Improving Post-Injury Follow-up Survey Response: Incorporating Automated Modalities.

Background Incorporating post-discharge data into trauma registries would allow for better research on patient outcomes, including disparities in outcomes. This pilot study tested a follow-up data collection process to be incorporated into existing trauma care systems, prioritizing low-cost automated response modalities. Methods This investigation was part of a larger study that consisted of two protocols with two distinct cohorts of participants who experienced traumatic injury. Participants in both protocols were asked to provide phone, email, text, and mail contact information to complete follow-up surveys assessing patient-reported outcomes six months after injury. To increase follow-up response rates between protocol 1 and protocol 2, the study team modified the contact procedures for the protocol 2 cohort. Frequency distributions were utilized to report the frequency of follow-up response modalities and overall response rates in both protocols. Results A total of 178 individuals responded to the 6-month follow-up survey: 88 in protocol 1 and 90 in protocol 2. After implementing new follow-up contact procedures in protocol 2 that relied more heavily on the use of automated modalities (e.g., email and text messages), the response rate increased by 17.9 percentage points. The primary response modality shifted from phone (72.7%) in protocol 1 to the combination of email (47.8%) and text (14.4%) in protocol 2. Conclusions Results from this investigation suggest that follow-up data can feasibly be collected from trauma patients. Use of automated follow-up methods holds promise to expand longitudinal data in the national trauma registry and broaden the understanding of disparities in patient experiences.

Current Diagnosis and Management of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections: What You Need to Know.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Identifying Common Data Elements to Achieve Injury-related Health Equity Across the Lifespan: A Consensus-Driven Approach.

Background: Limited availability and poor quality of data in medical records and trauma registries impede progress to achieve injury-related health equity across the lifespan. Methods: We used a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in-person workgroup and a national web-based Delphi process to identify common data elements (CDE) that should be collected. Results: The 12 participants in the NGT workgroup and 23 participants in the national Delphi process identified 10 equity-related CDE and guiding lessons for research on collection of these data. Conclusions: These high-priority CDE define a detailed, equity-oriented approach to guide research to achieve injury-related health equity across the lifespan.

An Executive Summary of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP).

ABSTRACT: The National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR), the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients.

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.

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.

Defining the Optimal Antibiotic Duration in Necrotizing Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Clinical Experience from a Quaternary Referral Center.

Background: Early initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents is a cornerstone of the care of necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections (NSTI). However, the optimal duration of antibiotic agents is unclear. We sought to characterize antibiotic prescribing patterns for patients with NSTI, as well as associated complications. Patients and Methods: Using an NSTI registry, we characterized antibiotic use at a quaternary referral center. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to describe overall antibiotic duration and relative to operative source control, stratified by presence of other infections that independently influenced antibiotic duration. Factors associated with successful antibiotic discontinuation were identified using logistic regression. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 441 patients received antibiotic agents for NSTI with 18% experiencing a complicating secondary infection. Among those without a complicating infection, the median duration of antibiotic administration was 9.8 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-10.5) overall, and 7.0 days after the final debridement. Perineal NSTI received fewer days of antibiotic agents (8.3 vs. 10.6) compared with NSTI without perineal involvement. White blood cell (WBC) count and fever were not associated with failure of antibiotic discontinuation, however, a chronic wound as the underlying infection etiology was associated with greater odds of antibiotic discontinuation failure (odds ratio [OR], 4.33; 95% CI, 1.24-15.1). Conclusions: A seven-day course of antibiotic agents after final operative debridement may be sufficient for NSTI without any secondary complicating infections, because clinical characteristics do not appear to be associated with differences in successful antibiotic discontinuation.

Disparities in Misclassification of Race and Ethnicity in Electronic Medical Records Among Patients with Traumatic Injury.

