The changing epidemiology of interpersonal firearm violence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Philadelphia, PA.

Recent increases in firearm violence in U.S. cities are well-documented, however dynamic changes in the people, places and intensity of this public health threat during the COVID-19 pandemic are relatively unexplored. This descriptive epidemiologic study spanning from January 1, 2015 - March 31, 2021 utilizes the Philadelphia Police Department's registry of shooting victims, a database which includes all individuals shot and/or killed due to interpersonal firearm violence in the city of Philadelphia. We compared victim and event characteristics prior to the pandemic with those following implementation of pandemic containment measures. In this study, containment began on March 16, 2020, when non-essential businesses were ordered to close in Philadelphia. There were 331 (SE = 13.9) individuals shot/quarter pre-containment vs. 545 (SE = 66.4) individuals shot/quarter post-containment (p = 0.031). Post-containment, the proportion of women shot increased by 39% (95% CI: 1.21, 1.59), and the proportion of children shot increased by 17% (95% CI: 1.00, 1.35). Black women and children were more likely to be shot post-containment (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.20 and RR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.14, respectively). The proportion of mass shootings (≥4 individuals shot within 100 m within 1 h) increased by 53% post-containment (95% CI: 1.25, 1.88). Geographic analysis revealed relative increases in all shootings and mass shootings in specific city locations post-containment. The observed changes in firearm injury epidemiology following COVID-19 containment in Philadelphia demonstrate an intensification in firearm violence, which is increasingly impacting people who are likely made more vulnerable by existing social and structural disadvantage. These findings support existing knowledge about structural causes of interpersonal firearm violence and suggest structural solutions are required to address this public health threat.

Trends in General Surgery Resident Experience with Colorectal Surgery: An Analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Case Logs.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal surgery is a core component of general surgery. The volume of colorectal surgery performed by general surgery residents throughout training has not been studied. This study aims to analyze trends observed in colorectal-specific case numbers logged by general surgery residents over 16 years. DESIGN: Case number data for general surgery residents was extracted from the publicly available, annually published Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database from 2003 to 2019. Cases were categorized as open or laparoscopic colectomy/proctectomy, colectomy with ileoanal pull-thru, abdomino-perineal resection (APR), transanal rectal tumor excision (TRE), anorectal procedure, colonoscopy, and total colorectal cases. The average case numbers per category was calculated for each year. Linear regression analyzed trends in case categories for all residents and those logged as surgeon chief and junior residents. SETTING: ACGME accredited general surgery residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: General surgery residents reported increased numbers of all, chief, and junior resident colorectal cases over the study period (124.5-173.7 cases/yr; 38.4-53.0 cases/yr; 86.4-120.6 cases/yr, all p = 0.00). Average cases for all, chief, and junior residents have increased for laparoscopic colectomy/proctectomy (4.6-26.4 cases/year; 2.7-12.9 cases/year; 2.0-13.5 cases/year, all p = 0.00), anorectal surgeries (26.7-37.7 cases/year; 5.4-9.9 cases/year; 21.3-27.8 cases/year, all p = 0.00), and colonoscopies (35.9-70.6 cases/year, p = 0.00; 6.6-14.1 cases/year, p = 0.01; 29.4-56.5 cases/year, p = 0.00). Average cases for all, chief, and junior residents have decreased for open colectomy/proctectomy (52.0-34.9 cases/year; 21.2-14.3 cases/year; 30.9-20.6 cases/year, all p = 0.00), APR (3.3-2.7 cases/year, p = 0.00; 1.8-1.3 cases/year, p = 0.00; 1.5-1.4 cases/year, p = 0.02), TRE (1.9-1.1 cases/year; 0.7-0.4 cases/year; 1.2-0.6 cases/year, all p = 0.00). Ileoanal pull-thru did not demonstrate a linear trend. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in exposure to colectomies/proctectomies, anorectal procedures and colonoscopies is encouraging, as these common colorectal operations will be encountered in general surgery practice. The observed low case numbers for TRE, APR, and ileoanal pull-thru suggest a need for specialized training.

