Stepped collaborative care versus American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma required screening and referral for posttraumatic stress disorder: Clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Each year in the US, approximately 1.5-2.5 million individuals are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospital admissions. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) now requires that trauma centers have in place protocols to identify and refer hospitalized patients at risk injury psychological sequelae. Literature review revealed no investigations that have identified optimal screening, intervention, and referral procedures in the wake of the College requirement. METHODS: The single-site pragmatic trial investigation will individually randomize 424 patients (212 intervention and 212 control) to a brief stepped care intervention versus College required mental health screening and referral control conditions. Blinded follow-up interviews at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-injury will assess the symptoms of PTSD and related comorbidity for all patients. The emergency department information exchange (EDIE) will be used to capture population-level automated emergency department and inpatient utilization data for the intent-to-treat sample. The investigation aims to test the primary hypotheses that intervention patients will demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and emergency department/inpatient utilization when compared to control patients. The study incorporates a Rapid Assessment Procedure-Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) implementation process assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The overarching goal of the investigation is to advance the sustainable delivery of high-quality trauma center mental health screening, intervention, and referral procedures for diverse injury survivors. An end-of-study policy summit will harness pragmatic trial data to inform the capacity for US trauma centers to implement high-quality acute care mental health screening, intervention and referral services for diverse injured patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT05632770.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Utilization Reductions and Cost Savings Associated With Trauma Center Mental Health Intervention: Results From a 5-year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and refer patients at high risk for the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma now requires that trauma centers have in-place protocols. No investigations have documented reductions in utilization and associated potential cost savings associated with trauma center mental health interventions. BACKGROUND: The investigation was a randomized clinical trial analysis that incorporated novel 5-year emergency department (ED)/inpatient health service utilization follow-up data. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a mental health intervention, targeting the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury (n = 85) versus enhanced usual care control (n = 86) conditions. The intervention included case management that coordinated trauma center-to-community care linkages, psychotropic medication consultation, and psychotherapy elements. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention and control group utilization differences over time. An economic analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Over the course of the 5-year intervention, patients demonstrated significant reductions in ED/inpatient utilization when compared with control patients [ F (19,3210) = 2.23, P = 0.009]. Intervention utilization reductions were greatest at 3 to 6 months (intervention 15.5% vs control 26.7%, relative risk = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.00) and 12 to 15 months (intervention 16.5% vs control 30.6%, relative risk = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.91) postinjury time points. The economic analysis suggested potential intervention cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health intervention is associated with significant reductions in ED and inpatient utilization, as well as potential cost savings. These findings could be productively integrated into future American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma policy discussions.

Integrating pragmatic and implementation science randomized clinical trial approaches: a PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods have advanced substantially. Pragmatic and implementation studies have natural areas of overlap, particularly relating to the goal of using clinical trial data to leverage health care system policy changes. Few investigations have addressed pragmatic and implementation science randomized trial methods development while also considering policy impact. METHODS: The investigation used the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tools to evaluate the design of two multisite randomized clinical trials that targeted patient-level effectiveness outcomes, provider-level practice changes and health care system policy. Seven raters received PRECIS-2 training and applied the tools in the coding of the two trials. Descriptive statistics were produced for both trials, and PRECIS-2 wheel diagrams were constructed. Interrater agreement was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Kappa statistics. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) qualitative approach was applied to understanding integrative themes derived from the PRECIS-2 ratings and an end-of-study policy summit. RESULTS: The ICCs for the composite ratings across the patient and provider-focused PRECIS-2 domains ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, and the Kappa values ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, reflecting overall fair-to-good interrater agreement for both trials. All four PRECIS-2 wheels were rated more pragmatic than explanatory, with composite mean and median scores ≥ 4. Across trials, the primary intent-to-treat analysis domain was consistently rated most pragmatic (mean = 5.0, SD = 0), while the follow-up/data collection domain was rated most explanatory (mean range = 3.14-3.43, SD range = 0.49-0.69). RAPICE field notes identified themes related to potential PRECIS-2 training improvements, as well as policy themes related to using trial data to inform US trauma care system practice change; the policy themes were not captured by the PRECIS-2 ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation documents that the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS can be simultaneously used to feasibly and reliably characterize clinical trials with patient and provider-level targets. The integration of pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods can be furthered by using common metrics such as the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS. Future study could focus on clinical trial policy research methods development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DO-SBIS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00607620. registered on January 29, 2008. TSOS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354, registered on July 27, 2015.