In-hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients in the Military Health System: Comparison of Military and Civilian Facility Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Beneficiaries of TRICARE, an insurance program of the military health system, can choose to receive care within the private sector (fee-for-service) or direct (budget-based facilities with salaried providers) care setting. Previous studies in several specialties have shown that there are disparities in both resource utilization and outcomes between the two settings. In this study, we sought to determine differences in outcomes between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the private sector versus direct care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using TRICARE claims data, we identified patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between March and September 2020. Cases were classified, according to the facility where they were admitted for treatment, as private sector or direct care. We abstracted patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and outcomes including in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable regression models, adjusted for covariates, to determine the association between health care settings and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3,177 patients were included. Of these, 2,147 (68%) and 1,030 (32%) received care in the private sector and direct care settings, respectively. The average age of the study cohort was 52 years (SD = 21), and 84% had at least one medical comorbidity. In adjusted analyses, we found significant differences in the rates of ICU admission, with patients treated in private sector care having lower odds of being admitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76). There were no significant differences in the rates of in-hospital mortality, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: With the exception of ICU admission rates, which are higher in the direct care setting, we encountered comparable hospital-based outcomes for patients treated for COVID-19 within the military health system, whether care was received under private sector or direct care.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. METHODS: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional and mental health outcomes after trauma.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreased access to care and social isolation, which have the potential for negative psychophysical effects. We examine the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health outcomes after trauma. METHODS: Patients in a prospective study were included. The cohort injured during the pandemic was compared to a cohort injured before the pandemic. We performed regression analyses to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: 1,398 patients were included. In adjusted analysis, patients injured during the pandemic scored significantly worse on the SF-12 physical composite score (OR 2.21; [95% CI 0.69-3.72]; P = 0.004) and were more likely to screen positive for depression (OR 1.46; [1.02-2.09]; P = 0.03) and anxiety (OR 1.56; [1.08-2.26]; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients injured during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse mental health outcomes but not physical health outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-term Recovery From Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the proportion and characteristics of traumatic injury survivors who perceive a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their recovery and to define post-injury outcomes for this cohort. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated physical, psychological, and social stressors that may create a uniquely difficult recovery and reintegration environment for injured patients. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) survivors of moderate-to-severe injury completed a survey 6 to 14 months post-injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey queried individuals about the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery and assessed post-injury functional and mental health outcomes. Regression models were built to identify factors associated with a perceived negative impact of the pandemic on injury recovery, and to define the relationship between these perceptions and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 597 eligible trauma survivors who were contacted, 403 (67.5%) completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent reported that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their recovery and 24% reported difficulty accessing needed healthcare. Younger age, lower perceived-socioeconomic status, extremity injury, and prior psychiatric illness were independently associated with negative perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery. In adjusted analyses, patients who reported a negative impact of the pandemic on their recovery were more likely to have new functional limitations, daily pain, lower physical and mental component scores of the Short-Form-12 and to screen positive for PTSD and depression. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the recovery of trauma survivors. It is essential that we recognize the impact of the pandemic on injured patients while focusing on directed efforts to improve the long-term outcomes of this already at-risk population.