The intensive care unit experience: Psychological impact on family members of patients with and without traumatic brain injury.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The intensive care unit (ICU) has been identified as a possible contributor to emotional distress. This study seeks to identify whether families of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients in the ICU experience psychological differences as compared with non-TBI patients' family members. METHOD: Eighty-two family members in a trauma/critical care ICU were assessed at baseline and again at 3 months. The Patient Health Questionnaire 8-Item measured depression, the Primary Care PTSD Screen measured symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTS). RESULTS: Forty of these individuals were the family members of ICU patients who had sustained a TBI; 42 of the individuals were the family members of non-TBI patients in the ICU. At baseline, 39% (33% non-TBI, 45% TBI, p = .28) of the total sample screened positive for depressive symptoms and 24.3% (26% non-TBI, 23% TBI, p = .69) screened positive for PTS symptoms. However, differences emerged between the groups at 3 months, with family members in the non-TBI group showing a significant decrease in both baseline depression and PTS symptoms. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This study, to our knowledge, is the first of its kind to examine psychological differences in the ICU in those whose family members either have or do not have a TBI. Results suggest the TBI group endorsed more symptoms of depression and PTS symptoms at 3 months. Although it is unclear whether symptoms were directly related to the ICU experience or the injury itself, future research should explore the possible additive effect of postintensive care syndrome-family symptoms. (PsycINFO Database Record

Validation of a brief, two-question depression screen in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, depression following traumatic injury is recognized as a complication of injury. Unlike mandated screening for risky alcohol use in trauma centers, screening for psychological risks is not required by the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma. Limited resources and time constraints are commonly given reasons against routine screening. The purpose of this study was to determine if a two-item screen was as valid as an eight-question screen for depression. METHODS: A total of 421 patients were given the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8) during initial hospitalization to assess depression in a prospective study at a Level I trauma center. A cutoff score of 10 or higher (possible range, 0-24) on the PHQ-8 is used as diagnostic for depression. The PHQ-2 (possible range, 0-6) is derived from the first two questions of the PHQ-8 and contains items assessing sad mood and loss of interest/pleasure during the previous 2 weeks. A cutoff score of 3 or higher was considered to be a positive screen result. Discriminatory ability of the PHQ-2 was calculated. RESULTS: The sample was predominantly male (65%) and white (67%). The majority (85%) sustained a blunt trauma, and the primary cause of injury was motor vehicle collision (37%), with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 11.6. A total of 142 patients (34%) were positive for depression on the PHQ-8. When comparing the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-8, a sensitivity of 76.1 and a specificity of 92.8 were found, as well as a positive predictive value of 84.4. CONCLUSION: The result of our study confirms that depression is a frequent condition (34%) among individuals who sustain physical injury. The PHQ-2 seems to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity to identify depression in this population. The use of a two-item screening questionnaire is a minimal addition to the evaluation of patients after injury, allowing for earlier intervention and better outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level IV; prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Trauma patient readmissions: Why do they come back for more?

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are a frequent challenge. Speculation exists that rates of readmission following traumatic injury will be publicly disclosed. The primary aim of this study was to characterize and model 1-year readmission patterns to multiple institutions among patients originally admitted to a single, urban Level I trauma center. Additional analyses within the superutilizers subgroup identified predictors of 30-day readmissions as well as patient loyalty for readmission to their index hospital. We hypothesized that hospital readmission among trauma patients would be associated with socioeconomic, demographic, and clinical features and superutilizers would be identifiable during initial hospitalization. METHODS: Data were retrospectively gathered for 2,411 unique trauma patients admitted to a Level I American College of Surgeons-certified trauma center over 1 year, with readmissions identified 1 year after index admission. A regional hospital database was queried for readmissions. Outcomes of all readmission encounters were analyzed using a binary logistic regression model including demographic, diagnoses, Injury Severity Score (ISS), procedures, Elixhauser comorbidities, insurance, and disposition data. Subset analysis of superutilizers was also performed to examine patterns among superutilizers. RESULTS: A total of 434 patients (21%) were readmitted during the study period, accounting for 720 readmission encounters. Sixty-three patients accounting for 269 encounters were identified as superutilizers (3+ readmissions). A total of 136 patients (6%) were readmitted within 30 days of initial discharge. Fifty-seven percent of readmissions returned to the originating hospital. CONCLUSION: Complications including comorbid disease (diabetes and congestive heart failure), septicemia, weight loss, and trauma recidivism distinguish the superutilizer trauma patient. Having Medicaid funding increased the odds of readmission by 274%. It is imperative that interventions be developed and targeted toward those at high risk of superutilization of health care resources to curb spending. These results strongly support continuation of longitudinal readmission research in trauma patients conducted in multicenter settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.