identify variables affecting hospice use in geriatric trauma. METHODS: Patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Standard Analytical Files for 2017 to 2019, 65 years or older, with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision , code, at hospitals with ≥50 trauma patients per year were selected. Total deaths was defined as inpatient deaths plus hospice discharges. Dominance analysis identified the most important contributors to a model of hospice use. RESULTS: A total of 1.96 million hospitalizations from 2,317 hospitals (Level I, 10%; II, 14%; III, 18%; IV, 7%; none, 51%) were included. Level I's had significantly lower raw hospice discharge values compared with Levels II and III (I, 0.030; II, 0.035; III, 0.035; p < 0.05) but not Level IV (0.032) or nontrauma centers (0.030) ( p > 0.05). Adjusted Level I hospice discharge rates were lower than all other facility types (Level I, 0.026; II, 0.031; III, 0.034; IV, 0.033; nontrauma, 0.030; p < 0.05). Hospice discharges as a proportion of total deaths varied by level and were lowest (0.38) at Level I centers. Dominance analysis showed that proportion of patients with Injury Severity Score of >15 contributed most to explaining hospice utilization rates (3.2%) followed by trauma center level (2.3%), proportion White (1.9%), proportion female (1.5%), and urban/rural setting (1.4%). CONCLUSION: In this near population-based geriatric trauma analysis, Level I centers had the lowest hospice discharge rate, but hospice discharge rates varied significantly by trauma level and should be included in mortality assessments of hospital outcomes. As the population ages, accurate assessment of geriatric trauma outcomes becomes more critical. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal utilization of hospice in end-of-life decision making for geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Findings on Repeat Posttraumatic Brain Computed Tomography Scans in Older Patients With Minimal Head Trauma and the Impact of Existing Antithrombotic Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the utility of routine rescanning of older, mild head trauma patients with an initial negative brain computed tomography (CT), who is on a preinjury antithrombotic (AT) agent by assessing the rate of delayed intracranial hemorrhage (dICH), need for surgery, and attributable mortality. METHODS: Participating centers were trained and provided data collection instruments per institutional review board-approved protocols. Data were obtained from manual chart review and electronic medical record download. Adults ≥55 years seen at Level I/II Trauma Centers, between 2017 and 2019 with suspected head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale 14 to 15, negative initial brain CT, and no other Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries >2 were identified, grouped by preinjury AT therapy (AT- or AT+) and compared on dICH rate, need for operative neurosurgical intervention, and attributable mortality using univariate analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 2,950 patients from 24 centers were enrolled; 280 (9.5%) had a repeat brain CT. In those rescanned, the dICH rate was 15/126 (11.9%) for AT- and 6/154 (3.9%) in AT+. Assuming nonrescanned patients did not suffer clinically meaningful dICH, the dICH rate would be 15/2001 (0.7%) for AT- and 6/949 (0.6%) for AT+. No surgical operations were done for dICH. All-cause mortality was 9/2950 (0.3%) and attributable mortality was 1/2950 (0.03%). The attributable death was an AT+, dICH patient whose family declined intervention. CONCLUSION: In older patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 to 15 and a negative initial brain CT scan, the dICH rate is low (<1%) and of minimal clinical consequence, regardless of AT use. In addition, no patient had operative neurosurgical intervention. Therefore, routine rescanning is not supported based on the results of this study.

The burden of geriatric traumatic brain injury on trauma systems: Analysis of 348,800 Medicare inpatient claims.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in older adults. The aim of this study was to characterize the burden of TBI in older adults by describing demographics, care location, diagnoses, outcomes, and payments in this high-risk group. METHODS: Using 2016-2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Standard Analytical Files (IPSAF), patients >65 years with TBI (>1 injury ICD-10 starting with "S06") were selected. Trauma center levels were linked to the IPSAF file via American Hospital Association Hospital Provider ID and fuzzy-string matching. Patient variables were compared across trauma center levels. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight thousand eight hundred inpatients (50.4% female; 87.1% white) from 2963 US hospitals were included. Level I/II trauma centers treated 66.9% of patients; non-trauma centers treated 21.5%. Overall inter-facility transfer rate was 19.2%; in Level I/II trauma centers transfers-in represented 23.3% of admissions. Significant TBI (Head AIS ≥3) was present in 70.0%. Most frequent diagnoses were subdural hemorrhage (56.6%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (30.6%). Neurosurgical operations were performed in 10.9% of patients and operative rates were similar regardless of center level. Total unadjusted mortality for the sample was 13.9%, with a mortality of 8.1% for those who expired in-hospital, and an additional 5.8% for those discharged to hospice. Medicare payments totaled $4.91B, with the majority (73.4%) going to Level I/II trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: This study fills a gap in TBI research by demonstrating that although the majority of older adult TBI patients in the United States receive care at Level I/II trauma centers, a substantial percentage are managed at other facilities, despite 1 in 10 requiring neurosurgical operation regardless of level of trauma center. This analysis provides preliminary data on the function of regionalized trauma care for older adult TBI care. Future studies assessing the efficacy of early care guidelines in this population are warranted.

