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. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability in the US. 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 improving trauma care for the South Side of Chicago.

What medical-legal partnerships can do for trauma patients and trauma care.

ABSTRACT: Trauma patients are particularly vulnerable to the impact of preexisting social and legal determinants of health postinjury. Trauma patients have a wide range of legal needs, including housing, employment, debt, insurance coverage, and access to federal and state benefits. Legal support could provide vital assistance to address the social determinants of health for injured patients. Medical legal partnerships (MLPs) embed legal professionals within health care teams to improve health by addressing legal needs that affect health. Medical legal partnerships have a successful track record in oncology, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and pediatrics, but have been little used in trauma. We conducted a scoping review to describe the role of MLPs and their potential to improve health outcomes for patients with traumatic injuries. We found that MLPs use legal remedies to address a variety of social and structural conditions that could affect patient health across several patient populations, such as children with asthma and patients with cancer. Legal intervention can assist patients in obtaining stable and healthy housing, employment opportunities, debt relief, access to public benefits, and immigration assistance. Medical legal partnership structure varies across institutions. In some, MLP lawyers are employed directly by a health care institution. In others, MLPs function as partnerships between a health system and an external legal organization. Medical legal partnerships have been found to reduce hospital readmissions, increase treatment utilization by patients, decrease patient stress levels, and benefit health systems financially. This scoping review outlines the potential of MLPs to improve outcomes for injured patients. Establishing trauma-focused MLPs could be a feasible intervention for trauma centers around the country seeking to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities for injured patients.

Strengthening Doctor-Patient Relationships Through Hospital-Based Violence Interventions.

PROBLEM: Violence in Chicago has been persistently high in low-income communities of color. Recent attention has focused on how structural inequities weaken protective factors that help keep communities healthy and safe. Spikes in community violence seen in Chicago since the COVID-19 pandemic further expose the lack of social service, health care, economic, and political safety nets in low-income communities and the apparent dearth of faith in those systems. APPROACH: The authors contend that a comprehensive, collaborative approach to violence prevention that prioritizes treatment and community partnerships is needed to address social determinants of health and structural characteristics that often provide the context for interpersonal violence. One strategy to address decreasing faith in systems like hospitals is foregrounding frontline paraprofessional prevention workers who possess cultural capital based on their experiences navigating interpersonal and structural violence. Hospital-based violence intervention programs help professionalize these prevention workers by providing a framework for patient-centered crisis intervention and assertive case management. The authors describe how the Violence Recovery Program (VRP), a multidisciplinary hospital-based violence intervention model, leverages the cultural capital of credible messengers to use teachable moments to promote trauma-informed care to violently injured patients, assess their immediate risk for reinjury and retaliation, and connect them to wrap-around services to help aid comprehensive recovery. OUTCOMES: Violence recovery specialists have engaged over 6,000 victims of violence since the program's launch in 2018. Three-quarters of patients expressed social determinants of health needs. Over the past year, specialists have connected over one-third of engaged patients to mental health referrals and community-based social services. NEXT STEPS: High violence rates in Chicago limited case management opportunities in the emergency room. In fall 2022, the VRP began to establish collaborative agreements with community-based street outreach programs and medical-legal partnerships to address structural determinants of health.

"We're playing on the same team": Communication (dis)connections between trauma patients and surgical residents.

BACKGROUND: Patient-physician communication is key to better clinical outcomes and patient well-being. Communication between trauma patients and their physicians remains relatively unexplored. We aimed to identify and characterize the range of strengths and challenges in patient-physician communication in the setting of trauma care. METHODS: A qualitative, grounded theory approach was used to explore communication strengths and challenges for patients and residents. Patients previously admitted to the trauma service for violent injuries were recruited and interviewed in-person during their trauma clinic appointments. Surgical residents were recruited via email and interviewed virtually via Zoom. Anonymous, semistructured interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-nine interviews with patients and 14 interviews with residents were conducted. Patients reported feeling ignored and misunderstood and having inadequate communication with physicians. Residents cited lack of time, patients' lack of health literacy, differences in background, and emotional responses to trauma as barriers to effective communication with patients. Patients and residents reported an understanding of each other's stressors, similar emotional experiences regarding traumatic stress, and a desire to communicate with each other in greater depth both inside and outside of the hospital. CONCLUSION: Trauma patients and residents can feel disconnected due to the lack of time for thorough communication and differences in background; however, they understand each other's stressors and share similar emotional responses regarding trauma and a desire for increased communication, connection, and solidarity. Leveraging these shared values to guide interventions, such as a resident curriculum, may help bridge disconnects and improve their communication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Empowering Bystanders to Intervene: Trauma Responders Unify to Empower (TRUE) Communities.

BACKGROUND: Timely and effective bystander first aid can improve outcomes for trauma victims. Bystanders are present at most traumas and are more likely to assist with prior training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evidence-based course was created for the general public in high-risk Chicago neighborhoods focused on basic traumatic first aid, including scene management, hemorrhage control, and mitigating the psychological impact of trauma to overcome the bystander effect. Prospectively, participants completed knowledge-based and self-efficacy assessments precourse, postcourse, and 6 mo follow-up. The change in self-efficacy and knowledge scores was analyzed. RESULTS: Over 32 courses, 503 participants were taught; 474 and 460 participants completed precourse and postcourse surveys, respectively, whereas 60 of 327 who consented for follow-up completed the 6-mo survey. Postcourse, participants were more likely to assist trauma victims and felt more confident in the quality of care they could provide; the effect remained significant at 6 mo (all P < 0.001). All seven self-efficacy empowerment-based questions individually demonstrated improvement from precourse to postcourse (P < 0.001), with an overall mean (SD) increase of 2.8 (2.1, P < 0.001); six maintained significance at follow-up with an overall mean increase of 2.8 (1.9, P < 0.001). Knowledge scores improved from 6.2 of 10 to 7.2 postcourse and 7.7 at follow-up (P < 0.001). Most improved were the ability to render first aid and apply tourniquets. CONCLUSIONS: The TFRC increased self-efficacy, successfully teaching initial trauma care, particularly hemorrhage control and scene safety, suggesting that a grassroots approach to trauma care may improve outcomes in communities that experience high violence rates.