Trauma transfers discharged from the emergency department-Is there a role for telemedicine?

BACKGROUND: As the only Level I trauma center in the state, our hospital has seen an increase in the number of traumas requiring transfer for a higher level of care, placing strain on an already strained health care system. Traumas that are transferred to our facility and subsequently discharged back home indicate a subset of patients who may not be appropriate to transfer. The aim of this study is to identify commonalities between patients who were transferred for a higher level of care but do not require inpatient status and to assess patients who may benefit from a telemedicine evaluation. METHODS: A 2-year retrospective review of a prospective collected database of patients who were discharged from the ED following transfer to a Level I trauma center was conducted. Data included demographics, injuries, transferring facility, method of transport, activation criteria and level, additional imaging, consulting services, procedures, and disposition. RESULTS: A total of 2,350 patients were transferred. Of those, 27% (632/2,350) were discharged home directly from the trauma bay. Of those patients, 36% (230/632) required complex bedside intervention or subspecialty consultation prior to discharge including complex laceration repairs 53%, ophthalmology examination 24%, splinting 18%, and joint reduction 5%. Sixty-four percent (402/632) of patients did not require complex bedside procedures prior to discharge. One hundred twenty hospitals transferred patients to our center during this period. The top 10 transferring facilities accounted for 40% (948/2,350) of our transfer volume. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that patients who are transferred to our facility and subsequently discharged have a common pattern of injuries; typically, isolated hand and face/ophthalmology. This is likely attributed to the lack of resources in rural facilities to evaluate and develop treatment plans for these injuries; however, only 36% of discharged patients required a bedside procedure. Excluding Level I traumas, head and spine injuries, and patients requiring complex bedside procedures, there was a 13% inappropriate rate of transfer (310/2,350). Development and implementation of a telemedicine system could potentially reduce the transfer and ED discharge rate, thereby improving efficiency and allowing for reallocation of resources as appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic, Level III.

Effect of Post-splenectomy Booster Vaccine Program on Vaccination Compliance in Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Council on Immunization Practice recommended an additional post-splenectomy booster vaccine at 8 weeks following the initial vaccine. The objective of this study was to evaluate our vaccination compliance rate and what sociodemographic factors were associated with noncompliance following this recommendation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a performance improvement database of trauma patients eligible for post-splenectomy vaccination (PSV) at a level I trauma center was carried out between 2009 and 2018. Overall and institutional compliance with PSV was compared before and after the addition of booster vaccine recommendation. Factors associated with booster noncompliance were also identified. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were identified. PSV compliance rate in the pre-booster was 98.4%, while overall and institutional post-booster compliance rate were significantly lower at 66.9% (P ≤ .001) and 50.0% (P ≤ .001), respectively. Compared to booster institutional compliers, institutional noncompliers lived farther from the trauma center (48 vs. 86 miles, P = .02), and though not statistically significant, these patients were generally older (34.9 vs. 40.5, P = .05). DISCUSSION: PSV booster compliance is low even with the current educational materials and recommendations. Additional approaches to improve compliance rates need to be implemented, such as sending letters to the patient and their primary care providers (PCPs), collaborating with rehab/long-term acute care centers, communicating with city and county health departments and city pharmacies, or mirroring other countries and creating a national database for asplenic patients to provide complete information.