Level One Trauma Center Proliferation May Worsen Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: From 2013 to 2020, Arizona state trauma system expanded from seven to thirteen level 1 trauma centers (L1TCs). This study utilized the state trauma registry to analyze the effect of L1TC proliferation on patient outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients age≥15 in the state trauma registry from 2007-2020 were queried for demographic, injury, and outcome variables. These variables were compared across the 2 time periods: 2007-2012 as pre-proliferation (PRE) and 2013-2020 as post-proliferation (POST). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess independent predictors of mortality. Subgroup analyses were done for Injury Severity Score (ISS)≥15, age≥65, and trauma mechanisms. RESULTS: A total of 482,896 trauma patients were included in this study. 40% were female, 29% were geriatric patients, and 8.6% sustained penetrating trauma. The median ISS was 4. Inpatient mortality overall was 2.7%. POST consisted of more female, geriatric, and blunt trauma patients (P < .001). Both periods had similar median ISS. POST had more interfacility transfers (14.5% vs 10.3%, P < .001). Inpatient, unadjusted mortality decreased by .5% in POST (P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and trauma mechanism, being in POST was predictive of death (OR: 1.4, CI:1.3-1.5, P < .001). This was consistent across all subgroups except for geriatric subgroup, which there was no significant correlation. DISCUSSION: Despite advances in trauma care and almost doubling of L1TCs, POST had minimal reduction of unadjusted mortality and was an independent predictor of death. Results suggest increasing number of L1TCs alone may not improve mortality. Alternative approaches should be sought with future regional trauma system design and implementation.

A retrospective review of the rate of septic knee arthritis after retrograde femoral nailing for traumatic femoral fractures at a single academic institution.

Background: Retrograde intramedullary nailing of the femur is a popular treatment option for femoral shaft fractures. However, this requires accessing the intramedullary canal through the knee, posing a risk of intra-articular infection. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of intra-articular infection of the knee after retrograde nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Methods: All patients who underwent retrograde intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures between June 2004 and December 2017 at a level 1 trauma center were reviewed. Six months of follow-up or documented fracture union was required. Records were reviewed for documentation of septic arthritis of the ipsilateral knee during the follow-up period. Results: A total of 294 fractures, including 217 closed and 77 open injuries, were included. Eighteen had an associated ipsilateral traumatic arthrotomy; 188 cases had an associated ipsilateral lower extremity fracture. No cases of septic arthritis were identified. Conclusion: There were no cases of septic arthritis in 294 fractures treated with retrograde intramedullary nailing. Retrograde nailing appears safe for risk of postoperative septic arthritis of the knee even in the face of open fractures and traumatic wounds.

Disparities in trauma care education: An observational study of the ATLS course within a national trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in trauma systems, including gaps between trauma center levels, affect patient outcomes. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) is a standard method of care that improves the performance of lower-level trauma systems. We sought to study potential gaps in ATLS education within a national trauma system. METHODS: This prospective observational study examined the characteristics of 588 surgical board residents and fellows taking the ATLS course. The course is required for board certification in adult trauma specialties (general surgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology), pediatric trauma specialties (pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric surgery), and trauma consulting specialties (all other surgical board specialties). We compared the differences in course accessibility and success rates within a national trauma system which includes seven level 1 trauma centers (L1TC) and twenty-three non-level 1 hospitals (NL1H). RESULTS: Resident and fellow students were 53% male, 46% employed in L1TC, and 86% were in the final stages of their specialty program. Only 32% were enrolled in adult trauma specialty programs. Students from L1TC had a 10% higher ATLS course pass rate than NL1H (p = 0.003). Trauma center level was associated with higher odds to pass the ATLS course, even after adjustment to other variables (OR = 1.925 [95% CI = 1.151 to 3.219]). Compared to NL1H, the course was two-three times more accessible to students from L1TC and 9% more accessible to adult trauma specialty programs (p = 0.035). The course was more accessible to students at early levels of training in NL1H (p < 0.001). Female students and trauma consulting specialties enrolled in L1TC programs were more likely to pass the course (OR = 2.557 [95% CI = 1.242 to 5.264] and 2.578 [95% CI = 1.385 to 4.800], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Passing the ATLS course is affected by trauma center level, independent of other student factors. Educational disparities between L1TC and NL1H include ATLS course access for core trauma residency programs at early training stages. Some gaps are more pronounced among consulting trauma specialties and female surgeons. Educational resources should be planned to favor lower-level trauma centers, specialties dealing in trauma care, and residents early in their postgraduate training.

