A Call to Follow-Up: Results Regarding Trauma Clinic Follow-Up Patterns.

The objective of this study was to assess the current practice pattern regarding posthospitalization follow-up of trauma patients among the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). An anonymous online multiple-choice survey of EAST members in 2016 was conducted. Ten questions relating to the follow-up care of injured patients were presented to the Active, Senior, and Associate members of EAST. Data were screened for quantitative concerns prior to analysis. Of the 1,610 members surveyed, 289 responded (18%). Approximately 52% of respondents stated that their institution has a dedicated trauma follow-up clinic where most injured patients are seen after discharge. Less than 20% reported that nontrauma multidisciplinary providers are present in clinics. Most (89.5%) reported that follow-up is a single visit, unless a patient has long-standing issues. Only 3 respondents stated that patients are regularly seen 3+ months out from injury, and a significant minority (17.7%) acknowledged no set follow-up timeline. Only 3.6% of participants indicated that they have a psychologist embedded in the trauma team, and 11.5% reported that no system is currently in place to manage mental health. Despite more than 20 years of literature highlighting the long-term physical and mental health sequelae after trauma, these survey results demonstrate that there is a lack of standardized and multidisciplinary follow-up. Given the improvement in outcomes with the identification and treatment of these sequelae, greater attention should be paid to functional recovery, social and psychological well-being, and chronic pain.

Helmet use is associated with higher Injury Severity Scores in alpine skiers and snowboarders evaluated at a Level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of ski helmets in preventing traumatic injury. We investigated the relationship between helmet use, injury types, and injury severity among skiers and snowboarders. METHODS: The trauma registry at a Northeast American College of Surgeons Level I trauma center was queried by International Classification of Diseases Codes-9th or 10th Revision for skiing and snowboarding injury between 2010 and 2018. The primary exposure was helmet use and primary outcome was severe injury (Injury Severity Score >15). We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression to assess for injury types and severity associated with helmet use. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty-one patients (65% helmeted, 35% unhelmeted) met inclusion criteria. Helmet use doubled during the study period (43% to 81%, p < 0.001), but the rate of any head injury did not significantly change (49% to 43%, p = 0.499). On multivariable regression, helmeted patients were significantly more likely to suffer severe injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-3.11), intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.10-2.96), chest injury (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.05-2.61), and/or lumbosacral spine injury (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.04-3.25) than unhelmeted patients. Helmeted patients were half as likely to suffer cervical spine injury (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89) and a third as likely to sustain skull fracture and/or scalp laceration (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.64). More patients who hit a stationary object were helmeted compared with those who fell from standing height onto snow (70% vs. 56% respectively, p < 0.001). After adjustment, hitting a stationary object was the injury mechanism most significantly associated with severe injury (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.79-4.38). CONCLUSION: Helmeted skiers and snowboarders evaluated at a Level I trauma center were more likely to suffer severe injury, including intracranial hemorrhage, as compared with unhelmeted participants. However, they were less likely to sustain skull fractures or cervical spine injuries. Helmeted patients were also more likely to hit a stationary object. Our findings reinforce the importance of safe skiing practices and trauma evaluation after high-impact injury, regardless of helmet use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.