Low Prevalence but High Impact of COVID-19 Positive Status in Adult Trauma Patients: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 28 904 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47;P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

Bacteremia in Trauma: A Contemporary Analysis of Blood Culture Results and Outcomes in 158,884 Patients.

Background: Bacteremia is a potentially lethal complication. Limited research exists describing its incidence and associated outcomes in trauma patients. This descriptive study characterized the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of bacteremia in trauma patients. Methods: This study used 2017-2020 system-wide Trauma Registry/Electronic Data Warehouse to select trauma activations aged ≥18 years. Blood culture information, including pathogen genera and species, was obtained from electronic laboratory records. Bacteremia positive was defined as two blood cultures within two hours of each other, growing the same organism; bacteremia negative as no growth, only one blood culture with growth, or growth of two different organisms. Bacteremia-positive and bacteremia-negative patients were compared with patients without blood cultures. Logistic regression compared blood culture results with outcomes, adjusting for age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and comorbidities. Results: Of 158,884 patients at 89 centers, 17,166 (10.8%) had blood cultures. Of those with blood cultures, 1214 were bacteremia positive (7.1%). Compared with no blood cultures, bacteremia-positive patients were more likely male, with higher ISS, and more comorbidities and intensive care unit use. Bacteremia-positive patients were more likely to die (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.17-4.51; p < 0.001) and have severe sepsis/septic shock (aOR, 114.91; 95% CI, 95.09-138.85; p < 0.001). Most common isolates were Staphylococcus epidermidis (14%), non-methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (12%), and Escherichia coli (6%), with highest mortality associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (45%), Enterococcus faecalis (30%), and Escherichia coli (28%). Conclusions: Bacteremia in trauma is uncommon (<1%) but associated with increased resource use and poorer outcomes. Bacteremia, or suspicion thereof, identifies a high-risk population and justifies aggressive empiric intervention to maximize survival.

What Makes a Trauma Patient "Pediatric"? Survey of Providers' Admission Decision Making for Pediatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Only a fraction of pediatric trauma patients are treated in pediatric-specific facilities, leaving the remaining to be seen in centers that must decide to admit the patient to a pediatric or adult unit. Thus, there may be inconsistencies in pediatric trauma admission practices among trauma centers. OBJECTIVE: Describe current practices in admission decision making for pediatric patients. METHODS: An email survey was distributed to members of three professional organizations: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Society of Trauma Nurses, and Pediatric Trauma Society. The survey contained questions regarding pediatric age cutoffs, institutional placement decisions, and scenario-based assessments to determine mitigating placement factors. RESULTS: There were 313 survey responses representing freestanding children's hospitals (114, 36.4%); children's hospitals within general hospitals (107, 34.2%), and adult centers (not a children's hospital; 90, 28.8%). The mean age cutoff for pediatric admission was 16.6 years. The most reported cutoff ages were 18 years (77, 25.6%) and 15 years (76, 25.2%). The most common rationales for the age cutoffs were "institutional experience/tradition" (139, 44.4%) and "physician preference" (89, 28.4%). CONCLUSION: There was no single widely accepted age cutoff that distinguished pediatric from adult trauma patients for admission placement. There was significant variability between and within the types of facilities, with noted ambiguity in the definition of a "pediatric" patient. Thresholds appear to be based primarily on subjective criteria such as traditions or preferences rather than scientific data. Institutions should strive for objective, evidence-based policies for determining the appropriate placement of pediatric patients.

Trauma Prevalence and Resource Utilization During 4 COVID-19 "Surges": A National Analysis of Trauma Patients From 92 Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographics & outcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019. RESULTS: The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

Hyperglycemia in nondiabetic adult trauma patients is associated with worse outcomes than diabetic patients: An analysis of 95,764 patients.