Formal Training Improves Resident Understanding and Communication Regarding Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Residents often are involved in discussions with families regarding brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC); however, they receive no standardized training on this topic. We hypothesized that residents are uncomfortable with explaining BD/DNC and that formal didactic and simulated training will improve residents' comfort and skill in discussions surrounding BD/DNC. DESIGN: We partnered with our organ procurement organization (OPO) to create an educational program regarding BD/DNC consisting of a didactic component, and role-play scenarios with immediate individualized feedback. Residents completed pre- and post-training surveys. SETTING: This study included participants from 16 academic and community institutions across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware that are within our OPO's region. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were recruited using convenience sampling based on the institution and training programs' willingness to participate. A total of 1422 residents at participated in the training from 2009 to 2020.  1389 (97.7%) participants competed the pre-intervention survey, while 1361 (95.7%) completed the post-intervention survey. RESULTS: Prior to the training, only 56% of residents correctly identified BD/DNC as synonymous with death. Additionally, 40% of residents had explained BD/DNC to families at least once, but 41% of residents reported never having been taught how to do so. The biggest fear reported in discussing BD/DNC with families was being uncomfortable in explaining BD/DNC (48%). After participating in the training, 99% of residents understood the definition of BD/DNC and 92% of residents felt comfortable discussing BD/DNC with families. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a standardized curriculum improves residents' understanding of BD/DNC and their comfort in discussing BD/DNC with families.

Handoffs and transitions in critical care-understanding scalability: study protocol for a multicenter stepped wedge type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence-based practices in critical care faces specific challenges, including intense time pressure and patient acuity. These challenges result in evidence-to-practice gaps that diminish the impact of proven-effective interventions for patients requiring intensive care unit support. Research is needed to understand and address implementation determinants in critical care settings. METHODS: The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care-Understanding Scalability (HATRICC-US) study is a Type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of standardized operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs. This mixed methods study will use a stepped wedge design with randomized roll out to test the effectiveness of a customized protocol for structuring communication between clinicians in the OR and the ICU. The study will be conducted in twelve ICUs (10 adult, 2 pediatric) based in five United States academic health systems. Contextual inquiry incorporating implementation science, systems engineering, and human factors engineering approaches will guide both protocol customization and identification of protocol implementation determinants. Implementation mapping will be used to select appropriate implementation strategies for each setting. Human-centered design will be used to create a digital toolkit for dissemination of study findings. The primary implementation outcome will be fidelity to the customized handoff protocol (unit of analysis: handoff). The primary effectiveness outcome will be a composite measure of new-onset organ failure cases (unit of analysis: ICU). DISCUSSION: The HATRICC-US study will customize, implement, and evaluate standardized procedures for OR to ICU handoffs in a heterogenous group of United States academic medical center intensive care units. Findings from this study have the potential to improve postsurgical communication, decrease adverse clinical outcomes, and inform the implementation of other evidence-based practices in critical care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04571749 . Date of registration: October 1, 2020.

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Rates of damage control laparotomy (DCL) vary widely and consensus on appropriate indications does not exist. The purposes of this multicenter quality improvement (QI) project were to decrease the use of DCL and to identify indications where consensus exists. METHODS: In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, QI project utilizing a single QI tool: audit and feedback. Each emergent trauma laparotomy was prospectively reviewed. Damage control laparotomy cases were adjudicated based on the majority vote of faculty members as being appropriate or potentially, in retrospect, safe for definitive laparotomy. The rate of DCL for 2 years prior (2014 and 2015) was retrospectively collected and used as a control. To account for secular trends of DCL, interrupted time series was used to effectiveness of the QI interventions. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-two emergent laparotomies were performed: 73% definitive laparotomies, 24% DCLs, and 3% intraoperative deaths. Of the 209 DCLs, 162 (78%) were voted appropriate, and 47 (22%) were voted to have been potentially safe for definitive laparotomy. Rates of DCL ranged from 16% to 34%. Common indications for DCL for which consensus existed were packing (103/115 [90%] appropriate) and hemodynamic instability (33/40 [83%] appropriate). The only common indication for which primary closure at the initial laparotomy could have been safely performed was avoiding a planned second look (16/32 [50%] appropriate). CONCLUSION: A single faceted QI intervention failed to decrease the rate of DCL at six US Level I trauma centers. However, opportunities for improvement in safely decreasing the rate of DCL were present. Second look laparotomy appears to lack consensus as an indication for DCL and may represent a target to decrease the rate of DCL after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study with one negative criterion, level III.

