Risk of Fracture and Complications After Fixation in Patients With Pre-injury Psychiatric Illness: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to describe the frequency of orthopaedic trauma and postsurgical complications associated with psychiatric diagnoses. DESIGN: Query of TriNetx Analytics Network. SETTING: Participating hospitals. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Those ≥18 years old with psychiatric illness and orthopaedic trauma. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Fractures and postoperative complications were described. A 1:1 propensity score matching function was used. Odds ratios compared intercohort complications. RESULTS: A total of 11,266,415 patients were identified with a psychiatric diagnosis, including bipolar disorder (8.9%), schizophrenia (3.3%), major depression (12.4%), stress-related disorder (9.6%), anxiety disorder (64.5%), borderline personality disorder (1.1%), or antisocial personality (0.2%). Prevalence of 30.2% was found for a fracture and at least 1 psychiatric diagnosis. Antisocial personality disorder had the highest risk ratio relative to people without that mental disorder (relative risk [RR] = 5.09) of having 1 or more associated fracture, followed by depression (RR = 3.03), stress-related disorders (RR = 3.00), anxiety disorders (RR = 2.97), borderline personality disorder (RR = 2.92), bipolar disorder (RR = 2.80), and schizophrenia (RR = 2.69). Patients with at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity had greater risk of pulmonary embolism, superficial and deep surgical site infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, osteonecrosis, and complex regional pain syndrome by 1 month after fixation, when compared with patients without psychiatric disorder. By 1 year, they were also at an increased risk for stroke and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: All psychiatric comorbidities were associated with increased RR of fracture and higher odds of complications compared with patients without psychiatric comorbidities. Providers should be aware of preexisting psychiatric diagnoses during treatment of acute injuries because of these risks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trauma recidivism is reduced with engagement in psychosocial programming following orthopaedic trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Recidivism is common following injury. Interventions to enhance patient engagement may reduce trauma recidivism. Education, counseling, peer mentorship, and other resources are known as Trauma Recovery Services (TRS). The authors hypothesized that TRS use would reduce trauma recidivism. METHODS: Over five years at a level 1 trauma center, 954 adults treated operatively for pelvic, spine, and femoral fractures were reviewed. Recidivism was defined as return to trauma center for new injury within 30-months. All patients were offered TRS. Multivariate logistic regression statistical analysis was used to identify predictors of recidivism. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-seven of all patients (42 %) utilized TRS, including educational materials (n = 293), peer visits (n = 360), coaching (n = 284), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening (n = 74), and other services. Within the entire sample, 136 patients (14 %) returned to the emergency department for an unrelated trauma event after mean 21 months. 13 % of TRS users became recidivists. Overall, 49 % of recidivists had history of pre-existing mental illness. High rates of TRS engagement between recidivists and non-recidivists were seen (75 %); however, non-recidivists were more likely to use multiple types of recovery services (49 % vs 34 %, p = 0.002), and were more likely to engage with trauma peer mentors (former trauma survivors) more than once (91 % vs 81 %, p = 0.03). After multivariable analysis, patients using multiple different recovery services had a lower risk of recidivism (p = 0.04, OR 0.42, 95 % CI [0.19-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted engagement with recovery programming is associated with less recidivism following trauma. Future study of resultant reductions in healthcare costs are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II; Prognostic.

The development of a Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18).

Resiliency consists of three core components, which include presence of adversity, protective factors to overcome adversity, and positive outcomes or growth. Therefore, resiliency aligns with the trauma recovery process. This paper describes development of the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS) to quantify the resiliency of trauma patients upon presentation and during recovery. Scale items were proposed and reviewed by an expert panel. Group construct validity testing was performed using both individual and focus group feedback with item analysis. Reliability was measured with test-retest administered 14 days apart and evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient. One hundred and twenty-three items were initially proposed. Following item categorizing, a preliminary 17-item questionnaire was created. The questionnaire was administered to 40 individual participants and a trauma survivor focus group to evaluate construct validity. Following group construct testing, an 18-item Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) was proposed. Twenty-four participants were given the tRS-18 twice, 14 days apart to establish test-retest. Sixteen of the 18 questions had an intraclass correlation >0.7 (0.793-0.949). The remaining two questions underperformed based on the ICC (0.592 and 0.493) and were manually evaluated for inclusion. The final tRS-18 is a brief, self-administered measure of resiliency designed specifically for trauma patients. Sound psychometric properties including face validity, construct validity, and reliability of the instrument have been demonstrated. The tRS-18 may quantify resiliency at any time point with potential to be predictive of progress during recovery. Level of Evidence III, prognostic.

