Burnout and Anxiety Among Trauma Nursing Specialties in a Rural Level I Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Burnout and anxiety compromise physical and mental well-being of nurses and jeopardize patient safety. Personal, professional, and workplace characteristics have been associated with burnout and anxiety across diverse practice settings, yet none in rural, community trauma centers. We sought to identify the severity and predictors of burnout and anxiety in the trauma nursing staff of a rural Level I trauma center. METHODS: A convenience sample of trauma nurses from the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit (ICU), and trauma ward was voluntarily surveyed using a demographic questionnaire, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales: depersonalization (DP), emotional exhaustion (EE), and reduced personal accomplishment, as well as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item (GAD-7) scale. Multivariable linear regression identified the significant predictors of burnout and anxiety. RESULTS: Ninety-six nurses completed surveys (response rate: 83.5%). Married or divorced status, and ICU or trauma ward job assignments were associated with significantly lower adjusted DP scores. Thus, the model-predicted score for a single ED nurse was 15 versus a predicted score of 7 for a divorced ICU or trauma ward nurse, p < .001 for each group. The GAD-7 model demonstrated that race/ethnicity (Asian compared with White, coefficient: -5.06, p = .03), number of children (2 compared with 0, coefficient: -2.54, p = .02), and job tenure (5-10 years vs. <2, coefficient: -3.18, p = .01) were each associated with fewer GAD-7 points. CONCLUSION: Depersonalization and anxiety vary across the trauma nursing workforce based on identifiable personal and work-related risk factors. Group-specific, targeted interventions are needed to effectively reduce burnout and anxiety in trauma nursing staff.

Current Management of Extraperitoneal Bladder Injuries: Results from the Multi-Institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS).

PURPOSE: We studied the current management trends for extraperitoneal bladder injuries and evaluated the use of operative repair versus catheter drainage, and the associated complications with each approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data on bladder trauma from 20 level 1 trauma centers across the United States from 2013 to 2018. We excluded patients with intraperitoneal bladder injury and those who died within 24 hours of hospital arrival. We separated patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries into 2 groups (catheter drainage vs operative repair) based on their initial management within the first 4 days and compared the rates of bladder injury related complications among them. Regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors of complications. RESULTS: From 323 bladder injuries we included 157 patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries. Concomitant injuries occurred in 139 (88%) patients with pelvic fracture seen in 79%. Sixty-seven patients (43%) initially underwent operative repair for their extraperitoneal bladder injuries. The 3 most common reasons for operative repair were severity of injury or bladder neck injury (40%), injury found during laparotomy (39%) and concern for pelvic hardware contamination (28%). Significant complications were identified in 23% and 19% of the catheter drainage and operative repair groups, respectively (p=0.55). The only statistically significant predictor for complications was bladder neck or urethral injury (RR 2.69, 95% 1.21-5.97, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional cohort, 43% of patients underwent surgical repair for initial management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries. We found no significant difference in complications between the initial management strategies of catheter drainage and operative repair. The most significant predictor for complications was concomitant urethral or bladder neck injury.

Opioid exposure after injury in United States trauma centers: A prospective, multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce opioid use in trauma patients are currently hampered by an incomplete understanding of the baseline opioid exposure and variation in United States. The purpose of this project was to obtain a global estimate of opioid exposure following injury and to quantify the variability of opioid exposure between and within United States trauma centers. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study was performed to calculate opioid exposure by converting all sources of opioids to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). To estimate variation, an intraclass correlation was calculated from a multilevel generalized linear model adjusting for the a priori selected variables Injury Severity Score and prior opioid use. RESULTS: The centers enrolled 1,731 patients. The median opioid exposure among all sites was 45 MMEs per day, equivalent to 30 mg of oxycodone or 45 mg of hydrocodone per day. Variation in opioid exposure was identified both between and within trauma centers with the vast majority of variation (93%) occurring within trauma centers. Opioid exposure increased with injury severity, in male patients, and patients suffering penetrating trauma. CONCLUSION: The overall median opioid exposure was 45 MMEs per day. Despite significant differences in opioid exposure between trauma centers, the majority of variation was actually within centers. This suggests that efforts to minimize opioid exposure after injury should focus within trauma centers and not on high-level efforts to affect all trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal injury grading scale: Implications of the 2018 revisions for injury reclassification and predicting bleeding interventions.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions. METHODS: Data on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared. RESULTS: Of the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34). CONCLUSION: About one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III.