BACKGROUND: The adverse impact of acute hyperglycemia is well documented but its specific effects on nondiabetic trauma patients are unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyze the differential impact of hyperglycemia on outcomes between diabetic and nondiabetic trauma inpatients. METHODS: Adults admitted 2018 to 2019 to 46 Level I/II trauma centers with two or more blood glucose tests were analyzed. Diabetes status was determined from International Classification of Diseases-10th Rev.-Clinical Modification, trauma registry, and/or hemoglobin A1c greater than 6.5. Patients with and without one or more hyperglycemic result >180 mg/dL were compared. Logistic regression examined the effects of hyperglycemia and diabetes on outcomes, adjusting for age, sex, Injury Severity Score, and body mass index. RESULTS: There were 95,764 patients: 54% male; mean age, 61 years; mean Injury Severity Score, 10; diabetic, 21%. Patients with hyperglycemia had higher mortality and worse outcomes compared with those without hyperglycemia. Nondiabetic hyperglycemic patients had the highest odds of mortality (diabetic: adjusted odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.5; nondiabetics: adjusted odds ratio, 7.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.8-8.4). Hyperglycemic nondiabetics experienced worse outcomes on every measure when compared with nonhyperglycemic nondiabetics, with higher rates of sepsis (1.1 vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), more SSIs (1.0 vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), longer mean hospital length of stay (11.4 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001), longer mean intensive care unit length of stay (8.5 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), higher rates of intensive care unit use (68.6% vs. 35.1), and more ventilator use (42.4% vs. 7.3%). CONCLUSION: Hyperglycemia is associated with increased odds of mortality in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Hyperglycemia during hospitalization in nondiabetics was associated with the worst outcomes and represents a potential opportunity for intervention in this high-risk group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management; Level III.

The public health burden of geriatric trauma: Analysis of 2,688,008 hospitalizations from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient claims.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric trauma care (GTC) represents an increasing proportion of injury care, but associated public health research on outcomes and expenditures is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe GTC characteristics, location, diagnoses, and expenditures. METHODS: Patients at short-term nonfederal hospitals, 65 years or older, with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Trauma center levels were linked to Inpatient Standard Analytical Files data via American Hospital Association Hospital ID and fuzzy string matching. Demographics, care location, diagnoses, and expenditures were compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,688,008 hospitalizations (62% female; 90% White; 71% falls; mean Injury Severity Score, 6.5) from 3,286 hospitals were included, comprising 8.5% of all Medicare inpatient hospitalizations. Level I centers encompassed 7.2% of the institutions (n = 236) but 21.2% of hospitalizations, while nontrauma centers represented 58.5% of institutions (n = 1,923) and 37.7% of hospitalizations. Compared with nontrauma centers, patients at Level I centers had higher Elixhauser scores (9.0 vs. 8.8) and Injury Severity Score (7.4 vs. 6.0; p < 0.0001). The most frequent primary diagnosis at all centers was hip/femur fracture (28.3%), followed by traumatic brain injury (10.1%). Expenditures totaled $32.9 billion for trauma-related hospitalizations, or 9.1% of total Medicare hospitalization expenditures and approximately 1.1% of the annual Medicare budget. The overall mortality rate was 3.5%. CONCLUSION: Geriatric trauma care accounts for 8.5% of all inpatient GTC and a similar percentage of expenditures, the most common injury being hip/femur fractures. The largest proportion of GTC occurs at nontrauma centers, emphasizing their vital role in trauma care. Public health prevention programs and GTC guidelines should be implemented by all hospitals, not just trauma centers. Further research is required to determine the optimal role of trauma systems in GTC, establish data-driven triage guidelines, and define the impact of trauma centers and nontrauma centers on GTC mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, Level III.

The Impact of Nursing on Trauma Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of HCAHPS From 112,283 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I-IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018-2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. RESULTS: Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p < .001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution-larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p < .001) or "medical" (58.4%; p < .001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience.

Redefining geriatric trauma: 55 is the new 65.

