Social Determinants of Health in Trauma.

Social determinants (SD) refer to a variety of environmental factors that can influence certain clinical outcomes. SD that affect clinical outcomes in trauma patients are largely understudied. We hypothesized that patients with an "at risk" (AR) classification for any SD will have a greater frequency of negative outcomes when compared to their "not at risk" (NAR) counterparts. A retrospective review was performed (1/2021-2/2022) of all trauma patients that met the inclusion criteria. 2225 patients were included. SD included (based on collection rates) for analysis were: tobacco use, stress, and intimate partner violence. Tobacco usage was the only SD that was significantly associated with a higher 30-day mortality. This study demonstrated a paucity of data in the medical record regarding SD. In an effort to provide more inclusive care and address health disparities in our patient population, there is a need for more complete data collection upon admission/duration of hospital stay.

Frailty Is Associated With Worse Outcomes In Geriatric Pelvic Fractures.

Frail, geriatric patients with pelvic fractures can present differently than non-frail patients. Using the Clinical Frailty Scale(CFS), a retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between patients' CFS and outcomes after pelvic fractures. We hypothesized that frail, geriatric trauma patients defined as a CFS>4 with pelvic fractures have worse outcomes than non-frail patients with a CFS≤4 despite similar injuries. All geriatric patients with pelvic fractures and documented CFS were included. Seventy patients were included, with 59% (n = 41) frail. The groups were compared with no difference in mortality. The frail group was older and were most likely discharged to a skilled nursing facility (65.8%). Non-frail were most likely discharged to acute rehab (52%). Frail had lower functional status at discharge (median: 14.5v.16, P = .015). Frail patients had worse overall outcomes in this analysis of geriatric pelvic fracture patients. Special attention should focus on this vulnerable population to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

An Overview of Amish Mortalities at a Level I Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: The Amish population is a unique subset of patients that may require a specialized approach due to their lifestyle differences compared to the general population. With this reasoning, Amish mortalities may differ from typical trauma mortality patterns. We sought to provide an overview of Amish mortalities and hypothesized that there would be differences in injury patterns between mortalities and survivors. METHODS: All Amish trauma patients who presented and were captured by the trauma registry at our Level I trauma center over 20 years (1/2000-2004/2020) were analyzed. A retrospective chart review was subsequently performed. Patients who died were of interest to this study. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed for the mortalities. Mortalities were then compared to Amish patients who survived. RESULTS: There were 1827 Amish trauma patients during the study period and, of these, 32 (1.75%) were mortalities. The top 3 mechanisms of injury leading to mortality were falls (34.4%), pedestrian struck (21.9%), and farming accidents (15.6%). Pediatric (age ≤ 14y) (25%) and geriatric (age ≥ 65y) (28.1%) had the highest percentage of mortalities. Mortalities in the Amish population were significantly older (mean age: 39 years vs 27 years, P = .003) and had significantly higher ISS (mean ISS: 29 vs 10, P < .001) compared to Amish patients who survived. DISCUSSION: The majority of mortalities occurred in the pediatric and geriatric age groups and were falls. Further intervention and outreach in the Amish population should be done to highlight this particular cause of mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, epidemiological.

Geriatric Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

BACKGROUND: Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013. RESULTS: 112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% (P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182). DISCUSSION: Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.