Moderation Effects of Daily Behavior on Associations between Symptoms and Social Participation Outcomes after Burn Injury: A 6-month Digital Phenotyping Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the moderation effects of daily behavior on the associations between symptoms and social participation outcomes after burn injury DESIGN: A 6-month prospective cohort study SETTING: Community PARTICIPANTS: 24 adult burn survivors INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptoms and social participation outcomes were assessed weekly using smartphone surveys, including symptoms of pain (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity and Pain Interference), anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8)), as well as outcomes of social interactions and social activities (Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Social Interactions and Social Activities). Daily behaviors were automatically recorded by a smartphone application and smartphone logs, including physical activity (steps, travel miles, and activity minutes), sleep (sleep hours), and social contact (number of phone call and message contacts). RESULTS: Multilevel models controlling for demographic and burn injury variables examined the associations between symptoms and social participation outcomes, and the moderation effects of daily behaviors. Lower (worse) LIBRE Social Interactions and LIBRE Social Activities scores were significantly associated with higher (worse) PROMIS Pain Intensity, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Anxiety, and PHQ-8 scores (p<0.05). Additionally, daily steps and activity minutes were associated with LIBRE Social Interactions and LIBRE Social Activities (p<0.05), and significantly moderated the association between PROMIS Anxiety and LIBRE Social Activities (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Social participation outcomes are associated with pain, anxiety, and depression symptoms after burn injury, and are buffered by daily physical activity. Future interventions studies should examine physical activity promotion on improving social recovery after burns.

Beyond surviving: A scoping review of collaborative care models to inform the future of post-discharge trauma care.

ABSTRACT: Trauma centers demonstrate an impressive ability to save lives, as reflected by inpatient survival rates of over 95% in the United States. Nevertheless, we fail to allocate sufficient effort and resources to ensure that survivors and their families receive the necessary care and support after leaving the trauma center. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map the research on collaborative care models (CCM) that have been put forward to improve trauma survivorship. Of 833 articles screened, we included 16 studies evaluating eight collaborative care programs, predominantly in the U.S. The majority of the programs offered care coordination and averaged 9-months in duration. Three-fourths of the programs incorporated a mental health provider within their primary team. Observed outcomes were diverse: some models showed increased engagement (e.g., Center for Trauma Survivorship, trauma quality-of-life follow-up clinic), while others presented mixed mental health outcomes and varied results on pain and healthcare utilization. The findings of this study indicate that collaborative interventions may be effective in mental health screening, PTSD and depression management, effective referrals, and improving patient satisfaction with care. A consensus on core elements and cost-effectiveness of CCMs is necessary to set the standard for comprehensive care in post-trauma recovery.

Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders and Their Association With Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS) are life-threatening conditions that send nearly 180,000 patients to the intensive care unit each year, with mortality rates up to 5-10%. Little is known about the impact of concurrent psychiatric disorders on specific DKA/HHS outcomes. Identifying these relationships offers opportunities to improve clinical management, treatment planning, and mitigate associated morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review including adult DKA/HHS admissions within a large Massachusetts hospital system from 2010 to 2019. We identified patients admitted inpatient for DKA or HHS, then filtered by International Classification of Disease-9-CM and International Classification of Disease-10-CM codes for psychiatric diagnoses that were present in patients electronic medical record at any point in this observational period. Outcomes included the number of inpatient admissions for DKA/HHS, age of death, rates of discharging against medical advice (AMA) from any inpatient admission, and end-stage renal disease/dialysis status. Multivariate regression was conducted using R software to control for variables across patients and evaluate relationships between outcomes and concurrent psychiatric disorders. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Seven thousand seven hundred fifty-six patients were admitted for DKA or HHS, 66.9% of whom had a concurrent psychiatric disorder. Of these patients, 54.5% were male, 70.4% were White, and they had an average age of 61.6 years. This compares with 26.1% with concurrent psychiatric condition within the general diabetes population, 52.1% of whom were male, 72.1% were White, and an average age of 68.2 years. A concurrent psychiatric disorder was associated with increased odds of rehospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.62 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.95, P < 0.001), of being diagnosed with end-stage renal disease and on dialysis (aOR = 1.02 95% CI 1.002-1.035, P = 0.02), and of leaving AMA (aOR = 6.44 95% CI 4.46-9.63, P < 0.001). The average age of death for those with a concurrent psychiatric disorder had an adjusted mean difference in years of -7.5 years (95% CI -9.3 to 5.8) compared to those without a psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients with DKA/HHS, 66.9% have a concurrent psychiatric disorder. Patients with a concurrent psychiatric disorder admitted for DKA/HHS were more likely to have multiple admissions, to leave AMA, to be on renal dialysis, and to have a lower age of mortality.

