The effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes among geriatric hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study at five level I trauma centers.

Restrictive fluid management (RFM) for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients has reduced mortality rates. The objective was to determine whether RFM benefits geriatric hip fracture patients, who are usually hemodynamically stable. Design: Retrospective propensity-matched study. Setting: Five Level I trauma centers (January 1, 2018-December 12, 2018). Patients: Geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures were included in this study. Patients with multiple injuries, nonoperative management, and preoperative blood products were excluded. Intervention: Patients were grouped by fluid volume (normal saline, lactated Ringer, dextrose, electrolytes, and medications) received preoperatively or ≤24 hours of arrival; patients with standard fluid management (SFM) received ≥150 mL and RFM <150 mL of fluids. Main Outcome Measurements: The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), delayed ambulation (>2 days postoperatively), and mortality. Paired Student t-tests, Wilcoxon paired rank sum tests, and McNemar tests were used; an α value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were 523 patients (40% RFM, 60% SFM); after matching, there were 95 patients per arm. The matched patients were well-balanced, including no difference in time from arrival to surgery. RFM and SFM patients received a median of 80 mL and 1250 mL of preoperative fluids, respectively (P < 0.001). Postoperative fluid volumes were 1550 versus 2000 mL, respectively, (P = 0.73), and LOSs were similar between the two groups (5 versus 5 days, P = 0.83). Mortality and complications, including acute kidney injuries, were similar. Delayed ambulation rates were similar overall. When stratified by preinjury ambulation status, SFM was associated with delayed ambulation for patients not walking independently before injury (P = 0.01), but RFM was not (P = 0.09). Conclusions: RFM seems to be safe in terms of laboratory results, complications, and disposition. SFM may lead to delayed ambulation for patients who are not walking independently before injury.

Incidence, outcomes and costs of severe sepsis and septic shock in geriatric trauma patients: Analysis of 2,563,463 hospitalizations at 3,284 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis) is a leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients are an increasing proportion of trauma care but little recent, large-scale, research exists in this high-risk demographic. The objectives of this study are to identify incidence, outcomes and costs of sepsis in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients at short-term, nonfederal hospitals 65 years or older with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Sepsis was defined as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes R6520 and R6521. A log-linear model was used to examine the association of Sepsis with mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, Elixhauser score, and Injury Severity Score. Dominance analysis using logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of individual variables in predicting Sepsis. Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study. RESULTS: There were 2,563,436 hospitalizations from 3,284 hospitals (62.8% female; 90.4% White; 72.7% falls; median ISS, 6.0). Incidence of Sepsis was 2.1%. Sepsis patients had significantly worse outcomes. Mortality risk was significantly higher in septic patients (adjusted risk ratio, 3.98, 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.04). Elixhauser score contributed the most to the prediction of Sepsis, followed by ISS (McFadden's R2 = 9.7% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis/septic shock occurs infrequently among geriatric trauma patients but is associated with increased mortality and resource utilization. Pre-existing comorbidities influence Sepsis occurrence more than Injury Severity Score or age in this group, identifying a population at high risk. Clinical management of geriatric trauma patients should focus on rapid identification and prompt aggressive action in high-risk patients to minimize the occurrence of sepsis and maximize survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Characterizing Interhospital Variability in Neurosurgical Interventions for Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Intracranial Hemorrhage.

The objective of this study was to quantify nation-wide interhospital variation in neurosurgical intervention risk by intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) type in the setting of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) trauma patients included in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2019 with an emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15, diagnosed ICH, no skull fracture. The primary outcome was neurosurgical intervention. Interhospital variation was assessed by examining the best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs) obtained from mixed-effects logistic regression with random slopes and intercepts for hospitals and covariates for time and 14 demographic, injury, and hospital characteristics; one model per ICH type. Intercept BLUPs are estimates of how different each hospital is from the average hospital (after covariate adjustment). The study population included 49,220 (7%) neurosurgical interventions among 666,842 patients in 1060 hospitals. In 2019, after adjusting for patient case-mix and hospital characteristics, the percentage of hospitals with hemorrhage-specific neurosurgical intervention risk significantly different from the average hospital was as follows: isolated unspecified hemorrhage (0% of 995 hospitals); isolated contusion/laceration (0.54% of 929); isolated epidural hemorrhage (0.39% of 778); isolated subarachnoid hemorrhage (0.10% of 1002); multiple hemorrhages (2.49% of 963); and isolated subdural hemorrhage (16.25% of 1028). In the setting of mTBI, isolated subdural hemorrhages were the only ICH type to have considerable interhospital variability. Causes for this significant variation should be elucidated and might include changing hemorrhage characteristics and practice patterns over time.