FabAV antivenin use after copperhead snakebite: clinically indicated or knee-jerk reaction?

BACKGROUND: Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab (Ovine) (FabAV) antivenin is commonly recommended after pit viper snakebites. Because copperhead envenomations are usually self-limited, some physicians are reluctant to use this costly treatment routinely, while others follow a more liberal approach. We hypothesized that, in practice, only patients with evidence of significant (moderate or severe) copperhead envenomation [those with snakebite severity score (SSS) > 3] receive FabAV and examined a large cohort to determine the relationship between clinical findings and FabAV administration. METHODS: All data from patients evaluated for copperhead snakebite at a rural tertiary referral center from 5/2002 to 10/2013 were compiled. Demographics, transfer status, antivenin use, and clinical findings were collected; SSS was calculated. The relationships among FabAV use, clinical findings, and SSS were analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Pearson's coefficient (p < 0.05 was significant). RESULTS: During the study period, 318 patients were treated for copperhead snakebite; 44 (13.8 %) received antivenin. Median dose was four vials (range: 1-10; IQR: 4,6). There were no deaths. Most patients receiving FabAV (63.6 %) were admitted. With regard to demographics and symptoms, only the degree of swelling (moderate vs. none/mild; p < 0.01) and bite location (hand/arm vs. leg: p < 0.0001) were associated with FabAV use. A SSS > 3, indicating moderate or severe envenomation, was only very weakly correlated with antivenin use (r = 0.217; p < 0.0001). The majority of patients with SSS > 3 (65.8 %) did not receive antivenin while most patients who did receive antivenin (70.5 %) had SSS ≤ 3 (indicating mild envenomation). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation occurs in antivenin administration after copperhead snakebite. Use of FabAV appears poorly correlated with patients' symptoms. This practice may expose patients to the risks of antivenin and increasing costs of medical care without improving outcomes. Guidelines used for treating other pit viper strikes, such as rattlesnake or cottonmouth snakebite may be too liberal for copperhead envenomations. Our data suggests that most patients with mild or moderate envenomation appear to do well independent of FabAV use. We suggest, for patients with copperhead snakebite, that consideration be given to withholding FabAV for those without clinical evidence of severe envenomation until prospective randomized data are available.

FabAV antivenin use after copperhead snakebite: clinically indicated or knee-jerk reaction?

Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab (Ovine) (FabAV) antivenin is commonly recommended after pit viper snakebites. Because copperhead envenomations are usually self-limited, some physicians are reluctant to use this costly treatment routinely, while others follow a more liberal approach. We hypothesized that, in practice, only patients with evidence of significant (moderate or severe) copperhead envenomation [those with snakebite severity score (SSS) > 3] receive FabAV and examined a large cohort to determine the relationship between clinical findings and FabAV administration. Methods All data from patients evaluated for copperhead snakebite at a rural tertiary referral center from 5/2002 to 10/2013 were compiled. Demographics, transfer status, antivenin use, and clinical findings were collected; SSS was calculated. The relationships among FabAV use, clinical findings, and SSS were analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Pearsons coefficient (p 0.05 was significant). Results During the study period, 318 patients were treated for copperhead snakebite; 44 (13.8 %) received antivenin. Median dose was four vials (range: 110; IQR: 4,6). There were no deaths. Most patients receiving FabAV (63.6 %) were admitted. With regard to demographics and symptoms, only the degree of swelling (moderate vs. none/mild; p 0.01) and bite location (hand/arm vs. leg: p 0.0001) were associated with FabAV use. A SSS > 3, indicating moderate or severe envenomation, was only very weakly correlated with antivenin use (r = 0.217;p 0.0001). The majority of patients with SSS > 3 (65.8 %) did not receive antivenin while most patients who did receive antivenin (70.5 %) had SSS 3 (indicating mild envenomation). Conclusions Considerable variation occurs in antivenin administration after copperhead snakebite. Use of FabAV appears poorly correlated with patients symptoms. This practice may expose patients to the risks of antivenin and increasing costs of medical care without improving outcomes. Guidelines used for treating other pit viper strikes, such as rattlesnake or cottonmouth snakebite may be too liberal for copperhead envenomations. Our data suggests that most patients with mild or moderate envenomation appear to do well independent of FabAV use. We suggest, for patients with copperhead snakebite, that consideration be given to withholding FabAV for those without clinical evidence of severe envenomation until prospective randomized data are available.

