Teaching Future Physician Assistants to Provide ADEPT-CARE to Disabled Patients: A Novel Application of Disability Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Physician assistant (PA) students will be certain to provide care to patients with disabilities in their future careers. However, there is a dearth of literature on disability-related education in PA training. This curriculum sought to fill this need. The specific aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the implementation of a 3-part disability-focused education curriculum in PA education, (2) assess changes in PA students' self-perceived confidence and attitudes toward patients with disabilities, and (3) assess students' attitudes toward ADEPT-CARE. METHODS: A 3-part disability curriculum was implemented into the first-year PA curriculum at a single Mid-Atlantic institution. Students could voluntarily complete pre and post-surveys which assessed their self-perceived confidence and attitudes toward people with disabilities, perception of the curriculum, and attitudes toward ADEPT-CARE and disability health. RESULTS: Thirty students participated in the study, with a 100% survey response rate. Nearly all participants agreed or strongly agreed that this curriculum enhanced their medical education (n = 28, 96.6%, frequency missing n = 1). After curriculum completion, there was a statistically significant improvement in participants' confidence in their ability to assess patients with disability (46.7%-93.3%, P < 0.001), ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability as those without disability (80.0%-96.7%, P = 0.025), and perception of quality of life of persons with disabilities (P = 0.030). DISCUSSION: This curriculum was well received by PA students and improved their attitudes toward patients with disabilities, thereby fulfilling a critical need for PA educators.

Incidental Findings Protocol Implementation at a Level-I Trauma Center: A Review of Patient Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVES: Pan scanning in trauma patients has become routine, resulting in increased identification of incidental findings (IF), findings unrelated to the reason for the scan. This has posed a conundrum of ensuring patients have appropriate follow-up for these findings. We sought to evaluate our compliance and follow-up for patients after implementation of an IF protocol at our level-I trauma center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review from 9/2020 to 4/2021, to encompass before and after protocol implementation. Patients were separated into PRE and POST groups. Charts were reviewed evaluating several factors including three- and six-month follow-ups on IF. Data were analyzed comparing PRE and POST groups. RESULTS: A total of 1989 patients were identified, 31.22% (n = 621) with an IF. 612 patients were included in our study. Compared to PRE, POST showed a significant increase in PCP notification (35% vs 22%, P < .001) and patient notification (82% vs 65%, P < .001). As a result, patient follow-up regarding IF at six months was significantly higher in POST (44%) v. PRE (29%), (P < .001). There was no difference in follow-up based on insurance carrier. There was no difference in patient age for PRE (63 y) and POST (66 y) overall, (P = .089); nor in age of patients who followed up; 68.8 PRE vs 68.2 years POST (P = .819). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an IF protocol with patient and PCP notification was significantly improved in overall patient follow-up for category one and two IF. Utilizing the results of this study, the protocol will be further revised to improve patient follow-up.

An Overview of Amish Mortalities at a Level I Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: The Amish population is a unique subset of patients that may require a specialized approach due to their lifestyle differences compared to the general population. With this reasoning, Amish mortalities may differ from typical trauma mortality patterns. We sought to provide an overview of Amish mortalities and hypothesized that there would be differences in injury patterns between mortalities and survivors. METHODS: All Amish trauma patients who presented and were captured by the trauma registry at our Level I trauma center over 20 years (1/2000-2004/2020) were analyzed. A retrospective chart review was subsequently performed. Patients who died were of interest to this study. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed for the mortalities. Mortalities were then compared to Amish patients who survived. RESULTS: There were 1827 Amish trauma patients during the study period and, of these, 32 (1.75%) were mortalities. The top 3 mechanisms of injury leading to mortality were falls (34.4%), pedestrian struck (21.9%), and farming accidents (15.6%). Pediatric (age ≤ 14y) (25%) and geriatric (age ≥ 65y) (28.1%) had the highest percentage of mortalities. Mortalities in the Amish population were significantly older (mean age: 39 years vs 27 years, P = .003) and had significantly higher ISS (mean ISS: 29 vs 10, P < .001) compared to Amish patients who survived. DISCUSSION: The majority of mortalities occurred in the pediatric and geriatric age groups and were falls. Further intervention and outreach in the Amish population should be done to highlight this particular cause of mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, epidemiological.

Mechanisms of Injury Among the Amish Population in Central Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: Individuals presenting with traumatic injury in rural populations have significantly different injury patterns than those in urban environments. With an increasing Amish population, totaling over 33 000 in our catchment area, their unique way of life poses additional factors for injury. This study aims to evaluate differences in mechanism of injury, location of injury, and demographic patterns within the Amish population. We hypothesize that there will be an increased incidence of agriculture-related mechanisms of injury. METHODS: All Amish trauma patients presenting to our level I trauma center over 20 years (1/2000-4/2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Mechanism and geographic location of injury were collected. Demographic and clinical variables were compared between the age groups. RESULTS: There were 1740 patients included in the study with 36.4% (n = 634) ≤ 14 years. Only 10% (n = 174) were ≥ 65 years. The most common mechanism across all ages was falls. However, when separating out the pediatric population ( ≤ 14 years), 27.8% (n = 60) fell from a height on average > 8-10 feet. The most common geographic location of injury was at home in all age groups, except for the 15-24 year group, which was roadways. DISCUSSION: The Amish population poses a unique set of mechanisms of injury and thus injury patterns to rural trauma centers. We have found the most common injuries to be falls, buggy accidents, animal-related injuries, and farming accidents across all age groups. Future research and collaboration with other rural trauma centers treating large Amish populations would be beneficial to maximize injury prevention in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3a, epidemiological.