Significant National Declines in Neurosurgical Intervention for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with Intracranial Hemorrhage: A 13-Year Review of the National Trauma Data Bank.

There have been large changes over the past several decades to patient demographics in those presenting with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH; complicated mTBI) with the potential to affect the use of neurosurgical interventions. The objective of this study was to characterize long-term trends of neurosurgical interventions in patients with complicated mTBI using 13 years of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) trauma patients included in the NTDB from 2007 to 2019 who had an emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15, an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and no skull fracture. Neurosurgical intervention time trends were quantified for each ICH type using mixed-effects logistic regression with random slopes and intercepts for hospitals, as well as covariates for time and 14 demographic, injury, and hospital characteristics. In total, 666,842 ICH patients across 1060 hospitals were included. The four most common hemorrhages were isolated subdural hemorrhage (36%), isolated subarachnoid hemorrhage (24%), multiple hemorrhage types (24%), and isolated unspecified hemorrhages (9%). Overall, 49,220 (7%) patients received a neurosurgical intervention. After adjustment, the odds of neurosurgical intervention significantly decreased every 10 years by the following odds ratios (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]): 0.85 [0.78, 0.93] for isolated subdural, 0.63 [0.51, 0.77] for isolated subarachnoid, 0.50 [0.41, 0.62] for isolated unspecified, and 0.79 [0.73, 0.86] for multiple hemorrhages. There were no significant temporal trends in neurosurgical intervention odds for isolated epidural hemorrhages (0.87 [0.68, 1.12]) or isolated contusions/lacerations (1.03 [0.75, 1.41]). In the setting of complicated mTBI, the four most common ICH types were associated with significant declines in the odds of neurosurgical intervention over the past decade. It remains unclear whether changing hemorrhage characteristics or practice patterns drove these trends.

Low Prevalence but High Impact of COVID-19 Positive Status in Adult Trauma Patients: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 28 904 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47;P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

Patient Controlled Analgesia and an Alternative Protocol: A Comparison of Outcomes After Thoracic and Lumbar Surgery.

Introduction: Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is a common form of pain management after spine surgeries, in which patients get custom control of their opioid dose. PCA has been demonstrated as a safe form of analgesia; however, use of PCA comes with risks that can be mitigated by opting for alternative pain management. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients using PCA to those with an alternative analgesia protocol that does not involve PCA. Methods: A retrospective chart review from January 2017 to July 2018 was conducted. Patients included in this study were those 18 or older who were admitted to a large midwestern tertiary medical center in Wichita, Kansas, and underwent thoracic or lumbar spinal surgery from a single spine surgeon. Data from patient demographics, comorbidities, and type of procedure were collected and compared to control for possible confounding variables. Patients were divided into two groups: patients receiving a PCA pain protocol post-operatively and those receiving a non-PCA protocol. Statistical analyses were performed and all tests with p < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: This study found patients in the PCA protocol had similar outcomes to those in the alternative analgesia protocol. This was true for both primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome was patient length of stay after the operation. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, frequency of naloxone rescue, transfers to higher levels of care, and total opioid consumption. Conclusions: This study supported that a non-PCA protocol for post-operative pain management yields similar outcomes to a PCA protocol in the setting of thoracic and lumbar surgery.

What Makes a Trauma Patient "Pediatric"? Survey of Providers' Admission Decision Making for Pediatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Only a fraction of pediatric trauma patients are treated in pediatric-specific facilities, leaving the remaining to be seen in centers that must decide to admit the patient to a pediatric or adult unit. Thus, there may be inconsistencies in pediatric trauma admission practices among trauma centers. OBJECTIVE: Describe current practices in admission decision making for pediatric patients. METHODS: An email survey was distributed to members of three professional organizations: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Society of Trauma Nurses, and Pediatric Trauma Society. The survey contained questions regarding pediatric age cutoffs, institutional placement decisions, and scenario-based assessments to determine mitigating placement factors. RESULTS: There were 313 survey responses representing freestanding children's hospitals (114, 36.4%); children's hospitals within general hospitals (107, 34.2%), and adult centers (not a children's hospital; 90, 28.8%). The mean age cutoff for pediatric admission was 16.6 years. The most reported cutoff ages were 18 years (77, 25.6%) and 15 years (76, 25.2%). The most common rationales for the age cutoffs were "institutional experience/tradition" (139, 44.4%) and "physician preference" (89, 28.4%). CONCLUSION: There was no single widely accepted age cutoff that distinguished pediatric from adult trauma patients for admission placement. There was significant variability between and within the types of facilities, with noted ambiguity in the definition of a "pediatric" patient. Thresholds appear to be based primarily on subjective criteria such as traditions or preferences rather than scientific data. Institutions should strive for objective, evidence-based policies for determining the appropriate placement of pediatric patients.

