Emergency physician and nurse discretion accurately triage high-risk trauma patients.

PURPOSE: Prehospital trauma team activation (TTA) criteria allow for early identification of severely injured trauma patients. Although most TTA criteria are objective, one TTA criterion is subjective: emergency provider discretion. The study objective was to define the ability of emergency department physician and nurse discretion to accurately perform prehospital triage of high risk trauma patients. METHODS: All highest level TTAs arriving to our American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified Level 1 trauma center (06/2015-08/2020) were included. Exclusions were undocumented prehospital vitals or discharge disposition. At our institution, TTAs are triggered for standard ACS TTA criteria and age > 70 with traumatic mechanism other than ground level fall. Patients meeting ≥ 1 criterion apart from "Emergency Provider Discretion" were defined as Standard TTAs and patients meeting only "Emergency Provider Discretion" were defined as Discretion TTAs. Univariable/multivariable analyses compared injury data and outcomes. RESULTS: 4540 patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria: 3330 (73%) Standard TTAs and 1210 (27%) Discretion TTAs. Discretion TTAs were younger (34 vs. 37 years, p < 0.001) and more frequently injured by penetrating trauma (38% vs. 33%, p = 0.008), particularly stab wounds (64% vs. 29%). Overtriage rates were comparable after Discretion vs. Standard TTAs (33% vs. 31%, p = 0.141). Blood transfusion < 4 h (31% vs. 32%, p = 0.503) and ICU admission ≥ 3 days (25% vs. 27%, p = 0.058) were comparable between groups. Discretion TTA was independently associated with increased need for emergent surgery (OR 1.316, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency provider discretion accurately identifies major trauma, with comparable rates of overtriage as standard TTA criteria. Discretion TTAs were as likely as Standard TTAs to require early blood transfusion and prolonged ICU stay. After controlling for confounders, Discretion TTAs were significantly more likely to require emergent surgical intervention. Emergency provider discretion should be recognized as a valid method of identifying major trauma patients at high risk of need for intervention.

Does mortality after trauma team activation peak at shift change?

BACKGROUND: Prior institutional data have demonstrated trauma mortality to be highest between 06:00-07:59 at our center, which is also when providers change shifts (07:00-07:30). The objective was definition of patient, provider, and systems variables associated with trauma mortality at shift change among patients arriving as trauma team activations (TTA). METHODS: All TTA patients at our ACS-verified Level I trauma center were included (01/2008-07/2019), excluding those with undocumented arrival time. Study groups were defined by arrival time: shift change (SC) (06:00-07:59) vs. non-shift change (NSC) (all other times). Univariable/multivariable analyses compared key variables. Propensity score analysis compared outcomes after matching. RESULTS: After exclusions, 6020 patients remained: 229 (4%) SC and 5791 (96%) NSC. SC mortality was 25% vs. 16% during NSC (p < 0.001). More SC patients arrived with SBP <90 (19% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) or GCS <9 (35% vs. 24%, p < 0.001). ISS was higher during SC (43[32-50] vs. 34[27-50], p < 0.001). Time to CT scan (36[23-66] vs. 38[23-61] minutes, p = 0.638) and emergent surgery (94[35-141] vs. 63[34-107] minutes, p = 0.071) were comparable. Older age (p < 0.001), SBP <90 (p < 0.001), GCS <9 (p < 0.001), need for emergent operative intervention (p = 0.044), and higher ISS (p < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality. After propensity score matching, mortality was no different between SC and NSC (p = 0.764). CONCLUSIONS: Early morning is a low-volume, high-mortality time for TTAs. Increased mortality at shift change was independently associated with patient/injury factors but not provider/systems factors. Ensuring ample clinical resource allocation during this high acuity time may be prudent to streamline patient care at shift change.

Contemporary utility of diagnostic peritoneal aspiration in trauma.

BACKGROUND: Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) has supplanted diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) as the preferred bedside evaluation for traumatic hemoperitoneum. Diagnostic peritoneal aspiration (DPA) is a simpler, faster modification of DPL with an unclear role in contemporary practice. This study delineated modern roles for DPA and defined its diagnostic yield. METHODS: All trauma patients presenting to our Level I center who underwent DPA were included (May 2015 to May 2020). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical/injury data, and outcomes were collected. The diagnostic yield and accuracy of DPA were calculated against the criterion standard of hemoperitoneum at exploratory laparotomy or computed tomography scan. RESULTS: In total, 41 patients underwent DPA, typically after blunt trauma (n = 37, 90%). Patients were almost exclusively hypotensive (n = 20, 49%) or in arrest (n = 18, 44%). Most patients had an equivocal or negative FAST and hypotension or return of spontaneous circulation after resuscitative thoracotomy (n = 32, 78%); or had a positive FAST and known cirrhosis (n = 4, 10%). In two (5%) patients, one obese, the catheter failed to access the peritoneal cavity. Diagnostic peritoneal aspiration sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 80%, 100%, 100%, and 90%, with an accuracy of 93%. One (2%) complication, a small bowel injury, occurred. CONCLUSION: Despite near ubiquitous FAST availability, DPA remains important in diagnosing or excluding hemoperitoneum with exceedingly low rates of failure and complications. Diagnostic peritoneal aspiration is most conclusive when positive, without false positives in this study. Diagnostic peritoneal aspiration was most used among blunt hypotensive or postarrest patients who had an equivocal or negative FAST, in whom the preliminary diagnosis of hemoperitoneum is a critically important decision making branch point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, level III.

Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging use and oncologic outcomes in premenopausal breast cancer patients.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) delineates disease extent sensitively in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, but improved cancer outcomes are uncertain. Young women, for whom mammography is less sensitive, are expected to benefit from MRI-based resection. We identified 512 women aged ≤50 years, undergoing breast-conserving treatment (BCT: tumor-free resection margins and radiotherapy) during 2006-2013 through Northwestern Medicine database queries; 64.5% received preoperative MRI and 35.5% did not. Tumor and treatment parameters were similar between groups. We estimated the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for local and distant recurrences (LR and DR), using multivariable regression models, accounting for important therapeutic and prognostic parameters. LR rate with MRI use was 7.9 vs. 8.2% without MRI, aHR = 1.03 (95% CI 0.53-1.99). DR rate was 6.4 vs. 6.6%, aHR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.84). In 119 women aged ≤40, results were similar to LR aHR = 1.82 (95% CI 0.43-7.76) and DR aHR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.26-3.34). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. The use of preoperative MRI in women aged ≤50 years should be reconsidered until there is proof of benefit.

What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

PURPOSE: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients greatly overestimate their risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Better understanding of patient conceptions of risk would facilitate doctor-patient communication and surgical decision making. In this mixed methods study, we prospectively examined breast cancer patients' perceived risk of future cancer and the reported factors that drove their risk perceptions. METHODS: Women age 21-60 diagnosed with breast cancer without a BRCA mutation or known distant metastases completed a study interview between surgical consult and surgical treatment. Participants completed a 12-item Perceived Risk Questionnaire, which assessed 10-year and lifetime risks of ipsilateral local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence. Patients provided qualitative explanations for their answers. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients completed study interviews (mean age 50.3). Participants were primarily White (85.7%) and 90.5% had attended college. Patients estimated their 10-year risk of CBC as 22.0%, nearly 4 times the established 10-year risk. Women attributed their risk perceptions to "gut feelings" about future cancer, even when women knew those feelings contradicted medically established risk. Perceptions of risk also reflected beliefs that cancer is random and that risk for local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence are the same. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to the need for novel ways of presenting factual information regarding both risk of recurrence and of new primary cancers, as well as the necessity of acknowledging cognitive and affective processes many patients use when conceptualizing risk. By differentiating women's intuitive feelings about risk from their knowledge of medically estimated risk, doctors can enhance informed decision making.

Tamoxifen Acceptance and Adherence among Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Treated in a Multidisciplinary Setting.

Tamoxifen and other endocrine agents have proven benefits for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), but low patient acceptance is widely reported. We examined factors associated with tamoxifen acceptance and adherence among DCIS patients who received a recommendation for therapy in a multidisciplinary setting. Using our institutional database, we identified women diagnosed with DCIS, 1998 to 2009, who were offered tamoxifen. We recorded data on demographics, tumor and therapy variables, tamoxifen acceptance, and adherence to therapy for ≥4 years. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using logistic regression to identify factors specific to each group that were related to acceptance and adherence. A total of 555 eligible women identified, of whom 369 were offered tamoxifen; 298 (81%) accepted, among whom 214 (72%) were adherent, 59 of 298 (20%) were nonadherent, and for 25 (8%), adherence was undetermined. After stepwise elimination in adjusted logistic regression models, acceptance of breast radiotherapy was associated with acceptance of tamoxifen [OR, 2.22; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.26-3.90; P < 0.01], as was a medical oncology consultation (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.99-3.15; P = 0.05). Insured patients were more likely to adhere to tamoxifen (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 2.60-13.98; P < 0.01). The majority of nonadherent women (n = 38/56, 68%) discontinued the drug during the first year of treatment with 48 (86%) citing adverse effect(s) as the reason. In a multidisciplinary, tertiary care setting, we observed relatively high rates of acceptance and adherence of tamoxifen. Acceptance of tamoxifen and radiotherapy were associated, and adherence was influenced by insurance status.Key Message: Tamoxifen acceptance and adherence following resection of DCIS of the breast is related to acceptance of radiotherapy and may be improved by confirmation of the recommendation by a medical oncologist. Despite the low cost of tamoxifen, adherence to therapy is significantly impacted by lack of insurance; those who discontinue therapy report adverse effects as a major reason. Cancer Prev Res; 10(7); 389-97. ©2017 AACR.

Awareness of preventive medication among women at high risk for breast cancer and their willingness to consider transdermal or oral tamoxifen: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Despite demonstrated efficacy, acceptance of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as tamoxifen, for breast cancer risk reduction remains low. Delivering SERMs via local transdermal therapy (LTT) could significantly reduce systemic effects and therefore may increase acceptance. We aim to assess women's knowledge of breast cancer prevention medications and views on LTT of SERMs. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with healthy women identified through the comprehensive breast center of a large urban cancer institution. Group discussions covered risk perceptions, knowledge of and concerns about risk reducing medications. Participants reported their perceived risk for breast cancer (average, below/above average), preference for SERMs in a pill or gel form, risk factors, and prior physician recommendations regarding risk-reducing medicines. Participants' breast cancer risk was estimated using tools based on the Gail Model. Trained personnel examined all qualitative results systematically; risk perceptions and preferred method of medication delivery were tallied quantitatively. RESULTS: Four focus groups (N = 32) were conducted. Most participants had at least a college degree (78.2 %) and were of European (50 %) or African ancestry (31 %). The majority (72 %) were at elevated risk for breast cancer; approximately half of these women perceived themselves to be at elevated risk. Few participants had prior knowledge of preventive medications. The women noted a number of concerns about LTT, including dosage, impact on day-to-day life, and side effects; nonetheless, over 90 % of the women stated they would prefer LTT to a pill. CONCLUSION: Awareness of preventive medications was low even in a highly educated sample of high-risk women. If given a choice in the route of administration, most women preferred a gel to a pill, anticipating fewer side effects. Future work should focus on demonstrating equivalent efficacy and reduced toxicity of topical over oral medications and on raising awareness of chemopreventive options for breast cancer.