FabAV antivenin use after copperhead snakebite: clinically indicated or knee-jerk reaction?

Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab (Ovine) (FabAV) antivenin is commonly recommended after pit viper snakebites. Because copperhead envenomations are usually self-limited, some physicians are reluctant to use this costly treatment routinely, while others follow a more liberal approach. We hypothesized that, in practice, only patients with evidence of significant (moderate or severe) copperhead envenomation [those with snakebite severity score (SSS) > 3] receive FabAV and examined a large cohort to determine the relationship between clinical findings and FabAV administration. Methods All data from patients evaluated for copperhead snakebite at a rural tertiary referral center from 5/2002 to 10/2013 were compiled. Demographics, transfer status, antivenin use, and clinical findings were collected; SSS was calculated. The relationships among FabAV use, clinical findings, and SSS were analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Pearsons coefficient (p 0.05 was significant). Results During the study period, 318 patients were treated for copperhead snakebite; 44 (13.8 %) received antivenin. Median dose was four vials (range: 110; IQR: 4,6). There were no deaths. Most patients receiving FabAV (63.6 %) were admitted. With regard to demographics and symptoms, only the degree of swelling (moderate vs. none/mild; p 0.01) and bite location (hand/arm vs. leg: p 0.0001) were associated with FabAV use. A SSS > 3, indicating moderate or severe envenomation, was only very weakly correlated with antivenin use (r = 0.217;p 0.0001). The majority of patients with SSS > 3 (65.8 %) did not receive antivenin while most patients who did receive antivenin (70.5 %) had SSS 3 (indicating mild envenomation). Conclusions Considerable variation occurs in antivenin administration after copperhead snakebite. Use of FabAV appears poorly correlated with patients symptoms. This practice may expose patients to the risks of antivenin and increasing costs of medical care without improving outcomes. Guidelines used for treating other pit viper strikes, such as rattlesnake or cottonmouth snakebite may be too liberal for copperhead envenomations. Our data suggests that most patients with mild or moderate envenomation appear to do well independent of FabAV use. We suggest, for patients with copperhead snakebite, that consideration be given to withholding FabAV for those without clinical evidence of severe envenomation until prospective randomized data are available.(AU)

FabAV antivenin use after copperhead snakebite: clinically indicated or knee-jerk reaction?

Abstract Background Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab (Ovine) (FabAV) antivenin is commonly recommended after pit viper snakebites. Because copperhead envenomations are usually self-limited, some physicians are reluctant to use this costly treatment routinely, while others follow a more liberal approach. We hypothesized that, in practice, only patients with evidence of significant (moderate or severe) copperhead envenomation [those with snakebite severity score (SSS) > 3] receive FabAV and examined a large cohort to determine the relationship between clinical findings and FabAV administration. Methods All data from patients evaluated for copperhead snakebite at a rural tertiary referral center from 5/2002 to 10/2013 were compiled. Demographics, transfer status, antivenin use, and clinical findings were collected; SSS was calculated. The relationships among FabAV use, clinical findings, and SSS were analyzed using t-test, chi-square, and Pearson’s coefficient (p < 0.05 was significant). Results During the study period, 318 patients were treated for copperhead snakebite; 44 (13.8 %) received antivenin. Median dose was four vials (range: 1–10; IQR: 4,6). There were no deaths. Most patients receiving FabAV (63.6 %) were admitted. With regard to demographics and symptoms, only the degree of swelling (moderate vs. none/mild; p < 0.01) and bite location (hand/arm vs. leg: p < 0.0001) were associated with FabAV use. A SSS > 3, indicating moderate or severe envenomation, was only very weakly correlated with antivenin use (r = 0.217;p < 0.0001). The majority of patients with SSS > 3 (65.8 %) did not receive antivenin while most patients who did receive antivenin (70.5 %) had SSS ≤ 3 (indicating mild envenomation). Conclusions Considerable variation occurs in antivenin administration after copperhead snakebite. Use of FabAV appears poorly correlated with patients’ symptoms. This practice may expose patients to the risks of antivenin and increasing costs of medical care without improving outcomes. Guidelines used for treating other pit viper strikes, such as rattlesnake or cottonmouth snakebite may be too liberal for copperhead envenomations. Our data suggests that most patients with mild or moderate envenomation appear to do well independent of FabAV use. We suggest, for patients with copperhead snakebite, that consideration be given to withholding FabAV for those without clinical evidence of severe envenomation until prospective randomized data are available.