Trauma Prevalence and Resource Utilization During 4 COVID-19 "Surges": A National Analysis of Trauma Patients From 92 Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to assess the trends in trauma patient volume, injury characteristics, and facility resource utilization that occurred during four surges in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 92 American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers (TCs) in a national hospital system during 4 COVID-19 case surges was performed. Patients who were directly transported to the TC and were an activation or consultation from the emergency department (ED) were included. Trends in injury characteristics, patient demographics & outcomes, and hospital resource utilization were assessed during four COVID-19 case surges and compared to the same dates in 2019. RESULTS: The majority of TCs were within a metropolitan or micropolitan division. During the pandemic, trauma admissions decreased overall, but displayed variable trends during Surges 1-4 and across U.S. regions and TC levels. Patients requiring surgery or blood transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3, whereas the proportion of patients requiring plasma and/or platelets increased significantly during Surges 1-2. Patients admitted to the hospital had significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and mortality as compared to pre-pandemic during Surge 1 and 2. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured increased significantly during the pandemic. Hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly during the pandemic and more trauma patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma admissions decreased during Surge 1, but increased during Surge 2, 3 and 4. Penetrating injuries and firearm-related injuries increased significantly during the pandemic, patients requiring surgery or packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfusion increased significantly during Surges 1-3. The number of patients discharged home increased during the pandemic and was accompanied by a decreased hospital length of stay (LOS).

Examining trends in gun violence injuries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across six trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The onset of the national stay-at-home orders accompanied by a surge in firearm sales has elevated the concerns of clinicians and public health authorities. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the stay-at-home orders among gunshot wound (GSW) trauma admissions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers across four states. Patients admitted after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions (March 16, 2020-June 30, 2020) were compared with those admitted during the same period in 2019. We compared (1) rate of patients with GSW and (2) characteristics of patients with GSW, by period using Χ2 tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: There were 6996 trauma admissions across the study period; 3707 (53%) in 2019 and 3289 (47%) in 2020. From 2019 to 2020, there was a significant increase in GSW admissions (4% vs. 6%, p=0.001); 4 weeks specifically had significant increases (March 16-March 23: 4%, April 1-April 8: 5%, April 9-April 16: 6%, and May 11-May 18: 5%). Of the 334 GSWs, there were significant increases in patients with mental illness (5% vs. 11%, p=0.03), alcohol use disorder (2% vs. 10%, p=0.003), substance use disorder (11% vs. 25%, p=0.001), and a significant decrease in mortality (14% vs. 7%, p=0.03) in 2020. No other significant differences between time periods were identified. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that trauma centers admitted significantly more patients with GSW following the national guidelines, including an increase in those with mental illness and substance use-related disorders. This could be attributable to the stay-at-home orders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective study.

Are trauma research programs in academic and non-academic centers measured by equal standards? A survey of 137 level I trauma centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers. METHODS: A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources. RESULTS: The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

The Pediatric Trauma Society Annual Meeting: An Analysis of Scholarly Output From the First 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Trauma Society (PTS) is a multidisciplinary organization, with scientific presentations at its annual meeting addressing trauma care from prehospital through rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the scholarly areas of focus of presentations at the annual meeting over the society's first 5 years and evaluate research dissemination. METHODS: Data were collected on abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018, including titles, authors, and abstract classification. PubMed and Google Scholar searches identified abstracts that resulted in publications. Journal impact factors were identified. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 491 of 635 (77.3%) abstracts were accepted. The number of submitted and accepted abstracts increased, but the acceptance rate was stable (range = 72.1%-81.2%, p = NS [nonsignificant]). The most frequently accepted categories included "Epidemiology," "Abdominal or Thoracic Trauma," and "Neurosurgery or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)," whereas "Trauma Nursing" and "Quality Improvement" were less common. Among the 2014-2016 abstracts, 55.4% of podium and 24.3% of poster presentations were published. Abstracts categorized as "Epidemiology," "Education & Injury Prevention," and "Neurosurgery or TBI" were commonly presented but uncommonly published. The median journal impact factor of publications was 2.1 and 2.0 for podium and poster presentations, respectively (ranging from 0.11 to 10.25). CONCLUSION: Most of the scholarly effort presented at the PTS remains unpublished. Published work is mainly in low-impact factor journals. Mentorship in the publication process and encouragement of multidisciplinary collaboration within the society are needed to address limitations in the number and potential impact of the scientific content of the annual meeting. This type of analysis is relevant not only to the PTS but also to any professional society seeking to improve its impact.