Utility of an integrated health system specialty pharmacy in provision of extended-release buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Extended-release (ER) monthly injectable buprenorphine offers an alternative to daily sublingual (SL) dosing for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that may be attractive to several patient populations, including those with barriers to adherence and the frequent follow-up that are necessary for traditional SL buprenorphine. Despite the potential benefits of ER-buprenorphine, there are significant barriers to healthcare provider adoption that may prevent utilization in the populations that would benefit. SUMMARY: Our health system began providing clinic-administered ER-buprenorphine as treatment for OUD in May 2018 at a single clinic. Expansion was limited due to difficulties with delayed and inaccurate medication delivery and heavy administrative burden. To facilitate uptake of ER-buprenorphine for patients who could benefit, our integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) assumed responsibility for medication distribution and administrative management beginning in October 2019. The HSSP provided accurate medication delivery, alleviated administrative burdens of benefits investigation and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy compliance, and decreased medication wastage by implementing a medication return process. Subsequently, ER-buprenorphine services were expanded to 4 additional sites, allowing 244 more patients to receive treatment. CONCLUSION: HSSP support can provide significant benefit to patients and the health system through coordinating ER-buprenorphine dispensing and delivery.

Post-Trauma Discharge Instructions: Are We Dropping the Ball?

INTRODUCTION: Complex follow-up plans for polytrauma patients are compiled at the end of hospitalization into discharge instructions. We sought to identify how often patient discharge instructions incorrectly communicated specialist recommendations. We hypothesized that patients with more complex hospitalizations would have more discharge instruction errors (DI-errors). METHODS: We reviewed adult trauma inpatients (March 2017-March 2018), excluding those who left against medical advice or were expected to follow up outside our system. Complex hospitalizations were represented using injury severity (ISS), hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit length of stay (iLOS), and number of consultants (NC). We recorded the type of consultant (surgical or nonsurgical), and consultant recommendations for follow-up. DI-errors were defined as either follow-up necessary but omitted or follow-up not necessary yet present on the instructions. Patients with DI-errors were compared to patients without DI-errors. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square (alpha <.05). RESULTS: We included 392 patients (median age 45 [IQR 26-58], ISS 14 [10-21], LOS 6 [3-11]). 55 patients (14%) had DI-errors. Factors associated with DI-errors included the total number of consultants and use of nonsurgical consultants. ISS, LOS, iLOS, were not associated with DI-errors. CONCLUSION: Common measures of admission complexity were not associated with DI-errors, although the number and type of consultants were associated with DI-errors. Non-surgical specialty consultant recommendations were more likely to be omitted. It is crucial for patients to receive accurate discharge instructions, and systematic processes are needed to improve communication with the patients at discharge.

Factors influencing participation in psychosocial programming among orthopaedic trauma patients with PTSD.

INTRODUCTION: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) commonly occurs following acute trauma. Post-injury outcomes are negatively impacted by PTSD. Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) programming was developed at our institution in 2013 to provide psychosocial programming that increases patient satisfaction with care and ability to return to work and decreases PTSD symptoms. We sought to identify factors that influence patients' decision to participate in programming. METHODS: Over a 3-year period at a single, urban level 1 trauma center, 172 patients over the age of 18 screened positive for PTSD on the validated PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) screening tool. Demographic, socioeconomic, injury, and medical comorbidity information was collected. Variables were initially compared in a univariate manner via Chi-squared, Fisher exact, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U, as appropriate. Variables that had a p-value <0.2 on univariate analysis were entered into a backward stepwise logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of participation in TRS programming. RESULTS: Mean age was 37.8 years. 70.1% of patients were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were gunshot wound (33.7%), motor vehicle crash (19.0%), and burn. 33.5% of patients participated in TRS programming. Nine predictors had p<.2 on univariate analysis and were entered into the stepwise regression model. Four predictors remained in the final model. Patients with private insurance (RR=2.2, p=.038), high school diploma or greater (RR=1.53, p=.002; Table 1), and PCL-5 score greater than 50 were more likely to participate in TRS programming (RR=1.42, p=.046). Patients who live 20 or more minutes away by car from TRS were less likely to participate in programming (RR=0.47, p=.065). DISCUSSION: Patients with more severe PTSD, higher levels of education, and private insurance were more likely to participate in TRS programming. Participation in TRS and similar psychosocial programs may be improved by minimizing the participant's potential commute to the program location.

