Analysis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Outpatient Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remains a prevalent public health concern. Implementation of an mTBI guideline encouraged screening all patients at risk for mTBI, followed by outpatient follow-up in a "concussion clinic." This resulted in an increase in inpatient concussion evaluations, followed by high-volume referral to the concussion clinic. This prompted the routine use of an outpatient mTBI symptom screening tool. The purpose of this quality improvement study was to analyze the characteristics of an mTBI population at outpatient follow-up and describe the clinicians' care recommendations as determined through the use of an mTBI symptom screening tool. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of mTBI patients at a Level 1 trauma center. The study includes patients who completed a concussion screening in the outpatient setting over a 6-month period. Patients were included if older than 16 years, sustained blunt trauma, and had a formal neurocognitive evaluation by a certified speech therapist within 48 hr of initial injury. RESULTS: Of the 247 patients included, 197 (79.8%) were referred to the concussion clinic, 33 (13.4%) had no further outpatient needs, and 17 (6.9%) were referred for outpatient neurocognitive rehabilitation. On follow-up, 97 patients were deemed to have no further postconcussion needs by the trauma nurse practitioner; 57 patients were cleared by the speech therapist. In total, 43 outpatient mTBI follow-up encounters resulted in referral for ongoing therapy. CONCLUSION: Routine screening for concussion symptoms and detailed clinical evaluation allows for prompt recognition of further posttraumatic mTBI needs.

Analysis of an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) Approved Pilot Project: Increasing Provider Communication During Interhospital Transfer.

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma requires physician-to-physician communication prior to interhospital transfer. This requirement can be difficult to achieve in high-volume trauma centers. This pilot project utilizes trauma advanced practice providers (APPs) as the primary communicator, in lieu of the trauma surgeon, prior to interhospital transfer. The hypothesis suggests that APPs can provide safe recommendations and accurately triage patients for the highest level trauma alert. From January to April 2018, a total of 1,145 patients were transferred to a Level I or Level II trauma center. All interhospital trauma transfers were dispatched through a designated transfer center APP (TCAPP). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency of core TCAPP recommendations, including reversal agents for anticoagulants, antibiotics for open fractures, direct admission criteria, administration of blood products, and triaging to the highest level of trauma activation. TCAPP triage accuracy was analyzed and reported as percentages. Percentages are compared between independent groups using a chi-square test. Prior to implementation of the TCAPP role, provider-to-provider communication occurred in less than 1% of interhospital transfers; TCAPP-to-provider communication occurred 92% of the time (p < .001). During the study period, the TCAPP made 398 care-related recommendations. Three (<1%) TCAPP recommendations were deemed inappropriate. The TCAPP (89.7%) and physician (89.9%) triage accuracy was not significantly different (p = .43). Interhospital transfer communication and recommendations can be performed safely and accurately by a trauma trained APP.

Using clinical analysis to classify 30-day trauma readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are common across specialties. Descriptive readmission studies commonly query large administrative databases, which some speculate lack clinical granularity. This article provides the framework for a process improvement initiative aimed at identifying clinically meaningful reasons for trauma readmission. Our study hypothesizes an expected difference between the clinically abstracted reasons for readmission and those documented by the data processing staff in the trauma registry and that those differences will be the starting point to target performance improvement. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cohort study from 2014 to 2016 involving 18,998 trauma evaluations at a Level I trauma center. The systematic categorization of trauma readmissions was completed via clinical chart review. Readmissions were categorized following an organizational flowchart. The chart reviews ultimately resulted in two readmission categories: primary and secondary reasons for 30-day trauma readmission. RESULTS: There were 413 readmissions, an overall readmission rate of 2.7%. The highest rate of readmission, by mechanism of injury, was gunshot wounds (11%). Secondary reasons for readmission predominated (76.1%). Complications led (41%), followed by observation (8.8%) and pain (8.6%). Following readmission chart review and categorization, the trauma registry data were queried and categorized via the same method. When the two methods of data collection were compared, there was a significant difference (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The granular dissection of readmission charts proved to assist in isolating clinically significant readmission variables, providing clarity into the reasons behind trauma readmission. If determined solely by the trauma registry data, our performance and quality improvement initiatives would be misguided. We recommend clinical oversight of databases, with clinical review of key areas in order to guide performance improvement.

Uveitis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons with CD4+ T-lymphocyte count over 200 cells/mL.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy has altered the course of disease for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus by elevating CD4+ T-lymphocyte levels. Changes in the spectrum of systemic diseases encountered in human immunodeficiency virus-positive individuals are reported in the general medical literature. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus, who presented with uveitis when the peripheral CD4+ T-lymphocyte count was over 200 cells/µL. METHODS: Standardized data collection at seven tertiary-referral inflammatory eye disease clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature anatomic classification and descriptors, cause of uveitis, and visual acuity RESULTS: Peripheral CD4+ T cell counts varied between 207 and 1777 (median = 421) cells/µL at the time of diagnosis of uveitis. Uveitis was classified anatomically as anterior (47.5%), intermediate (6.6%), anterior/intermediate (16.4%), posterior (14.8%) and pan (14.8%). Specific causes of uveitis included infections (34.4%), with syphilis responsible for 16.4% of all cases, and defined immunological disorders (27.0%); no cause for the inflammation was identified in 34.4% of persons. Visual acuity was better than 6/15 in 66.7% and 6/60 or worse in 11.8% of 93 eyes at presentation, and better than 6/15 in 82.4% and 6/60 or worse in 8.8% of 34 eyes at 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both infectious and non-infectious forms of uveitis occur in individuals who are infected with human immunodeficiency virus and have preserved or restored peripheral CD4+ T cell levels. Individuals who are human immunodeficiency virus-positive and present with uveitis should be evaluated in the same way all patients with uveitis are assessed.