Patients Lost to Follow-up After Injury: Who are They and What are Their Long-Term Outcomes?

INTRODUCTION: Trauma patients are at high risk for loss to follow-up (LTFU) after hospital discharge. We sought to identify risk factors for LTFU and investigate associations between LTFU and long-term health outcomes in the trauma population. METHODS: Trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥9 admitted to one of three Level-I trauma centers, 2015-2020, were surveyed via telephone 6 mo after injury. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with LTFU and several long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3609 patients analyzed, 808 (22.4%) were LTFU. Patients LTFU were more likely to be male (71% versus 61%, P = 0.001), Black (22% versus 14%, P = 0.003), have high school or lower education (50% versus 42%, P = 0.003), be publicly insured (23% versus 13%, P < 0.001), have a penetrating injury (13% versus 8%, P = 0.006), have a shorter length of stay (3.64 d ± 4.09 versus 5.06 ± 5.99, P < 0.001), and be discharged home without assistance (79% versus 50%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, patients who followed up were more likely to require assistance at home (6% versus 11%; odds ratio [OR] 2.23, 1.26-3.92, P = 0.005), have new functional limitations (11% versus 26%; OR 2.91, 1.97-4.31, P = < 0.001), have daily pain (30% versus 48%; OR 2.11, 1.54-2.88, P = < 0.001), and have more injury-related emergency department visits (7% versus 10%; OR 1.93, 1.15-3.22, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable populations are more likely to be LTFU after injury. Clinicians should be aware of potential racial and socioeconomic disparities in follow-up care after traumatic injury. Future studies investigating improvement strategies in follow-up care should be considered.

Determinants of long-term physical and mental health outcomes after intensive care admission for trauma survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Collectively, studies from medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU) suggest that long-term outcomes are poor for patients who have spent significant time in an ICU. We sought to identify determinants of post-intensive care physical and mental health outcomes 6-12 months after injury. METHODS: Adult trauma patients [ISS ≥9] admitted to one of three Level-1 trauma centers were interviewed 6-12 months post-injury to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Patients requiring ICU admission â€‹≥ â€‹3 days ("ICU patients") were compared with those who did not require ICU admission ("non-ICU patients"). Multivariable regression models were built to identify factors associated with poor outcomes among ICU survivors. RESULTS: 2407 patients were followed [598 (25%) ICU and 1809 (75%) non-ICU patients]. Among ICU patients, 506 (85%) reported physical or mental health symptoms. Of them, 265 (52%) had physical symptoms only, 15 (3%) had mental symptoms only, and 226 (45%) had both physical and mental symptoms. In adjusted analyses, compared to non-ICU patients, ICU patients were more likely to have new limitations for ADLs (OR â€‹= â€‹1.57; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹1.21, 2.03), and worse SF-12 mental (mean Δ â€‹= â€‹-1.43; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹-2.79, -0.09) and physical scores (mean Δ â€‹= â€‹-2.61; 95% CI â€‹= â€‹-3.93, -1.28). Age, female sex, Black race, lower education level, polytrauma, ventilator use, history of psychiatric illness, and delirium during ICU stay were associated with poor outcomes in the ICU-admitted group. CONCLUSIONS: Physical impairment and mental health symptoms following ICU stay are highly prevalent among injury survivors. Modifiable ICU-specific factors such as early liberation from ventilator support and prevention of delirium are potential targets for intervention.