Trauma System Support to Facilitate Recovery.

SUMMARY: Trauma is a major public health issue. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons are skilled in the acute management of musculoskeletal injury; however, formal training and resources have not been devoted to optimizing recovery after trauma. Recovery entails addressing the biomedical aspects of injury, as well as the psychological and social factors. The purposes of this study were to describe existing programs and resources within trauma centers, developed to promote psychosocial recovery. Supporting research data will be referenced, and potential barriers to program implementation will be discussed. The American College of Surgeons has mandated screening and treatment for mental illness after trauma, which will raise the bar to highlight the importance of these social issues, likely enabling providers to develop new programs and other resources within their systems. Provider education will promote the informing of patients and families, with the intent of enhancing the efficiency and scope of recovery.

Are trauma surgical societies adequately addressing mental health after injury?

BACKGROUND: Survivors of physical trauma, their home caregivers, and their medical providers all have an increased risk of developing psychological distress and trauma-related psychiatric disease. The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and change over time of trauma society research presentations regarding mental health to identify opportunities for growth. METHODS: Archives from 2018 to 2020 from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the Western Trauma Association were reviewed. The studies that measured mental illness, psychosocial distress, and other psychosocial factors were assessed: for (1) the use of patient-reported outcome measures ; (2) the association of psychosocial variables with outcomes; and (3) the interventions investigated. Change over time was assessed using χ2 analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,239 abstracts, 57 (4.6%) addressed at least 1 mental health-related factor. Mental health was more frequently studied over time (2018 [3.2%]; 2019 [3.5%]; 2020 [7.7%]; P = .003). The most frequently measured factors were post-traumatic stress disorder, quality of life, general mental health, and depression. Seventeen (29.8%) abstracts addressed substance abuse, most commonly opioid abuse. Seven (12.3%) abstracts measured mental health in caregivers or medical providers. Patient-reported outcome measures were used in 32 studies (56.1%). Two-thirds of studies reported findings suggesting that mental illness impairs trauma-related outcomes. Only 5 (8.8%) investigated interventions designed to reduce adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although academic discussion of mental health after trauma increased from 2018 to 2020, the topic remains a limited component of annual programs, patient-reported outcome measures remain underutilized, and intervention studies are rare.

Stevens Johnson Syndrome: Past, Present, and Future Directions Gynecologic Manifestations and Management in SJS/TEN.

Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are severe mucocutaneous hypersensitivity disorders characterized by sudden onset epidermal necrosis. Acute manifestations of SJS/TEN often include vulvovaginal erosions, ulcerations, vaginal discharge, bleeding, vaginal pain, dysuria, and urinary retention. If not treated, this can lead to complications such as vulvovaginal adhesions, vaginal stenosis or dryness, pain, dyspareunia, bleeding, and adenosis. Even with adequate treatment, there are lasting impacts including difficulty with vaginal exams and psychological distress. Early recognition and treatment of vulvovaginal involvement are crucial to preventing severe sequelae. Despite the potentially devastating consequences of genitourinary involvement of SJS/TEN, involvement of the mucocutaneous surfaces of the vulva and vagina is inconsistently documented, and protocols for treatment and follow-up are not well-established. The treatment of vulvovaginal involvement relies largely on expert opinion, and there is little data on the efficacy of suggested management. The goal of this review was to identify whether establishing a clinical pathway increased treatment of vulvovaginal SJS/TEN and to optimize our standardized protocol to prevent genitourinary sequelae. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of female patients with SJS/TEN at Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington from 2008 to 2021. Demographic and clinical data including gynecologic consultation, exam findings, treatment regimens, and outpatient follow-up were collected from the electronic medical record. We compared data before and after implementation of a clinical care pathway in 2017. Results: We reviewed a total of 88 charts of women with possible SJS/TEN between 2008 and 2021. Of these 88 charts, 77 were found to have clear biopsy proven diagnosis of SJS/TEN. A total of 42 patients were found to have vulvovaginal involvement (55%) and gynecology was consulted in 43% of cases. 50% of patients (n = 21) with vulvovaginal involvement were recommended treatment with vaginal dilators and steroid ointment and 34% of patients with genital involvement received no treatment.Between 2008 and May of 2017 (pre-protocol), we found 55 patients with SJS/TEN. 55% of patients (n = 29) had vulvovaginal involvement (n = 26 vulvar, n = 21 vaginal). Gynecology was only consulted in 26% (n = 14) of patients. Of the 21 females with vaginal involvement, only 38% (n = 8) had dilators/vaginal molds with steroid ointment recommended. Of the 26 females with vulvar involvement, 31% (n = 8) had no vulvar treatment recommendations with the remaining 69% having some documentation that ranged from gauze placement only (19%) to topical lidocaine, barrier cream, antibiotic or antifungal cream/ ointment, lubricant, or topical steroid ointment (50%). Menstrual suppression was recommended in 38% (n = 9) of menstruating females. An antifungal medication was only prescribed in 4% of patients.Following implementation of the clinical pathway for the treatment of SJS/TEN in 2017, 22 females with SJS/TEN were identified. 72% (n = 16) had documented vulvovaginal involvement (n = 16 vulvar, n = 9 vaginal). Gynecology consultations took place in 86% (n = 19) of patients. We identified several improvements after implementation of the protocol. Gynecology consults overall increased from 26% pre-, to 86% post-protocol. For patients with vulvovaginal involvement, consultations were completed in 93% compared to 50% prior to protocol. Of note, the finding of vulvovaginal lesions increased from 53 to 72%. Dilator use with topical steroid ointment was consistently recommended, as was antifungal use and menstrual suppression. Conclusion: Having a protocol in place for treatment of female patients with SJS/TEN increased the consistency of Gynecologic consultation and the documentation and treatment of vulvovaginal SJS/TEN. We identified the need to improve clinical follow-up after discharge from the hospital, which could be arranged as multidisciplinary visits and would be a good option to assess long-term outcomes (pain, sexual activity, etc.). With regards to future directions, we are in the process of assessing long-term data on quality of life and sexual functioning. The impact of treatment in the acute setting on the development of chronic sequelae needs to be established, as does the management of long-term sequelae like vaginal dryness, pain, dyspareunia. The role of local estrogen and vaginal laser still needs to be explored. Pelvic floor physical therapy might play a significant role in rehabilitation and has yet to be studied.