A Pilot and Feasibility Study to Evaluate Small and Large Bite Fascial Closure Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled studies have been conducted comparing a small to large fascial bite technique, yet recommendations have been made to standardize small bite closures. However, large scale randomized controlled trials require considerable effort and may benefit from a pilot study. METHODS: This multi-center randomized controlled pilot study of adult patients undergoing median laparotomy incision investigated the feasibility of studying the outcomes between small and large surgical closure techniques. RESULTS: Fifty of 100 planned patients consented, 32 patients completed surgery, and 19 patients completed the one-year ultrasound. Enrollment was 2.7 versus 8 patients per month pre/post addition of a study coordinator. Clinical results are summarized for feasibility demonstration purposes, but not analyzed for hypothesis testing. The total cost of the pilot study was $19,152.50 and took 22 months from first surgery to final one-year ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility assessment demonstrated the complexity of planning a large-scale randomized trial evaluating small and large bite surgical closure technique. To expand this pilot study to a full scaled sample size study would require dedicated personnel and large grant funding.

The Impact of Nursing on Trauma Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of HCAHPS From 112,283 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I-IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018-2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. RESULTS: Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p < .001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution-larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p < .001) or "medical" (58.4%; p < .001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of level 1 trauma centers to meet American College of Surgeons research requirements.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major effects on hospitals' ability to perform scientific research while providing patient care and minimizing virus exposure and spread. Many non-COVID-19 research has been halted, and funding has been diverted to COVID-19 research and away from other areas. METHODS: A 28-question survey was administered to all level 1 trauma centers in the USA that included questions about how the pandemic affected the trauma centers' ability to fulfill the volume and research requirements of level 1 verification by the American College of Surgeons (ACS). RESULTS: The survey had a 29% response rate (40/137 successful invitations). Over half of respondents (52%) reported reduced trauma admissions during the pandemic, and 7% reported that their admissions dropped below the volume required for level 1 verification. Many centers diverted resources from research during the pandemic (44%), halted ongoing consenting studies (33%), and had difficulty fulfilling research requirements because of competing clinical priorities (40%). DISCUSSION: Results of this study show a need for flexibility in the ACS verification process during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially including reduction of the required admissions and/or research publication volumes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Examining emergency medical services' prehospital transport times for trauma patients during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Longer prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19-12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20-6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes. RESULTS: There were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12-22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSION: The median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Critical Role of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Physicians in Patient Satisfaction: An Analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version Data from 186,779 Patients and 168 Hospitals in a National Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency surgery patients are unique with regard to the sudden and unexpected nature of their hospitalization and this can adversely affect patient satisfaction, but, to our knowledge, no large study exists examining this issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the major factors that affect satisfaction scores in trauma and emergency surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version survey data from patients discharged in 2018-2019 from facilities in a national hospital system were obtained. Patients were categorized as trauma, emergency surgery, or direct admit surgery (elective surgery). Individual Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version question scores were regressed on the score for "overall rating" to determine the primary, secondary, and tertiary satisfaction drivers. RESULTS: There were 186,779 patients from 168 hospitals included. As expected, the primary determinant of patient satisfaction was nursing communication for all groups. However, trauma and emergency surgery patients differed from elective surgery patients in that physician communication was the second most important factor in patient satisfaction, accounting for 12.0% (trauma) and 8.6% (emergency surgery) of the total variability in the overall rating beyond the variability explained by the primary driver. If physician communication received low ratings, it was unlikely that high scores in other metrics could compensate to bring the overall score above the 50th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care surgeons appear to play a uniquely important role in support of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, Hospital Version scores. These data emphasize the importance of physician communication, particularly when a prehospital physician-patient relationship does not exist. Future research should explore specific mechanisms by which physicians effectively communicate with patients.

