Engaging and following physical injury survivors at risk for developing posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A 25 site US national study.

INTRODUCTION: Early intervention for patients at risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) relies upon the ability to engage and follow trauma-exposed patients. Recent requirements by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) have mandated screening and referral for patients with high levels of risk for the development of PTSD or depression. Investigations that assess factors associated with engaging and following physically injured patients may be essential in assessing outcomes related to screening, intervention, and referral. METHODS: This investigation was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a United States level I trauma center site randomized clinical trial. All 635 patients were ages ≥18 and had high PTSD symptom levels (i.e., DSM-IV PTSD Checklist score ≥35) at the time of the baseline trauma center admission. Baseline technology use, demographic, and injury characteristics were collected for patients who were followed up with over the course of the year after physical injury. Regression analyses were used to assess the associations between technology use, demographic and injury characteristics, and the attainment of follow-up outcome assessments. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of participants were missing one or more 3-, 6- or 12-month follow-up outcome assessments. Increased risk of missing one or more outcome assessments was associated with younger age (18-30 versus ≥55 Relative Risks [RR] = 1.78, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.09, 2.91), lack of cell phone (RR = 1.32, 95 % CI = 1.01, 1.72), no internet access (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.01, 2.16), public versus private insurance (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.12, 1.92), having no chronic medical comorbidities (≥4 versus none, RR = 0.28, 95 % CI = 0.20, 0.39), and worse pre-injury mental health function (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.98, 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This multisite investigation suggests that younger and publicly insured and/or uninsured patients with barriers to cell phone and internet access may be particularly vulnerable to lapses in trauma center follow-up. Clinical research informing trauma center-based screening, intervention, and referral procedures could productively explore strategies for patients at risk for not engaging and adhering to follow-up care and outcome assessments.

Can stepped collaborative care interventions improve post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors?

Objectives: No large-scale randomized clinical trial investigations have evaluated the potential differential effectiveness of early interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injured patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. The current investigation assessed whether a stepped collaborative care intervention trial conducted at 25 level I trauma centers differentially improved PTSD symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors. Methods: The investigation was a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial. Patients endorsing high levels of distress on the PTSD Checklist (PCL-C) were randomized to enhanced usual care control or intervention conditions. Three hundred and fifty patients of the 635 randomized (55%) were from non-white and/or Hispanic backgrounds. The intervention included care management, cognitive behavioral therapy elements and, psychopharmacology addressing PTSD symptoms. The primary study outcome was PTSD symptoms assessed with the PCL-C at 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Mixed model regression analyses compared treatment effects for intervention and control group patients from non-white/Hispanic versus white/non-Hispanic backgrounds. Results: The investigation attained between 75% and 80% 3-month to 12-month follow-up. The intervention, on average, required 122 min (SD=132 min). Mixed model regression analyses revealed significant changes in PCL-C scores for non-white/Hispanic intervention patients at 6 months (adjusted difference -3.72 (95% CI -7.33 to -0.10) Effect Size =0.25, p<0.05) after the injury event. No significant differences were observed for white/non-Hispanic patients at the 6-month time point (adjusted difference -1.29 (95% CI -4.89 to 2.31) ES=0.10, p=ns). Conclusion: In this secondary analysis, a brief stepped collaborative care intervention was associated with greater 6-month reductions in PTSD symptoms for non-white/Hispanic patients when compared with white/non-Hispanic patients. If replicated, these findings could serve to inform future American College of Surgeon Committee on Trauma requirements for screening, intervention, and referral for PTSD and comorbidities. Level of evidence: Level II, secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial data reporting a significant difference. Trial registration number: NCT02655354.

Stepped collaborative care versus American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma required screening and referral for posttraumatic stress disorder: Clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Each year in the US, approximately 1.5-2.5 million individuals are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospital admissions. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) now requires that trauma centers have in place protocols to identify and refer hospitalized patients at risk injury psychological sequelae. Literature review revealed no investigations that have identified optimal screening, intervention, and referral procedures in the wake of the College requirement. METHODS: The single-site pragmatic trial investigation will individually randomize 424 patients (212 intervention and 212 control) to a brief stepped care intervention versus College required mental health screening and referral control conditions. Blinded follow-up interviews at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-injury will assess the symptoms of PTSD and related comorbidity for all patients. The emergency department information exchange (EDIE) will be used to capture population-level automated emergency department and inpatient utilization data for the intent-to-treat sample. The investigation aims to test the primary hypotheses that intervention patients will demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and emergency department/inpatient utilization when compared to control patients. The study incorporates a Rapid Assessment Procedure-Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) implementation process assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The overarching goal of the investigation is to advance the sustainable delivery of high-quality trauma center mental health screening, intervention, and referral procedures for diverse injury survivors. An end-of-study policy summit will harness pragmatic trial data to inform the capacity for US trauma centers to implement high-quality acute care mental health screening, intervention and referral services for diverse injured patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT05632770.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Utilization Reductions and Cost Savings Associated With Trauma Center Mental Health Intervention: Results From a 5-year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and refer patients at high risk for the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma now requires that trauma centers have in-place protocols. No investigations have documented reductions in utilization and associated potential cost savings associated with trauma center mental health interventions. BACKGROUND: The investigation was a randomized clinical trial analysis that incorporated novel 5-year emergency department (ED)/inpatient health service utilization follow-up data. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a mental health intervention, targeting the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury (n = 85) versus enhanced usual care control (n = 86) conditions. The intervention included case management that coordinated trauma center-to-community care linkages, psychotropic medication consultation, and psychotherapy elements. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention and control group utilization differences over time. An economic analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Over the course of the 5-year intervention, patients demonstrated significant reductions in ED/inpatient utilization when compared with control patients [ F (19,3210) = 2.23, P = 0.009]. Intervention utilization reductions were greatest at 3 to 6 months (intervention 15.5% vs control 26.7%, relative risk = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.00) and 12 to 15 months (intervention 16.5% vs control 30.6%, relative risk = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.91) postinjury time points. The economic analysis suggested potential intervention cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health intervention is associated with significant reductions in ED and inpatient utilization, as well as potential cost savings. These findings could be productively integrated into future American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma policy discussions.