INTRODUCTION: As the prevalence of geriatric trauma patients has increased, protocols are being developed to address the unique requirements of this demographic. However, categorical definitions for geriatric patients vary, potentially creating confusion concerning which patients should be cared for according to geriatric-specific standards. The aim of this study was to identify data-driven cut points for mortality based on age to support implementation of age-driven guidelines. METHODS: Adults aged 18 to 100 years with blunt or penetrating injury were selected from 95 hospitals' trauma registries. Change point analysis techniques were used to detect inflection points in the proportion of deaths at each age. Based on these calculated points, patients were allocated into age groups, and their characteristics and outcomes were compared. Logistic regression was used to estimate risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality controlling for sex, race, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 255,099 patients were identified (female, 45.7%; mean age, 59.3 years; mean Injury Severity Score, 8.69; blunt injury, 92.6%). Statistically significant increases in mortality rate were noted at ages 55, 77, and 82 years. Compared with the referent group (age, <55 years), adjusted odds ratios (AORs) showed increases in mortality if age 55 to 76 years (AOR, 2.42), age 77 to 81 years (AOR, 4.70), or age 82 years or older (AOR, 6.43). National Trauma Data Standard-defined comorbidities significantly increased once age surpassed 55 years, as the rate more than doubled for each of the older age categories (p < 0.001). As age increased, each group was more likely to be female, have dementia, sustain a ground level fall, and be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This large multicenter analysis established a clinically and statistically significant increase in mortality at ages 55, 77, and 82 years. This research strongly suggests that trauma patients older than 55 years be considered for inclusion in geriatric trauma protocols. The other age inflection points identified (77 and 82 years) may also warrant additional specialized care considerations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III; Care management, level IV.

Decreased adult trauma admission volumes and changing injury patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic at 85 trauma centers in a multistate healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Reports indicate social distancing guidelines and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted trauma patient volumes and injury patterns. This report is the first analysis of a large trauma network describing the extent of these impacts. The objective of this study was to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes, demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: For this descriptive, multicenter study from a large, multistate hospital network, data were collected from the system-wide centralized trauma registry and retrospectively reviewed to retrieve patient information including volume, demographics, and outcomes. For comparison, patient data from January through May of 2020 and January through May of 2019 were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 12 395 trauma patients (56% men, 79% white, mean age 59 years) from 85 trauma centers were included. The first 5 months of 2020 revealed a substantial decrease in volume, which began in February and continued into June. Further analysis revealed an absolute decrease of 32.5% in patient volume in April 2020 compared with April 2019 (4997 from 7398; p<0.0001). Motor vehicle collisions decreased 49.7% (628 from 1249). There was a statistically significant increase in injury severity score (9.0 vs. 8.3; p<0.001). As a proportion of the total trauma population, blunt injuries decreased 3.1% (87.3 from 90.5) and penetrating injuries increased 2.7% (10.0 from 7.3; p<0.001). A significant increase was found in the proportion of patients who did not survive to discharge (3.6% vs. 2.8%; p=0.010; absolute decrease: 181 from 207). DISCUSSION: Early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 32.5% decrease in trauma patient volumes and altered injury patterns at 85 trauma centers in a multistate system. This preliminary observational study describes the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and warrants further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II (therapeutic/care management).

Critical Role of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Physicians in Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version Data from 186,779 Patients and 168 Hospitals in a National Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency surgery patients are unique with regard to the sudden and unexpected nature of their hospitalization and this can adversely affect patient satisfaction, but, to our knowledge, no large study exists examining this issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the major factors that affect satisfaction scores in trauma and emergency surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version survey data from patients discharged in 2018-2019 from facilities in a national hospital system were obtained. Patients were categorized as trauma, emergency surgery, or direct admit surgery (elective surgery). Individual Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version question scores were regressed on the score for "overall rating" to determine the primary, secondary, and tertiary satisfaction drivers. RESULTS: There were 186,779 patients from 168 hospitals included. As expected, the primary determinant of patient satisfaction was nursing communication for all groups. However, trauma and emergency surgery patients differed from elective surgery patients in that physician communication was the second most important factor in patient satisfaction, accounting for 12.0% (trauma) and 8.6% (emergency surgery) of the total variability in the overall rating beyond the variability explained by the primary driver. If physician communication received low ratings, it was unlikely that high scores in other metrics could compensate to bring the overall score above the 50th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care surgeons appear to play a uniquely important role in support of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version scores. These data emphasize the importance of physician communication, particularly when a prehospital physician-patient relationship does not exist. Future research should explore specific mechanisms by which physicians effectively communicate with patients.