Decreased adult trauma admission volumes and changing injury patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic at 85 trauma centers in a multistate healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Reports indicate social distancing guidelines and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted trauma patient volumes and injury patterns. This report is the first analysis of a large trauma network describing the extent of these impacts. The objective of this study was to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes, demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: For this descriptive, multicenter study from a large, multistate hospital network, data were collected from the system-wide centralized trauma registry and retrospectively reviewed to retrieve patient information including volume, demographics, and outcomes. For comparison, patient data from January through May of 2020 and January through May of 2019 were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 12 395 trauma patients (56% men, 79% white, mean age 59 years) from 85 trauma centers were included. The first 5 months of 2020 revealed a substantial decrease in volume, which began in February and continued into June. Further analysis revealed an absolute decrease of 32.5% in patient volume in April 2020 compared with April 2019 (4997 from 7398; p<0.0001). Motor vehicle collisions decreased 49.7% (628 from 1249). There was a statistically significant increase in injury severity score (9.0 vs. 8.3; p<0.001). As a proportion of the total trauma population, blunt injuries decreased 3.1% (87.3 from 90.5) and penetrating injuries increased 2.7% (10.0 from 7.3; p<0.001). A significant increase was found in the proportion of patients who did not survive to discharge (3.6% vs. 2.8%; p=0.010; absolute decrease: 181 from 207). DISCUSSION: Early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 32.5% decrease in trauma patient volumes and altered injury patterns at 85 trauma centers in a multistate system. This preliminary observational study describes the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and warrants further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II (therapeutic/care management).

Processes for Trauma Care at Six Level I Trauma Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, patient care guidelines were published and elective surgeries postponed. However, trauma admissions are not scheduled and cannot be postponed. There is a paucity of information available on continuing trauma care during the pandemic. The study purpose was to describe multicenter trauma care process changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This descriptive survey summarized the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at six Level I trauma centers. The survey was completed in 05/2020. Questions were asked about personal protective equipment, ventilators, intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and negative pressure rooms. Data were summarized as proportions. RESULTS: The survey took an average of 5 days. Sixty-seven percent reused N-95 respirators; 50% sanitized them with 25% using ultraviolet light. One hospital (17%) had regional resources impacted. Thirty-three percent created ventilator allocation protocols. Most hospitals (83%) designated more beds to the ICU; 50% of hospitals designated an ICU for COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients were isolated in negative pressure rooms at all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Level I trauma centers created processes to provide optimal trauma patient care and still protect providers. Other centers can use the processes described to continue care of trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Resident Indentified Violations of Usability Heuristic Principles in Local Electronic Health Records.

INTRODUCTION: Difficulties with the electronic health record (EHR) are known to be associated with high physician burnout. Usability studies can evaluate and identify usability issues with the EHR at the end user level. This study was conducted to determine physician perspectives and usability issues of local EHR systems. METHODS: Survey and focus group methodology were employed. Participants were resident physicians who were members of a resident council in the Midwest. Survey data collected included demographics and perceptions. Focus group data included participants identification of usability principle violations and potential impact to end user. RESULTS: There were 15 survey respondents (across 11 residency programs) who reported use of three different EHR systems: Cerner®, Meditech, and Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Satisfaction was greatest with Cerner® as well as most reported level of experience. Focus group respondents reported a variety of usability violations which lead to provider confusion, increased time, alert fatigue, and potential patient safety issues. CONCLUSION: Violations of usability principles can result in disruption of physician workflow processes and lead to increased documentation time as well as fatigue. These issues have been associated with increased provider burnout. Continuous usability assessments should be conducted at the end user level to promote the development of more effective and efficient EHR interface designs.

Clinical Outcomes of Intermediate-Length Cephalomedullary Nails for Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture Repair in Older Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. Intertrochanteric hip fractures often are treated surgically using cephalomedullary nails (CMN), in either a short or long length. Their outcomes are documented in the literature; however, outcomes of the intermediate-length CMN have not been well described. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of older adults with intertrochanteric hip fractures that were treated with cephalomedullary nail fixation using an intermediate-length (235 mm Synthes Trochanteric Fixation® nail or 240 mm Stryker Gamma 3®) nail. Outcome data were collected during the inpatient stay and 16 months post-operatively. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients met inclusion criteria and were reviewed during inpatient stay; however, only 42 had documented post-operative outcomes. Of those, two patients died post-discharge and were not included in the 16-month follow-up. Comparison of results to published literature suggested that intermediate-length nails are comparable to short-length nails with regard to time in the operating room and estimated blood loss. The rate of blood transfusion was lower and length of hospital stay was shorter than in comparable studies of both short- and long-length nails. There were no post-operative peri-prosthetic fractures in the 16-month follow-up. This rate was lower than published rates for short and long nails. The hardware failure rate (3/42, 7.1%) of intermediate-length nails was higher than comparison studies of both short- and long-length nails. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes for intermediate-length nails were similar to outcomes of shorter length nails. Utilization of the intermediate-length nail appears to be an effective treatment option for repair of intertrochanteric femur fractures. However, direct comparison is difficult since peri-prosthetic fracture rate may increase over time and nail length and hardware failure are not defined consistently in the literature. Further study is needed with a larger sample size followed over a longer period of time to confirm our findings.