A 7-year perspective on femoral neck fracture management in New York State-Do Level 1 trauma centers provide better care?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with femoral neck fractures are at a substantial risk for medical complications and all-cause mortality. Given this trend, our study aims to evaluate postoperative outcomes and the economic profile associated with femoral neck fractures managed at level-1 (L1TC) and non-level-1-trauma centers (nL1TC). METHODS: The SPARCS database was queried for all geriatric patients sustaining atraumatic femoral neck fractures within New York State between 2011 and 2017. Patients were then divided into two cohorts depending on the treating facility's trauma center designation: L1TC versus nL1TC. Patient samples were evaluated for trends and relationships using descriptive analysis, Student's t-tests, and Chi-squared. Multivariable linear-regressions were utilized to assess the effect of trauma center designation and potential confounders on patient mortality and inpatient healthcare expenses. RESULTS: In total, 44,085 femoral neck fractures operatively managed at 161 medical centers throughout New York during a 7-year period. 4,974 fractures were managed at L1TC while 39,111 were treated at nL1TC. Following multivariate regression analysis, management at L1TC was the most significant cost driver, resulting in an average increased cost of $6,330.74 per fracture. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that femoral neck fractures treated at L1TC have more comorbidities, higher in-hospital mortality, longer LOS, and greater hospital costs.

Establishing an open and robotic pancreatic surgery program in a level 1 trauma center community teaching hospital and comparing its outcomes to high-volume academic center outcomes: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: The debate of whether to centralize hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery has been ongoing. The principal objective was to compare outcomes of a community pancreatic surgical program with those of high-volume academic centers. METHODS: The current pancreatic surgical study occurred in an environment where (1) a certified abdominal transplant surgeon performed all surgeries; (2) complementary quality enhancement programs had been developed; (3) the hospital's trauma center had been verified; and (4) the hospital's surgical training had been accredited. Pancreatic surgical outcomes at high-volume academic centers were obtained through PubMed literature searches. Articles were selected if they described diverse surgical procedures. Two-tailed Fisher exact and mid-P tests were used to perform 2 × 2 contingency analyses. RESULTS: The study patients consisted of 64 consecutive pancreatic surgical patients. The study patients had a similar pancreaticoduodenectomy proportion (59.4%) when compared to literature patients (66.8%; P = 0.227). The study patients also had a similar distal pancreatectomy proportion (25.0%) when compared to literature patients (31.9%; P = 0.276). The study patients had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3 proportion (100%) than literature patients (28.1%; P < 0.001). The 90-day study mortality proportion (0%) was similar to the literature proportion (2.3%; P = 0.397). The study postoperative pancreatic fistula proportion was lower (3.2%), when compared to the literature proportion (18.4%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 5.8). The study patients had a lower reoperation proportion (3.1%) than the literature proportion (8.7%; mid-P = 0.051; risk ratio = 2.8). The study patients had a lower surgical site infection proportion (3.1%) than those in the literature (21.1%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 6.8). The study patients had equivalent delayed gastric emptying (15.6%) when compared to literature patients (10.6%; P = 0.216). The study patients had decreased Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV complications (10.9%) compared to the literature patients (21.8%; mid-P = 0.018). Lastly, the study patients had a similar readmission proportion (20.3%) compared to literature patients (18.4%; P = 0.732). CONCLUSION: Despite pancreatic surgical patients having greater preoperative medical comorbidities, the current community study outcomes were comparable to or better than high-volume academic center results.