The invisible scars: Unseen financial complications worsen every aspect of long-term health in trauma survivors.

BACKGROUND: Trauma survivors are susceptible to experiencing financial toxicity (FT). Studies have shown the negative impact of FT on chronic illness outcomes. However, there is a notable lack of data on FT in the context of trauma. We aimed to better understand prevalence, risk factors, and impact of FT on trauma long-term outcomes. METHODS: Adult trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 treated at Level I trauma centers were interviewed 6 months to 14 months after discharge. Financial toxicity was considered positive if patients reported any of the following due to the injury: income loss, lack of care, newly applied/qualified for governmental assistance, new financial problems, or work loss. The Impact of FT on Patient Reported Outcome Measure Index System (PROMIS) health domains was investigated. RESULTS: Of 577 total patients, 44% (254/567) suffered some form of FT. In the adjusted model, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.2-0.81) and stronger social support networks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74) were protective against FT. In contrast, having two or more comorbidities (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.28), lower education levels (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 95%, 1.26-3.03), and injury mechanisms, including road accidents (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.51-4.77) and intentional injuries (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.44-12.86) were associated with higher toxicity. No significant relationship was found with ISS, sex, or single-family household. Patients with FT had worse outcomes across all domains of health. There was a negative linear relationship between the severity of FT and worse mental and physical health scores. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is associated with long-term outcomes. Incorporating FT risk assessment into recovery care planning may help to identify patients most in need of mitigative interventions across the trauma care continuum to improve trauma recovery. Further investigations to better understand, define, and address FT in trauma care are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research. METHODS: Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Critical systolic blood pressure threshold for endovascular aortic occlusion-A multinational analysis to determine when to place a REBOA.

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a potential indicator that could guide when to use a resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in trauma patients with life-threatening injuries. This study aims to determine the optimal SBP threshold for REBOA placement by analyzing the association between SBP pre-REBOA and 24-hour mortality in severely injured hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) trauma and AORTA registries. These databases record the details related to the use of REBOA and include data from 14 countries worldwide. We included patients who had suffered penetrating and/or blunt trauma. Patients who arrived at the hospital with a SBP pre-REBOA of 0 mm Hg and remained at 0 mm Hg after balloon inflation were excluded. We evaluated the impact that SBP pre-REBOA had on the probability of death in the first 24 hours. RESULTS: A total of 1,107 patients underwent endovascular aortic occlusion, of these, 848 met inclusion criteria. The median age was 44 years (interquartile range [IQR], 27-59 years) and 643 (76%) were male. The median injury severity score was 34 (IQR, 25-45). The median SBP pre-REBOA was 65 mm Hg (IQR, 49-88 mm Hg). Mortality at 24 hours was reported in 279 (32%) patients. Math modeling shows that predicted probabilities of the primary outcome increased steadily in SBP pre-REBOA below 100 mm Hg. Multivariable mixed-effects analysis shows that when SBP pre-REBOA was lower than 60 mm Hg, the risk of death was more than 50% (relative risk, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.92; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, the use of REBOA in SBPs between 60 mm Hg and 80 mm Hg may be a useful tool in resuscitation efforts before further decompensation or complete cardiovascular collapse. The findings from our study are clinically important as a first step in identifying candidates for REBOA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Community-Level Social Vulnerability and Patterns of Adolescent Injury.