Effect of damage control laparotomy on major abdominal complications and lengths of stay: A propensity score matching and Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients for whom surgical equipoise exists for damage control laparotomy (DCL) and definitive laparotomy (DEF), the effect of DCL and its associated resource utilization are unknown. We hypothesized that DEF would be associated with fewer abdominal complications and less resource utilization. METHODS: In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, prospective, quality improvement project with the primary aim to safely decrease the use of DCL. From this cohort of patients undergoing emergent trauma laparotomy, those who underwent DCL but were judged by majority faculty vote at each center to have been candidates for potential DEF (pDEF) were prospectively identified. These pDEF patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scoring to the DEF patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of major abdominal complications (MAC). Deaths within 5 days were excluded. Outcomes were assessed using both Bayesian generalized linear modeling and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-two total patients were enrolled, 639 (73%) DEF and 209 (24%) DCL. Of the 209 DCLs, 44 survived 5 days and were judged to be patients who could have safely been closed at the primary laparotomy. Thirty-nine pDEF patients were matched to 39 DEF patients. There were no differences in demographics, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, prehospital/emergency department/operating room vital signs, laboratory values, resuscitation, or procedures performed during laparotomy. There was no difference in MAC between the two groups (31% DEF vs. 21% pDEF, relative risk 0.99, 95% credible interval 0.60-1.54, posterior probability 56%). Definitive laparotomy was associated with a 72%, 77%, and 72% posterior probability of more hospital-free, intensive care unit-free, and ventilator-free days, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients for whom surgeons have equipoise for DCL versus definitive surgery, definitive abdominal closure was associated with a similar probability of MAC, but a high probability of fewer hospital-free, intensive care unit-free, and ventilator-free days. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level III.

The evil of good is better: Making the case for basic life support transport for penetrating trauma victims in an urban environment.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains over the ideal way to transport penetrating trauma victims in an urban environment. Both advance life support (ALS) and basic life support (BLS) transports are used in most urban centers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center. Victims of penetrating trauma transported by ALS, BLS, or police from January 1, 2008, to November 31, 2013, were identified. Patient survival by mode of transport and by level of care received was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,490 penetrating trauma patients were transported by ALS (44.8%), BLS (15.6%), or police (39.6%) personnel. The majority of injuries were gunshot wounds (72.9% for ALS, 66.8% for BLS, 90% for police). Median transport minutes were significantly longer for ALS (16 minutes) than for BLS (14.5 minutes) transports (p = 0.012). After adjusting for transport time and Injury Severity Score (ISS), among victims with an ISS of 0 to 30, there was a 2.4-fold increased odds of death (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.4) if transported by ALS as compared with BLS. With an ISS of greater than 30, this relationship did not exist (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7). When examined by type of care provided, patients with an ISS of 0 to 30 given ALS support were 3.7 times more likely to die than those who received BLS support (95% CI, 2.0-6.8). Among those with an ISS of greater than 30, no relationship was evident (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7). CONCLUSION: Among penetrating trauma victims with an ISS of 30 or lower, an increased odds of death was identified for those treated and/or transported by ALS personnel. For those with an ISS of greater than 30, no survival advantage was identified with ALS transport or care. Results suggest that rapid transport may be more important than increased interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.