Cracking the Hip: Does Protocol Matter? A Retrospective Cohort Study Investigating the Effect of Protocol Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 300 000 hip fractures occur annually in the USA in patients >65 years old. Early intervention is key in reducing morbidity and mortality. Our institution implemented a collaborative hip fracture protocol, streamlining existing processes to reduce time to OR (TTO) and hospital length of stay (LOS). Our aim was to determine if this protocol improved these outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using our level-1 trauma center's trauma registry, comparing outcomes for patients >60 years old with isolated hip fractures pre-and post-hip protocol implementation in May 2018. Our primary outcomes were TTO and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included LOS and postoperative complications. Univariate analysis was done using chi-square and T-test. RESULTS: We identified 176 patients with isolated hip fractures: 69 post- and 107 pre-protocol. Comparing post- to pre-protocol, TTO decreased by 18hrs (39 vs 57h; P = .013) and patients had fewer postoperative complications (9 vs 23%; P = .016) despite post-protocol patients being more likely to have diabetes (42 vs 27%, P < .05), elevated BMI (22 vs 25; P < .001), and to be current smokers (9 vs 2%; P < .05). LOS and in-hospital mortality also decreased (11 vs 20d; P = .312, 4.3 vs 7.5%; P = .402). Post-protocol patients were more likely to go to the OR within 24hrs of presentation (39 vs 16%; P < .001) and to go straight from ED to OR (32 vs 4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: TTO, LOS, and postoperative complications for isolated hip fracture patients were lower post-protocol. Though not all statistically significant, this trend indicates that the protocol was helpful in improving hip fracture outcomes but may require further improvement and institution-wide education.

Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. METHODS: We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. RESULTS: We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92-0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.

Pediatric Trauma and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A 12-Year Comparison in a Level-1 Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: The effect of COVID-19 on pediatric trauma rates is still largely under investigation. With the potential need to reallocate human and financial resources at this challenging time, it will be useful to have detailed descriptions of the rates of pediatric trauma and understanding of how the pandemic affects these rates. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of acute pediatric trauma admissions and procedures performed in a level-I trauma center in Cork University Hospital, Ireland. METHODS: We compared the number of acute traumatic pediatric admissions and procedures that occurred during the first 4 weeks of a nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19 with that of the same 4-week period in each of the preceding 11 years. Seasonal variables were measured and controlled for using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 545 pediatric patients (under 16 years of age) were included. Over 12 years, the lowest number of acute traumatic pediatric admissions and procedures was recorded during the 2020 pandemic. There was a significant correlation between the number of school days and the number of acute traumatic admissions, as well as the procedures performed. The relationship between the number of school days and the number of trauma procedures was evident even when controlling for confounder variables of seasonal variation. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the number of acute traumatic pediatric admissions and procedures performed in our level-I trauma center, likely because of a reduction in school days. With the reopening of schools, playgrounds, and sporting events, an increase in pediatric trauma admissions is anticipated. The results of this study can help prepare institutions and regulatory bodies to plan appropriately for this new phase.

Palliative Care Consultations in Trauma Patients and Role of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Propensity-Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To delineate characteristics of trauma patients associated with a palliative care consultation (PCC) and to analyze the role of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and related outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective study included 864 patients from 2 level one trauma centers admitted between 2012 and 2019.  Level 1 trauma centers are designated for admission of the most severe injured patients. Palliative care consultation group of 432 patients who received PCC and were compared to matched control (MC) group of 432 patients without PCC. Propensity matching covariates included Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, gender, and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Analysis included patient demographics, injury parameters, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ICU length of stay (ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, timing of PCC and DNR, and mortality. Palliative care consultation patients were further analyzed based on DNR status: prehospital DNR, in-hospital DNR, and no DNR (NODNR). RESULTS: Palliative care consultation compared to MC patients were older, predominantly Caucasian, with more frequent traumatic brain injury (TBI), ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. The average time to PCC was 5.3 days. Do-not-resuscitate orders were significantly more common in PCC compared to MC group (71.5% vs 11.1%, P < .001). Overall mortality was 90.7% in PCC and 6.0% in MC (P < .001). In patients with DNR, mortality was 94.2% in PCC and 18.8% in MC. In-hospital DNR-PCC compared to NODNR-PCC patients had shorter ICULOS (5.0 vs 7.3 days, P = .04), HLOS (6.2 vs 13.2 days, P = .006), and time to discharge (1.0 vs 6.3 days, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age, DNR order, and TBI were associated with a PCC in trauma patients and resulted in significantly higher mortality in PCC than in MC patients. Combination of DNR and PCC was associated with shorter ICULOS, HLOS, and time from PCC to discharge.