Objective: To describe adolescent injuries by the community-level social vulnerability, focusing on injuries related to interpersonal violence. Background: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's social vulnerability index (SVI) is a tool used to characterize community-level vulnerability. Methods: Injured adolescent trauma patients (13-17 years old) cared for at a large Level I trauma center over a 10-year period were identified. Injuries were classified by intent as either intentional or unintentional. Census tract level SVI was calculated by composite score and for 4 subindex scores (socioeconomic, household composition/disability, minority/language, housing type/transportation). Patients were stratified by SVI quartile with the lowest quartile designated as low-, the middle two quartiles as average-, and the highest quartile as high vulnerability. The primary outcome was odds of intentional injury. Demographic and injury characteristics were compared by SVI and intent. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds of intentional injury associated with SVI. Results: A total of 1993 injured adolescent patients (1676 unintentional and 317 intentional) were included. The composite SVI was higher in the intentional injury cohort (mean, SD: 66.7, 27.8 vs. 50.5, 30.2; P < 0.001) as was each subindex SVI. The high SVI cohort comprised 31% of the study population, 49% of intentional injuries, and 51% of deaths. The high SVI cohort had significantly increased unadjusted (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.6) and adjusted (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.8) odds of intentional injury. Conclusions: Adolescents living in the highest SVI areas experience significantly higher odds of intentional injury. SVI and SVI subindex details may provide direction for community-level interventions to decrease the impact of violent injury among adolescents.

Injury-related emergency department visits and unplanned readmissions are associated with worse long-term mental and physical health.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and readmission after injury and the impact of these unplanned visits on long-term outcomes are not well understood. We aim to: 1) describe the incidence of and risk factors for injury-related ED visits and unplanned readmissions following injury and, 2) explore the relationship between these unplanned visits and mental and physical health outcomes 6-12 months post-injury. METHODS: Trauma patients with moderate-to-severe injury admitted to one of three Level-I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone survey to assess mental and physical health outcomes at 6-12 months. Patient reported data on injury-related ED visits and readmissions was collected. Multivariable regression analyses were performed controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables to compare subgroups. RESULTS: Of 7,781 eligible patients, 4675 were contacted and 3,147 completed the survey and were included in the analysis. 194 (6.2%) reported an unplanned injury-related ED visit and 239 (7.6%) reported an injury-related readmission. Risk factors for injury-related ED visits included: younger age, Black race, a lower level of education, Medicaid insurance, baseline psychiatric or substance abuse disorder and penetrating mechanism. Risk factors for unplanned injury-related readmission included younger age, male sex, Medicaid insurance, substance abuse disorder, greater injury severity and penetrating mechanism of injury. Injury-related ED visits and readmissions were associated with significantly higher rates of PTSD, chronic pain and new injury-related functional limitations in addition to lower SF-12 mental and physical composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Injury-related ED visits and unplanned readmissions are common after hospital discharge following treatment of moderate-severe injury and are associated with worse mental and physical health outcomes.

The association between childhood opportunity index and pediatric hospitalization for firearm injury or motor vehicle crash.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors can profoundly impact children's health, including the risk of violent injury. This study's objective was to understand the relationship between the Childhood Opportunity Index and pediatric firearm injury owing to interpersonal violence compared with a motor vehicle crash. METHODS: All pediatric patients (<18 years) who presented with an initial encounter with a firearm injury or motor vehicle crash between 2016 to 2021 were identified from 35 children's hospitals included in the Pediatric Health Information System database. The child-specific community-level vulnerability was determined by the Childhood Opportunity Index, a composite score of neighborhood opportunity level data specific to pediatric populations. RESULTS: We identified 67,407 patients treated for injuries related to motor vehicle crashes (n = 61,527) or firearms (n = 5,880). The overall cohort had a mean age of 9.3 (standard deviation 5.4) years; 50.0% were male patients, 44.0% non-Hispanic Black, and were 60.8% publicly insured. Compared with motor vehicle crash injuries, patients with firearm-related injuries were older (12.2 vs 9.0 years), more likely to be male patients (77.7% vs 47.4%), non-Hispanic Black (63.5% vs 42.1%), and had public insurance (76.4 vs 59.3%; all P < .001). In multivariable analysis, children living in communities with lower Childhood Opportunity Index levels were more likely to present with firearm injury than those living in communities with a very high Childhood Opportunity Index. The odds increased as the Childhood Opportunity Index level decreased (odds ratio 1.33, 1.60, 1.73, 2.00 for high, moderate, low, and very low Childhood Opportunity Index, respectively; all P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Children from lower-Childhood Opportunity Index communities are disproportionately impacted by firearm violence, and these findings have important implications for both clinical care and public health policy.

Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, and Sex in New Functional Limitations after Injury: Black and Hispanic Female Survivors at Greater Risk.

BACKGROUND: The impact of disparities at the intersection of multiple marginalized social identities is poorly understood in trauma. We sought to evaluate the joint effect of race, ethnicity, and sex on new functional limitations 6 to 12 months postinjury. STUDY DESIGN: Moderately to severely injured patients admitted to one of three Level I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone-based survey assessing functional outcomes 6 to 12 months postinjury. Multivariate adjusted regression analyses were used to compare functional limitations by race and ethnicity alone, sex alone, and the interaction between both race and ethnicity and sex. The joint disparity and its composition were calculated across race and sex strata. RESULTS: Included were 4,020 patients: 1,621 (40.3%) non-Hispanic White male patients, 1,566 (39%) non-Hispanic White female patients, 570 (14.2%) Black or Hispanic/Latinx male patients, and 263 (6.5%) Black or Hispanic/Latinx female patients (BHF). The risk-adjusted incidence of functional limitations was highest among BHF (50.6%) vs non-Hispanic White female patients (39.2%), non-Hispanic White male patients (35.8%), and Black or Hispanic male patients (34.6%; p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, women (odds ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.16 to 1.57]; p < 0.001) and Blacks or Hispanic patients (odds ratio 1.28 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.58]; p = 0.02) were more likely to have new functional limitations 6 to 12 months postinjury. When sex and race were analyzed together, BHF were more likely to have new functional limitations compared with non-Hispanic White male patients (odds ratio 2.12 [1.55 to 2.90]; p < 0.001), with 63.5% of this joint disparity being explained by the intersection of race and ethnicity and sex. CONCLUSION: More than half of the race and sex disparity in functional limitations experienced by BHF is explained by the unique experience of being both minority and a woman. Intermediate modifiable factors contributing to this intersectional disparity must be identified.

In-hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients in the Military Health System: Comparison of Military and Civilian Facility Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Beneficiaries of TRICARE, an insurance program of the military health system, can choose to receive care within the private sector (fee-for-service) or direct (budget-based facilities with salaried providers) care setting. Previous studies in several specialties have shown that there are disparities in both resource utilization and outcomes between the two settings. In this study, we sought to determine differences in outcomes between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the private sector versus direct care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using TRICARE claims data, we identified patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between March and September 2020. Cases were classified, according to the facility where they were admitted for treatment, as private sector or direct care. We abstracted patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and outcomes including in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable regression models, adjusted for covariates, to determine the association between health care settings and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3,177 patients were included. Of these, 2,147 (68%) and 1,030 (32%) received care in the private sector and direct care settings, respectively. The average age of the study cohort was 52 years (SD = 21), and 84% had at least one medical comorbidity. In adjusted analyses, we found significant differences in the rates of ICU admission, with patients treated in private sector care having lower odds of being admitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76). There were no significant differences in the rates of in-hospital mortality, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: With the exception of ICU admission rates, which are higher in the direct care setting, we encountered comparable hospital-based outcomes for patients treated for COVID-19 within the military health system, whether care was received under private sector or direct care.

