RESUMO
Background: Older patients living in rural areas face unique challenges after trauma that may hinder optimal recovery. This study aims to qualitatively assess postdischarge challenges in this vulnerable population. Methods: We conducted remote interviews with older trauma survivors in Washington State previously hospitalized in 2019 and residing in rural areas as determined by rural-urban commuting area code. Participants were identified through our institution's trauma registry and linked with postdischarge data. All eligible participants were contacted. Interview questions focused on needs relating to discharge transition, medical needs, housing, and daily living. Transcribed interviews underwent content analysis to derive a code hierarchy and themes. Results: We conducted 18 interviews out of 83 survivors queried. Compared with non-participants, interviewees had a higher rate of secondary insurance (61% vs 34%), and fewer had an emergency department visit within 1 year (22% vs 34%). Content analysis yielded four major themes: discharge transitions, loss of control, rural insights, and self-efficacy. Most patients felt prepared for discharge and had social support. Regardless of disposition type, most patients needed therapy sessions after discharge. Geography and transportation issues were among the biggest barriers. Most participants were never offered a telemedicine appointment but would have used it if offered. Subthemes of self-efficacy included financial security, leisure, personal outlook, physical and logistical resources, and participants' support systems. Discussion: Older trauma patients from rural areas face unique challenges after discharge. Key strategies to improve patient experience might include more telemedicine appointments and increased awareness of resources in rural communities. Level of evidence: III.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Burns are painful injuries associated with a long recovery. Patients may not be receiving sufficient pain management education to optimize their experience and recovery after burn injury. Therefore, we aimed to obtain patients' perspectives about the effectiveness of current burn pain education to inform future efforts. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods research design that included both inpatients and outpatients cared for at a single, American Burn Association-verified burn center. Participants were at least 14 years of age with an acute burn who received a minimum of two wound interventions. The interview was designed by clinician stakeholders using a modified Delphi technique and focused on patient respondent's pain experience, understanding and desire to gain knowledge concerning burn pain and its management. Descriptive quantitative analysis was performed on categorical data. Recorded interview segments were transcribed for content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one adult burn patients were interviewed. Participants reported experiencing variable levels of pain and pain management effectiveness. Inpatients reported more severe pain than outpatients. Only 11% of inpatients reported having received enough pain information, compared to 50% of outpatients. Content analysis yielded 3 themes: patient's pain experience, range of expectations, and clinical information/services desired. Mental and physical effects were key factors in respondents' pain experiences, with many participants reporting mental anguish in addition to pain. Of participants who had pain expectations, most were matched by their experience (56%), although many individuals (44%) described higher pain levels than they anticipated. Positive experiences with the burn care team primarily revolved around receiving pain education from a provider, whereas negative experiences focused on wound care events. Participants desired more information on sleep and pain medications, alternative treatments, weaning and addiction risk, realistic expectations of recovery timelines, and available mental health services. Written (pamphlet) education ranked as the most desirable delivery method, followed by in-person and video education. CONCLUSIONS: Burn patients reported variable pain experiences and a strong desire to receive additional pain education. This project informs key strategies to educate burn patients on pain: leverage the high-level of interest in pain to foster education, describe pharmacologic and alternative therapies, offer weaning plans and explanation of addiction risks. APPLICABILITY TO PRACTICE: Burn patients' perspectives help inform strategies and content creation for pain-related education materials that burn centers can provide to improve patients' experiences. EXTERNAL FUNDING: Project was supported in part by the NIH grant for Insight Student Research Program at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (R25 HD094336).