Protocol for Urgent and Emergent Cases at a Large Academic Level 1 Trauma Center.

Background Level 1 trauma centers are capable of caring for every aspect of injury and contain 24-hour in-house coverage by general surgeons, with prompt availability of nearly all other disciplines upon request. Despite the wide variety of trauma, currently reported protocols often focus on a single surgical service and studies describing their implementation are lacking. The aim of the current study was to characterize all urgent and emergent cases at a large academic Level 1 trauma center, characterize the specialty and nature of emergent operative cases, and assess the efficacy of the institutional trauma protocol on timing of surgery. Methods For this retrospective review, all urgent and emergent cases treated at a single institution, during a 34-month period (January 1, 2015-October 31, 2017), were identified. All included cases were subject to the Institutional Guidelines for Operative Urgent/Emergent Cases. Demographic characteristics for non-elective surgical emergent cases were compiled by level of urgency and operating room (OR) waiting times were compared by year, department, and Level. Results A total of 11,206 urgent and emergent operative cases were included, among over 16 surgical departments. Level 2 cases represented the majority of urgent/emergent cases (33%-36%), followed by Level 3 (25%-26%), Level 1 (21%-22%), Level 4 (12%-16%), and Level 5 (2%-4%). Univariate analysis demonstrated that the proportion of urgent and emergent cases, by level of urgency, did not significantly differ between each year. Operating room waiting time decreased significantly over each year from 2015, 2016, and 2017: 193.40 ± 4.78, 177.20 ± 3.29, and 82.01 ± 2.98 minutes, respectively. Conclusions To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to characterize all urgent and emergent cases at a large academic Level 1 trauma center, outline the specialty and nature of emergent operative cases, and assess the efficacy of the institutional trauma protocol on surgical waiting times over a 34-month period.

Transitioning From a Level II to Level I Trauma Center Increases Resident Patient Exposure.

Increased patient exposure has been shown to improve residency training as determined by better patient outcomes. The transition of John Peter Smith Hospital from a level II to a level I trauma center in 2009 provided a unique opportunity to investigate the direct effects of increased patient exposure on residency training in a relatively controlled setting. We evaluated the effect of the transition to a level I trauma center on residency training. In 2014, we examined the annual facility reports and separated the data into 2 groups: level II (2001 to 2008) and level I (2010 to 2013). The primary outcome measures were patient volume, surgical volume, patient acuity, and scholarly activity by the residents. The patient volume in all units increased significantly (p < .05 for all) after the transition to a level I center. The surgical volume increased significantly for the general surgery, orthopedics, and podiatry departments (p < .05 for all) but remained unchanged in the gynecology and oral maxillofacial surgery departments. The volume measures were performed on all 98 residents (100%). Patient acuity and scholarly activity increased by 17% and 52%, respectively; however, the differences in these data were not statistically significant. The scholarly activity per resident was measured for the orthopedic and podiatry departments. For those departments, the total number of residents was 30, and scholarly activity was measured for 100% of them. Overall, resident education improved when the hospital transitioned to a level I trauma center, although certain subspecialties benefited more than did others from this transition.

Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injuries: a closer look at level 1 trauma centers in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) recently updated recommendations for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The effect of ICP monitoring on outcomes is controversial, and compliance with BTF guidelines is variable. The purpose of this study was to assess both compliance and outcomes at level I trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was queried for all patients admitted to level I trauma centers with isolated blunt severe TBI (AIS>3, GCS<9) who met criteria for ICP monitoring. Patients who had severe extracranial injuries, craniectomy, or death in the first 24h were excluded. Comparison between groups with and without ICP monitoring was made, analyzing demographics, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), vital signs on admission, head CT scan findings. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, mechanical ventilation days, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, systemic complications, and functional independence at discharge. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for each of the outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 4880 patients were included. ICP monitoring was used in 529 patients (10.8%). Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified ICP monitor placement as an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.28-2.07; p<0.001), mechanical ventilation (OR 5.74 95% CI 4.42-7.46; p<0.001), ICU length of stay (OR 4.03; 95% CI 2.94-5.52; p<0.001), systemic complications (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.29-3.37; p<0.001), and decreased functional independence at discharge (OR 1.71 95% CI 1.29-2.26; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients with head AIS 3, 4, and 5 confirmed that ICP monitors remained an independent risk factor for mortality in both head AIS 4 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with BTF guidelines for ICP monitoring is low, even at level I trauma centers. In this study, ICP monitoring was associated with poor outcomes, and was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal role of ICP monitoring in the management of severe TBI.