The variation of opioid prescription after injury and its association with long-term chronic pain: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overprescription in trauma contributes to the opioid epidemic through diversion of unused pills. Through our study, we sought to do the following: (1) understand the variation in opioid prescription after injury and its relationship to patient and/or clinical variables, and (2) study the relationship between opioid prescribing and long-term pain and analgesic use. METHOD: Trauma patients with an injury severity score ≥9 admitted to 3 level 1 trauma centers were screened for chronic pain and analgesic use 6 to 12 months postinjury. First, multivariable linear regression models were constructed with "oral morphine equivalents" and "number of opioid pills prescribed" at discharge as dependent variables. The coefficients of determination were calculated to determine how much of the variation in opioid prescription was explained by patient and clinical variables. Second, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was created to study the association between opioid prescription at discharge and chronic pain/analgesic use at 6 to 12 months. Analyses were adjusted for patient demographics, socioeconomics, comorbidities, injury parameters, and hospital course. RESULTS: Of the 2,702 patients included (mean [standard deviation] age: 61.0 [21.5]; 55% males), 74% were prescribed opioids at discharge (mean number of pills [standard deviation]: 24.0 [26.5]; mean oral morphine equivalent [standard deviation]: 204.8 [348.1]). The adjusted coefficients of determination for oral morphine equivalents and number of pills was 0.12 and 0.21, respectively, suggesting that the measured patient and clinical factors explain <21% of the variation in opioid prescribing in trauma. Patients prescribed opioids were more likely to have chronic pain (odds ratio [95%] confidence interval: 1.34 [1.05-1.71]) and use analgesics daily (odds ratio [95%] confidence interval: 1.86 [1.25-2.77]) 6 to 12 months postinjury. CONCLUSION: The variation in opioid prescription after traumatic injury is more affected by system and provider level rather than clinical or patient-related factors, and opioid prescribing correlates independently with long-term chronic pain and continued analgesic use postinjury. Efforts to decrease opioid use should prioritize standardizing prescription practices after traumatic injury.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the long-term outcomes research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

The Social Vulnerability Index and Long-term Outcomes After Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a predictor of long-term outcomes after injury. BACKGROUND: The SVI is a measure used in emergency preparedness to identify need for resources in the event of a disaster or hazardous event, ranking each census tract on 15 demographic/social factors. METHODS: Moderate-severely injured adult patients treated at 1 of 3 level-1 trauma centers were prospectively followed 6 to 14 months post-injury. These data were matched at the census tract level with overall SVI percentile rankings. Patients were stratified based on SVI quartiles, with the lowest quartile designated as low SVI, the middle 2 quartiles as average SVI, and the highest quartile as high SVI. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess whether SVI was associated with long-term outcomes after injury. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included [54% male, mean age 61.6 (SD = 21.6)]. The median overall SVI percentile rank was 35th (IQR: 16th-65th). compared to low SVI patients, high SVI patients were more likely to have new functional limitations [odds ratio (OR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.92), to not have returned to work (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40-2.89), and to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17). Similar results were obtained when comparing average with low SVI patients, with average SVI patients having significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The SVI has potential utility in predicting individuals at higher risk for adverse long-term outcomes after injury. This measure may be a useful needs assessment tool for clinicians and researchers in identifying communities that may benefit most from targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. METHODS: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional and mental health outcomes after trauma.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreased access to care and social isolation, which have the potential for negative psychophysical effects. We examine the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health outcomes after trauma. METHODS: Patients in a prospective study were included. The cohort injured during the pandemic was compared to a cohort injured before the pandemic. We performed regression analyses to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: 1,398 patients were included. In adjusted analysis, patients injured during the pandemic scored significantly worse on the SF-12 physical composite score (OR 2.21; [95% CI 0.69-3.72]; P = 0.004) and were more likely to screen positive for depression (OR 1.46; [1.02-2.09]; P = 0.03) and anxiety (OR 1.56; [1.08-2.26]; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients injured during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse mental health outcomes but not physical health outcomes.