Systems-level barriers to self-reporting of race and ethnicity reduce the integrity of data entered into the medical record and trauma registry among patients with injuries, limiting research assessing the burden of racial disparities. We sought to characterize misclassification of self-identified versus hospital-recorded racial and ethnic identity data among 10,513 patients with traumatic injuries. American Indian/Alaska Native patients (59.9%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander patients (52.4%) were most likely to be misclassified. Most Hispanic/Latin(x) patients preferred to only be identified as Hispanic/Latin(x) (73.2%) rather than a separate race category (e.g., White). Incorrect identification of race/ethnicity also has substantial implications for the perceived demographics of patient population; according to the medical record, 82.3% of the population were White, although only 70.6% were self-identified as White. The frequency of misclassification of race and ethnicity for persons of color limits research validity on racial and ethnic injury disparities.

Are trauma surgeons prepared? A survey of trauma surgeons' disaster preparedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: US trauma centers (TCs) must remain prepared for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). However, trauma surgeons may lack formal MCI training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic drove multiple patient surges, overloaded Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies, and stressed TCs. This survey assessed trauma surgeons' MCI training, experience, and system and personal preparedness before the pandemic compared with the pandemic's third year. Methods: Survey invitations were emailed to all 1544 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2019, and then resent in 2022 to 1575 members with additional questions regarding the pandemic. Questions assessed practice type, TC characteristics, training, experience, beliefs about personal and hospital preparedness, likelihood of MCI scenarios, interventions desired from membership organizations, and pandemic experiences. Results: The response rate was 16.7% in 2019 and 12% in 2022. In 2022, surgeons felt better prepared than their hospitals for pandemic care, mass shootings, and active shooters, but remained feeling less well prepared for cyberattack and hazardous material events, compared with 2019. Only 35% of the respondents had unintentional MCI response experience in 2019 or 2022, and even fewer had experience with intentional MCI. 78% had completed a Stop the Bleed (STB) course and 63% own an STB kit. 57% had engaged in family preparedness activities; less than 40% had a family action plan if they could not come home during an MCI. 100% of the respondents witnessed pandemic-related adverse events, including colleague and coworker illness, patient surges, and resource limitations, and 17% faced colleague or coworker death. Conclusions: Trauma surgeons thought that they became better at pandemic care and rated themselves as better prepared than their hospitals for MCI care, which is an opportunity for them to take greater leadership roles. Opportunities remain to improve surgeons' family and personal MCI preparedness. Surgeons' most desired professional organization interventions include advocacy, national standards for TC preparedness, and online training. Level of evidence: VII, survey of expert opinion.

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.

Centering patient perspectives to achieve injury-related health equity in trauma care systems: Improving trauma registry data.