Antithrombotic agents intake prior to injury does not affect outcome after a traumatic brain injury in hospitalized elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of risk factors including International Normalized Ratio (INR) as well as the Partial Thromboplastin Time (PTT) scores on several outcomes, including hospital length of stay (LOS) and The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) following TBI in the elderly population. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on patients (n=982) aged 65 and above who were admitted post TBI to the McGill University Health Centre-Montreal General Hospital from 2000 to 2011. Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS), type of trauma (isolated TBI vs polytrauma including TBI), initial CT scan results according to the Marshall Classification and the INR and PTT scores and prescriptions of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents (AP/AC) were collected. RESULTS: Results also indicated that age, ISS and GSC score have an effect on the GOSE score. We also found that taking AC/AP has an effect on GOSE outcome, but that this effects depends on PTT, with lower odds of a worse outcome for those taking AC/AP agents as the PTT value goes up. However, this effect only becomes significant as the PTT value reaches 60 and above. CONCLUSION: Age and injury severity rather than antithrombotic agent intake are associated with adverse acute outcome such as GOSE in hospitalized elderly TBI patients.

Computerized alcohol screening identified more at-risk drinkers in a level 2 than a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol abuse is recognized as a significant contributor to injury. It is therefore essential that trauma centers implement screening and brief intervention (SBI) to identify patients who are problem drinkers. Although, the utility of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers have been widely studied in level 1 trauma centers, few studies have been done in level 2 centers. This study evaluates the usefulness of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers and to investigate the pattern of alcohol drinking among level 2 trauma patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a convenience sample of trauma patients participating in computerized alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (CASI) in an academic level 1 trauma center and a nearby suburban community hospital level 2 trauma center. CASI utilized Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen patients. We compared the pattern of alcohol drinking, demographic factors, and readiness-to-change scores between those screened in a level 2 and 1 trauma center. RESULTS: A total of 3,850 and 1,933 admitted trauma patients were screened in level 1 and 2 trauma centers respectively. There was no difference in mean age, gender, and language between the two centers. Of those screened, 10.2% of the level 1 and 14.4% of the level 2 trauma patients scored at-risk (AUDIT 8-19) (p < 0.005). Overall, 3.7% of the level 1 and 7.2% of the level 2 trauma patients had an AUDIT score consistent with dependency (AUDIT > =20) (p < 0.005). After adjusting for age, sex, education, and language, the odds of being a drinker at the level 2 center was two times of those at the level 1 center (p < 0.005). The odds of being an at-risk or dependent drinker at level 2 trauma center were 1.72 times of those at the level 1 center (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that SBI is effective in identifying at-risk drinkers in level 2 trauma center. SBI was able to identify all drinkers, including at-risk and dependent drinkers at higher rates in level 2 versus level 1 trauma centers. Further studies to evaluate the effectiveness of SBI in altering drinking patterns among level 2 trauma patients are warranted.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment in persons with traumatic brain injury.

The objective of this study was to examine the performance of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The MoCA was administered to 214 patients with TBI during their acute care hospitalization in a Level 1 trauma center. The results showed that patients with severe TBI had lower scores on the MoCA compared with patients with mild and moderate TBI, F(2, 211) = 10.35, p = .0001. This difference was found for visuospatial/executive, attention, and orientation subtests (p < .05). Linear regression demonstrated that age, education, TBI severity, and the presence of neurological antecedents were the best predictors of cognitive impairments explaining 42% of the total variability of the MoCA. This information can enable clinicians to predict early cognitive impairments and plan cognitive rehabilitation earlier in the recovery process.