Patient-Centered Care Transitions After Injury Hospitalization: A Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The investigation aimed to compare two approaches to the delivery of care for hospitalized injury survivors, a patient-centered care transition intervention versus enhanced usual care. METHOD: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial randomized 171 acutely injured trauma survivors with three or more early postinjury concerns and high levels of emotional distress to intervention (I; n = 85) and enhanced usual care control (C; n = 86) conditions. The care transition intervention components included care management that elicited and targeted improvement in patients' postinjury concerns, 24/7 study team cell phone accessibility, and stepped-up care. Posttraumatic concerns, symptomatic distress, functional status, and statewide emergency department (ED) service utilization were assessed at baseline and over the course of the 12 months after injury. Regression analyses assessed intervention and control group outcome differences over time. RESULTS: Over 80% patient follow-up was attained at each time point. Intervention patients demonstrated clinically and statistically significant reductions in the percentage of any severe postinjury concerns expressed when compared to controls longitudinally (Wald chi-square = 11.29, p = 0.01) and at the six-month study time point (C = 74%, I = 53%; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02). Comparisons of ED utilization data yielded clinically significant cross-sectional differences (one or more three- to six-month ED visits; C = 30.2%, I = 16.5%, [relative risk (95% confidence interval] C versus I = 2.00 (1.09, 3.70), p = 0.03) that did not achieve longitudinal statistical significance (F (3, 507) = 2.24, p = 0.08). The intervention did not significantly impact symptomatic or functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts should continue to evaluate patient-centered care transition interventions to inform American College of Surgeons' clinical guidelines for U.S. trauma care systems.

Barriers to implementation of a hospital-based program for survivors of traumatic injury.

The Trauma Survivors Network is a multimodal program for trauma patients and their families. Despite training representatives of 30 trauma centers, only 3 have fully implemented the program. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to program implementation among trainees through in-depth phone interviews and an electronic survey. Although interviewees were positive about the Trauma Survivors Network concept, they identified numerous barriers to implementation. Trainee confidence in their ability to implement program components was predictive of their success. We recommend that future trainings include program advocacy, implementation skills, and an assessment of trainees' roles in the hospital.

Improving outcomes at Level I trauma centers: an early evaluation of the Trauma Survivors Network.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma Survivors Network (TSN), a program developed to help patients and families manage the psychosocial impact of their injuries, combines information access, self-management training, peer support, and online social networking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the TSN in improving patient reported outcomes among orthopedic trauma patients at a Level I trauma center. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 251 patients with either severe lower-extremity injuries or polytrauma in two cohorts: one group (n = 125) before implementation of the TSN and one group (n = 126) after implementation. Participants were interviewed during their initial hospital stay and at 6 months. Outcomes evaluated at 6 months included depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, health status, and patient activation. RESULTS: Participation in the individual components of the TSN was low, ranging between 3% for the NextSteps self-management program and 27% for receipt of the Patient and Family Handbook. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups in self-efficacy, anxiety, health status, or activation. There were statistically significant differences in depression (24% of patients with probable depression in the TSN group vs. 40% in the control group, p = 0.02). However, the groups were not balanced with respect to sex, education, and baseline social support. After controlling for these differences, the TSN group still had 49% lower odds (95% confidence interval, 0% to 74%) of depression (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The TSN represents a potentially important step toward the development of comprehensive psychosocial support programs for trauma survivors. Despite improvements in one important outcome, a key finding of this evaluation is the low rate of use of program components. This finding highlights the need for greater understanding of use barriers and efforts to increase adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

The trauma survivors network: Survive. Connect. Rebuild.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial improvements in trauma care, severe injuries often result in significant long-term consequences for otherwise young, healthy individuals. Providing patient-centered care and extensive psychosocial support services is difficult for trauma centers. METHODS: In collaboration with researchers and clinicians, the American Trauma Society has developed the Trauma Survivors Network, a program incorporating self-management, peer support, timely access to information, and online social networking. RESULTS: Individually, these components have been proven effective in improving outcomes and quality of life and are widely used in nontrauma settings. To date, 70 representatives from 30 trauma centers have participated in training sessions conducted by the American Trauma Society. CONCLUSION: The Trauma Survivors Network provides a critical component of trauma care that can be adapted for local needs throughout the country. Implementation of these services is a necessary step in the development of comprehensive trauma systems that not only save lives but also reduce long-term disability among survivors.