BACKGROUND: Limitations in current data collection systems for patients who experience traumatic injury limit researchers' ability to identify and address disparities in injury and outcomes. We sought to develop and test a patient-centered data-collection system for equity-related data indicators that was acceptable to racially and ethnically diverse patients being treated for traumatic injuries. METHODS: Health equity indicators included in this study were race and ethnicity, language, education, employment, housing, and injury address. We conducted interviews with 245 racially and ethnically diverse trauma patients who were treated at a level-1 trauma center in the US in 2019-2020. We first interviewed 136 patients to develop a culturally resonant process and options for the health equity indicators to be added to a revised data collection system for the electronic medical record. English and Spanish interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim; qualitative analysis was used to assess patient preferences. We then pilot tested the revised data collection system with an additional 109 trauma patients to assess acceptability. Acceptability was defined as having more than 95% of participants self-identify with one of the proposed options for race/ethnicity, language, education, employment, and housing. Injury address (to identify geographic disparities) was pre-defined as acceptable if at least 85% of participants could identify exact address, cross streets, a landmark or business, or zip code of injury. RESULTS: A revised data collection system, including culturally resonant indicators and a process to be used by patient registrars to collect health equity data, was pilot tested, refined, and considered acceptable. Culturally resonant question phrasing/answer options for race/ethnicity, language, education, employment, housing status, and injury address were identified as acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a patient-centered data collection system for health equity measures with racially and ethnically diverse patients who have experienced traumatic injury. This system has the potential to increase data quality and accuracy, which is critical to quality improvement efforts and for researchers seeking to identify groups most impacted by racism and other structural barriers to equitable health outcomes and effective intervention points.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and resuscitative thoracotomy are associated with similar outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for patients with hemorrhagic shock. However, the potential benefits of this approach remain subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of REBOA and RT for traumatic cardiac arrest. METHODS: A planned secondary analysis of the United States Department of Defense-funded Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control study was performed. Between 2017 and 2018, a prospective observational study of noncompressible torso hemorrhage was conducted at six Level I trauma centers. Patients were dichotomized by REBOA or RT, and baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 454 patients were enrolled in the primary study, of which 72 patients were included in the secondary analysis (26 underwent REBOA and 46 underwent resuscitative thoracotomy). Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients were older, had a greater body mass index, and were less likely to be the victims of penetrating trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients also had less severe abdominal injuries and more severe extremity injuries, although the overall injury severity scores were similar. There was no difference in mortality between groups (88% vs. 93%, p = 0.767). However, time to aortic occlusion was longer in REBOA patients (7 vs. 4 minutes, p = 0.001) and they required more transfusions of red blood cells (4.5 vs. 2.5 units, p = 0.007) and plasma (3 vs. 1 unit, p = 0.032) in the emergency department. After adjusted analysis, mortality remained similar between groups (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.12, p = 0.304). CONCLUSION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and RT were associated with similar survival after traumatic cardiac arrest, although time to successful aortic occlusion was longer in the REBOA group. Further research is needed to better define the role of REBOA in trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Access to trauma center care: A statewide system-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to specialized trauma care is a vital element in patient outcome after severe and critical injury requiring the skills of trauma teams in levels I and II trauma centers to avoid preventable mortality. We used system-based models to estimate timely access to care. METHODS: Trauma system models consisted of ground emergency medical services, helicopter emergency medical services, and designated levels I to V trauma centers were constructed for five states. These models incorporated geographic information systems along with traffic data and census block group data to estimate population access to trauma care within the "golden hour." Trauma systems were further analyzed to identify the optimal location for an additional level I or II trauma center that would provide the greatest increase in access. RESULTS: The population of the states studied totaled 23 million people, of which 20 million (87%) had access to a level I or II trauma center within 60 minutes. Statewide-specific access ranged from 60% to 100%. Including levels III to V trauma centers, access within 60 minutes increased to 22 million (96%), ranging from 95% to 100%. The addition of a levels I and II trauma center in an optimized location in each state would provide timely access to a higher trauma capability for an additional 1.1 million, increasing total access to approximately 21.1 million people (92%). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that nearly universal access to trauma care is present in these states when including levels I to V trauma centers. However, concerning gaps remain in timely access to levels I and II trauma centers. This study provides an approach to determine more robust statewide estimates of access to care. It highlights the need for a national trauma system, one in which all components of state-managed trauma systems are assembled in a national data set to accurately identify gaps in care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. OBJECTIVE: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. METHODS: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. RESULTS: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. CONCLUSION: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.

Prehospital and emergency department pediatric readiness for injured children: A statement from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Emergency Medical Services Committee.

ABSTRACT: Injury is the leading cause of death in children older than 1 year, and children make up 22% of the population. Pediatric readiness (PR) of the nation's emergency departments and state trauma and emergency medical services (EMS) systems is conceptually important and vital to mitigate mortality and morbidity in this population. The extension of PR to the trauma community has become a focused area for training, staffing, education, and equipment at all levels of trauma center designation, and there is evidence that a higher level of emergency department PR is independently associated with long-term survival among injured children. Although less well studied, there is an associated need for EMS PR, which is relevant to the injured child who needs assessment, treatment, triage, and transport to a trauma center. We outline a blueprint along with recommendations for incorporating PR into trauma system development in this opinion from the EMS Committee of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. These recommendations are particularly pertinent in the rural and underserved areas of the United States but are directed toward all levels of professionals who care for an injured child along the trauma continuum of care.

Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.