"Did You Think You Would Die?": Fear of Death and Its Relationship to the Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After Traumatic Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific factors may influence posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) development and warrant further examination. This study investigates potential association between patient-reported fear of death at the time of injury and development of PTSD. METHODS: Over 35 months, 250 patients were screened for PTSD at their first posthospitalization clinic visit and were asked "Did you think you were going to die from this injury?" (yes or no). PTSD screening was conducted using the PTSD checklist for DSM-5 questionnaire. A score ≥33 was considered positive for PTSD, and patients were offered ancillary psychiatric services. Retrospectively, medical records were reviewed for baseline demographics and injury information. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (17%) indicated a fear of death. The mean age was 46 years, with patients who feared death being younger (36 versus 48, P < 0.001), and 62% were male. The most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle or motorcycle collisions (30%) and ground-level falls (21%). Gunshot wounds were more common among patients who feared death from trauma (44% versus 7%, P < 0.001). PTSD questionnaires were completed a median of 26 days after injury, with an average score of 12.6. PTSD scores were higher for patients with fear of death (32.7 versus 8.5), and these patients required more acute interventions (47% versus 7%), both P < 0.001. After multivariable logistic regression, patients who thought that they would die from their trauma had >13 times higher odds of developing PTSD (odds ratios: 13.42, P < 0.0001). Apart from positive psychiatric history (OR: 5.46, P = 0.001), no factors (ie, age, sex, mechanism, or any injury or treatment characteristic) were predictive of positive PTSD scores on regression. DICUSSION: Patients who reported fear of death at the time of injury were 13 times more likely to develop PTSD. Simply asking patients whether they thought that they would die at the time of injury may prospectively identify PTSD risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Implementation of programming for survivors of violence-related trauma at a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Prior investigation of violence intervention programs has been limited. This study will describe resources offered by Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP), their utilization, and effect on recidivism. METHODS: VOCARP was established in 2017 at our center, and all patients who engaged with programming (n=1019) were prospectively recorded. Patients are offered services in the emergency department, on inpatient floors and at outpatient clinic visits. Two control groups (patients sustaining violent injuries without VOCARP use (n=212) and patients with non-violent trauma (n=201)) were similarly aggregated. RESULTS: During 22 months, 96% of patients accepted education materials, 31% received financial compensation, 27% requested referrals, and 22% had crisis interventions. All other resources were used by <20% of patients. Patients who used VOCARP resources were substantially different from those who declined services; they were less often male (56% vs. 71%), more often single (79% vs. 51%), had greater unemployment (63% vs. 51%) and were less frequently shot (gunshot wound: 26% vs. 37%), all p<0.05. Overall recidivism rate was 9.4%, with no difference between groups. Use of mental health services was linked to lower recidivism rates (4.4% vs. 11.7%, p=0.016). While sexual assault survivors who used VOCARP resources had lower associated recidivism (2.4% vs. 12%, p=0.14), this was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: This represents the largest violence intervention cohort reported to date to our knowledge. Despite substantial engagement, efficacy in terms of lower recidivism appears limited to specific subgroups or resource utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. Therapeutic.

Higher severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate in pregnant patients.

BACKGROUND: During the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, risks associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pregnancy were uncertain. Pregnant patients can serve as a model for the success of clinical and public health responses during public health emergencies as they are typically in frequent contact with the medical system. Population-based estimates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in pregnancy are unknown because of incomplete ascertainment of pregnancy status or inclusion of only single centers or hospitalized cases. Whether pregnant women were protected by the public health response or through their interactions with obstetrical providers in the early months of pandemic is not clearly understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate in pregnancy and to examine the disparities by race and ethnicity and English language proficiency in Washington State. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant patients with a polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were identified within 35 hospitals and clinics, capturing 61% of annual deliveries in Washington State. Infection rates in pregnancy were estimated overall and by Washington State Accountable Community of Health region and cross-sectionally compared with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rates in similarly aged adults in Washington State. Race and ethnicity and language used for medical care of pregnant patients were compared with recent data from Washington State. RESULTS: A total of 240 pregnant patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections were identified during the study period with 70.7% from minority racial and ethnic groups. The principal findings in our study were as follows: (1) the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate was 13.9 per 1000 deliveries in pregnant patients (95% confidence interval, 8.3-23.2) compared with 7.3 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 7.2-7.4) in adults aged 20 to 39 years in Washington State (rate ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.3); (2) the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate reduced to 11.3 per 1000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 6.3-20.3) when excluding 45 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 detected through asymptomatic screening (rate ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.9); (3) the proportion of pregnant patients in non-White racial and ethnic groups with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 infection was 2- to 4-fold higher than the race and ethnicity distribution of women in Washington State who delivered live births in 2018; and (4) the proportion of pregnant patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection receiving medical care in a non-English language was higher than estimates of pregnant patients receiving care with limited English proficiency in Washington State (30.4% vs 7.6%). CONCLUSION: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate in pregnant people was 70% higher than similarly aged adults in Washington State, which could not be completely explained by universal screening at delivery. Pregnant patients from nearly all racial and ethnic minority groups and patients receiving medical care in a non-English language were overrepresented. Pregnant women were not protected from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in the early months of the pandemic. Moreover, the greatest burden of infections occurred in nearly all racial and ethnic minority groups. These data coupled with a broader recognition that pregnancy is a risk factor for severe illness and maternal mortality strongly suggested that pregnant people should be broadly prioritized for coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine allocation in the United States similar to some states.