Injury prevention activities in U.S. trauma centres: are we doing enough?

BACKGROUND: Despite the requirement for and endorsement of injury prevention efforts among U.S. trauma centres, little is known about the breadth and depth of their current activities. METHODS: A survey was sent to eligible institutions in the National Inventory of Trauma Centres to better describe how level I and II centres are fulfilling their injury prevention requirement, to identify the barriers to conducting prevention activities, and to determine trauma centre personnel's interest in enhancing their prevention role. RESULTS: A total of 268 trauma centres (60%) completed the survey. Only 19% reported having an injury prevention director/coordinator but more than half of centres reported participating in 9 of 11 injury prevention activities, including participating in community events (97%), sending speakers to local schools (89%), and preparing or distributing educational materials (84%). Lack of time (68%), dedicated funding (68%), and an injury prevention specialist (45%) were the most frequently cited barriers to conducting injury prevention activities. Injury prevention collaborations were reported with safety groups (24%) and with emergency medical services, fire and police (23%). Trauma centres partnered less frequently with academic institutions (11%) and local or state health departments (16%). Topics and formats for injury prevention training as well as training barriers were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: Improved partnerships and linkages with established agencies and organisations at the local and state levels could assist trauma centres in leveraging their more limited resources and expertise to offer state-of-the-art injury prevention programs and policies. As low- and middle-income countries are developing or strengthening their trauma systems, they should be encouraged to view injury prevention as a fundamental responsibility.

Access to trauma centers in the United States.

CONTEXT: Previous studies have reported that the number and distribution of trauma centers are uneven across states, suggesting large differences in access to trauma center care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of US residents having access to trauma centers within 45 and 60 minutes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study using data from 2 national databases as part of the Trauma Resource Allocation Model for Ambulances and Hospitals (TRAMAH) project. Trauma centers, base helipads, and block group population were counted for all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of January 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of national, regional, and state populations having access to all 703 level I, II, and III trauma centers in the United States by either ground ambulance or helicopter within 45 and 60 minutes. RESULTS: An estimated 69.2% and 84.1% of all US residents had access to a level I or II trauma center within 45 and 60 minutes, respectively. The 46.7 million Americans who had no access within an hour lived mostly in rural areas, whereas the 42.8 million Americans who had access to 20 or more level I or II trauma centers within an hour lived mostly in urban areas. Within 45 and 60 minutes, respectively, 26.7% and 27.7% of US residents had access to level I or II trauma centers by helicopter only and 1.9% and 3.1% of US residents had access to level I or II centers only from trauma centers or base helipads outside their home states. CONCLUSION: Selecting trauma centers based on geographic need, appropriately locating medical helicopter bases, and establishing formal agreements for sharing trauma care resources across states should be considered to improve access to trauma care in the United States.

National inventory of hospital trauma centers.

CONTEXT: Trauma centers benefit thousands of injured individuals every day and play a critical role in responding to disasters. The last full accounting of the number and distribution of trauma centers identified 471 trauma centers in the United States in 1991. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number and configuration of trauma centers and identify gaps in coverage. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Interviews with trauma center directors (September 2001 to April 2002), data from the American Hospital Association's Annual Survey of Hospitals (2000), and the US Health Resources Administration's Area Resource File (2001) were used to determine characteristics of trauma center hospitals and the geographic areas they serve in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia. Characteristics of trauma centers were examined by level of care and compared with nontrauma centers. Hospitals are designated or certified as trauma centers by a state or regional authority or verified as trauma centers by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Trauma centers that treat only children (n = 31) were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total number of trauma centers and number of trauma centers per million population. RESULTS: In 2002, there were 1154 trauma centers in the United States, including 190 level I centers and 263 level II centers. Several states have categorized every hospital with an emergency department at some level of trauma care while others have designated a limited number of level I and level II centers only. The number of level I and II centers per million population ranges from 0.19 to 7.8 by state. When compared with nontrauma center hospitals, trauma centers are larger, more likely to be teaching hospitals, and more likely to offer specialized services. CONCLUSIONS: Although the availability of trauma centers has improved, challenges remain to ensure the optimal number, distribution, and configuration of trauma centers. These challenges must be addressed, especially in light of the recent emphasis on hospital preparedness and homeland security.