Disease severity, pregnancy outcomes, and maternal deaths among pregnant patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is accumulating that coronavirus disease 2019 increases the risk of hospitalization and mechanical ventilation in pregnant patients and for preterm delivery. However, the impact on maternal mortality and whether morbidity is differentially affected by disease severity at delivery and trimester of infection are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe disease severity and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in pregnancy across the Washington State, including pregnancy complications and outcomes, hospitalization, and case fatality. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant patients with a polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, were identified in a multicenter retrospective cohort study from 35 sites in Washington State. Sites captured 61% of annual state deliveries. Case-fatality rates in pregnancy were compared with coronavirus disease 2019 fatality rates in similarly aged adults in Washington State using rate ratios and rate differences. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared by trimester of infection and disease severity at the time of delivery. RESULTS: The principal study findings were as follows: (1) among 240 pregnant patients in Washington State with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, 1 in 10 were hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019, and 1 in 80 died; (2) the coronavirus disease 2019-associated hospitalization rate was 3.5-fold higher than in similarly aged adults in Washington State (10.0% vs 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.3); (3) pregnant patients hospitalized for a respiratory concern were more likely to have a comorbidity or underlying conditions including asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disease, and class III obesity; (4) 3 maternal deaths (1.3%) were attributed to coronavirus disease 2019 for a maternal mortality rate of 1250 of 100,000 pregnancies (95% confidence interval, 257-3653); (5) the coronavirus disease 2019 case fatality in pregnancy was a significant 13.6-fold (95% confidence interval, 2.7-43.6) higher in pregnant patients than in similarly aged individuals in Washington State with an absolute difference in mortality rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 2.6); and (6) preterm birth was significantly higher among women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 at delivery than for women who had recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (45.4% severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 vs 5.2% mild coronavirus disease 2019; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization and case-fatality rates in pregnant patients were significantly higher than in similarly aged adults in Washington State. These data indicate that pregnant patients are at risk of severe or critical disease and mortality compared to nonpregnant adults, and also at risk for preterm birth.

Trauma-informed care: recognizing and resisting re-traumatization in health care.

Trauma is often viewed as an individual or interpersonal issue. This paper expands the definition of trauma to include the impact collective and structural elements on health and well-being. The need for a trauma-informed response is demonstrated, with instruction as to how to implement this type of care in order to resist re-traumatization. Three examples from healthcare settings across the nation are provided, to demonstrate the ways in which organizations are bringing forward this patient-centered, trauma-informed approach to care.

Downstream hospital system effects of a comprehensive trauma recovery services program.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are often noted to have poor compliance but high recidivism and readmission rates. Participation in a trauma recovery services (TRS) program, which provides peer support and other psychosocial resources, may impact the trajectory of patient recovery by decreasing barriers to follow-up. We hypothesized that TRS participants would have greater downstream nonemergent use of our hospital system over the year following trauma, manifested by more positive encounters, fewer negative encounters, and lower emergency department (ED) charges. METHODS: We studied trauma survivors (March 2017 to March 2018) offered TRS. Hospital encounters and charges 1 year from index admission were compared between patients who accepted and declined TRS. Positive encounters were defined as outpatient visits and planned admissions; negative encounters were defined as no shows, ED visits, and unplanned admissions. Charges were grouped as cumulative ED and non-ED charges (including outpatient and subsequent admission charges). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with positive/negative encounters and ED charges. RESULTS: Of 511 identified patients (68% male; injury severity score, 14 [9-19]), 362 (71%) accepted TRS. Trauma recovery services patients were older, had higher injury severity, and longer index admission length of stay (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, TRS patients were more likely to have at least one positive encounter and were similarly likely to have negative encounters as patients who declined services. Total aggregate charges for this group was US $74 million, of which US $30 million occurred downstream of the index admission. Accepting TRS was associated with lower ED charges. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive TRS program including education, peer mentors, and a support network may provide value to the patient and the health care system by reducing subsequent care provided by the ED in the year after a trauma without affecting nonemergent care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Patient Satisfaction Is Improved With Exposure to Trauma Recovery Services.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of Trauma Recovery Services (TRS), a program facilitating engagement and recovery on satisfaction after orthopaedic trauma. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-four patients with surgically managed extremity fractures were prospectively surveyed. Satisfaction was assessed after 12 months using a 13-question telephone survey, rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (with five being excellent). TRS resource utilization during and after hospitalization was recorded. Eighty-eight patients (30%) used TRS. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction was high with a mean score of 4.32. Although no differences were observed between the control group and patients with TRS utilization in age, sex, race, insurance, smoking history, or employment status, TRS patients sustained more high-energy mechanisms (81% versus 56%) and had more associated psychiatric illness (33% versus 17%), both P < 0.01. Multivariable regression indicated general exposure to TRS to be an independent predictor of higher overall care ratings (B = 1.31; P = 0.03). DISCUSSION: Utilization of TRS was the greatest predictor of better overall care ratings. This study builds on existing evidence demonstrating the positive impact of Trauma Survivor Network programming. We conclude that a hospital-wide program supporting patient education and engagement can effectively increase patient satisfaction after traumatic injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Factors Influencing Nonadherence to Recommended Postdischarge Follow-Up After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.

Enhancing Trauma Patient Experience Through Education and Engagement: Development of a Mobile Application.

The purpose was to determine the utility of an open access mobile device application (App: http://bit.ly/traumaapp) to improve patient education and engagement. Methods: A patient education app was developed with information regarding injury, treatment, and recovery for orthopaedic and other injuries. Data regarding usage, satisfaction, and desired improvements were gathered. Results: The app was downloaded 725 times, and the pages in the app were viewed 9,043 times in 34 months. User sessions >2 minutes accounted for 34%. Participation was less in those older than 55 years (12% versus 68% P < 0.001). Sixteen percent of patients did not have a device to use the app. Most (55%) rated it as helpful or extremely helpful; 78% of users were likely to recommend it. Patients most frequently suggested more information on other injuries and simpler language. Discussion: There was strong interest in this simple, free patient education app. Despite an urban, trauma population, five of six patients had access to a device that could load the app. Nearly half of the patients downloaded an orthopaedic patient education app when offered. Those who did not use the app were more likely to be older than 55 years. This represents an innovative opportunity for education and engagement of our patients and their families.

Improvement in Outpatient Follow-up With a Postdischarge Phone Call Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Attending clinic appointments after injury is crucial for orthopaedic trauma patients to evaluate healing and to update recommendations. However, attendance at these appointments is inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of a personalized phone call placed 3 to 5 days after hospital discharge on attendance at the first postdischarge outpatient clinic visit. METHODS: This prospective study was done at an urban level 1 trauma center. One hundred fifty-nine patients were exposed to a reminder phone call, with 33% of patients being reached for a conversation and 28% receiving a voicemail reminder. Phone calls were made by a trained trauma recovery coach, and the main outcome measure was attendance at the first postdischarge clinic visit. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (54%) attended their scheduled appointments. Appointment adherence was more common among the group reached for a conversation (70% versus 51% for voicemail cohort and 34% for no contact group). Patients exposed to the Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) during their hospital stay attended appointments more often (91% versus 61%, P = 0.026). Age, sex, mechanism of injury, and distance from the hospital were not associated with specific follow-up appointment adherence. Insured status was associated with higher attendance rates (71% versus 46%, P = 0.0036). Other economic factors such as employment were also indicative of attendance (64% versus 48%, P = 0.05). Current tobacco use was associated with poor appointment attendance (30%) versus 56% for nonsmokers (P = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Patients reached by telephone after discharge had better rates of subsequent clinic attendance. Economic factors and substance use appear vital to postoperative clinic visit compliance. Patients with met psychosocial needs, as identified by individuals with satisfactory emotional support, and exposure to TRS had the highest rates of postdischarge appointment attendance.

Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources. METHODS: Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient's medical records. RESULTS: From May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had 'direct contact' (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2-15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2-10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II therapeutic.