Mathew Edavettal

Factors associated with patient satisfaction scores for physician care in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND The Affordable Care Act of 2010 identifies “patient experience of care” as one of five domains of excellent care. We hypothesized that there are specific demographic factors associated with higher or lower physician satisfaction (PS) scores in trauma patients. METHODS Press-Ganey PS scores for September 2004 to December 2010 were compared with trauma variables and the association of a mean PS greater than or equal to 75 (high score) or less than or equal to 50 (low score). Those variables that proved significant on univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis. Significance was at p < 0.05. RESULTS There were 12,196 admissions, of whom 1,631 (13.4%) returned patient satisfaction survey. A total of 1,174 patients (75.5%) returned a high PS (≥75), and 126 patients (8.1%) returned a low PS (⩽50). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, 65 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 1.7), having had a surgical procedure (OR, 1.6), and having a positive impression of the hospital care (OR, 7.0) proved significant for a high PS. Those patients who scored a low PS were significantly more likely to be younger (18–29 years: OR, 2.4; 30–64 years: OR, 1.8), to have not had surgery (OR, 2.2), had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or lower (OR, 2.6), had a complication of care (OR, 4.4), and rated the hospital care as poor (OR, 9.2). CONCLUSION A trauma patient who is satisfied with his or her physician care is one who is 65 years or older, requires surgery, and is predominantly satisfied with other aspects of their hospital care. Unsatisfied patients are younger, are nonoperative, had lower ISS, had a complication of care, and rated their hospital care as poor. Understanding the specific characteristics of Press-Ganey results for trauma patients will allow trauma surgeons and their hospital partners to develop strategies to improve patients’ satisfaction with their trauma surgeon’s care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Hyponatremia as a fall predictor in a geriatric trauma population

INTRODUCTION Approximately one in three older adults fall each year, resulting in a significant proportion of geriatric traumatic injuries. In a hospital with a focus on geriatric fall prevention, we sought to characterize this population to develop targeted interventions. As mild hyponatremia, defined as a serum sodium <135meq/L, has been reported to be associated with falls, unsteadiness and attention deficits, we hypothesized that hyponatremia is associated with falls in our geriatric trauma population. METHODS Gender, age, pre-existing conditions (cardiac disease, diabetes, hematologic disorder, liver disease, malignancy, musculoskeletal disorder, neurological disorder, obesity, psychiatric disorder, pulmonary disease, renal disease, thyroid disease), mechanism of injury and admitting serum sodium level were queried for all geriatric trauma admissions from 2008 to 2011. Mechanism of injury was coded as falls admissions and non-falls admissions. Admitting serum sodium levels were coded as hyponatremic (<135mmol/L) and not hyponatremic (≥135mmol/L). RESULTS Of the 2370 geriatric trauma admissions during the study period, there were 1841 (77.7%) falls admissions and 293 (12.4%) patients who were hyponatremic. Gender, age, neurological disorder, hematologic disorder, and hyponatremia were found to be significant predictors of falls in both univariate and multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION Hyponatremic patients are significantly more likely to be admitted for a fall than non-hyponatremic patients, when adjusting for age, neurological disorder, and hematologic disorder. Consequently, hyponatremia identification and management should be an integral part of any geriatric trauma fall prevention programme. Additionally, if hyponatremia is found during a geriatric fall workup, it should be corrected prior to discharge and closely monitored by a primary care physician to prevent recurrent episodes of falls.

Big Children or Little Adults? A Statewide Analysis of Adolescent Isolated Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Outcomes at Pediatric versus Adult Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND The appropriate managing center for adolescent trauma patients is debated. We sought to determine whether outcome differences existed for adolescent severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) patients treated at pediatric versus adult trauma centers. We hypothesized that no difference in mortality, functional status at discharge (FSD), or overall complication rate would be observed between center types. METHODS All adolescent trauma patients (aged 15–17 years) presenting with isolated sTBI (head Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score ≥3; all other AIS body region scores ⩽2) to accredited Levels I to II trauma centers in Pennsylvania from 2003 to 2015 were extracted from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Dead on arrival, transfer, and penetrating trauma patients were excluded from analysis. Adult trauma centers were defined as non-pediatirc (PED) (n = 24), whereas standalone pediatric hospitals and adult centers with pediatric affiliation were considered Pediatric (n = 9). Multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models and a generalized linear mixed models assessed the adjusted impact of center type on mortality, overall complications, and FSD. Significance was defined as a p value less than 0.05. RESULTS A total of 1,109 isolated sTBI patients aged 15 to 17 years presented over the 13-year study period (non-PED, 685; PED, 424). In adjusted analysis controlling for age, shock index, head AIS, Glasgow Coma Scale motor, trauma center level of managing facility, case volume of managing facility, and injury year, no significant difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23–2.86; p = 0.754), FSD (coefficient, −0.85; 95% CI, −2.03 to 0.28; p = 0.136), or total complication rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.43–3.39; p = 0.714) was observed between center types. CONCLUSION Although the optimal treatment facility for adolescent patients is frequently debated, patients aged 15 to 17 years presenting with isolated sTBI may experience similar outcomes when managed at pediatric and adult trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Breaking down the barriers! Factors contributing to barrier days in a mature trauma center.

BACKGROUND As we enter the brave new world of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, it is imperative that trauma centers provide not only excellent but also cost-effective trauma care. To that end, we sought to determine those factors that contribute significantly to barrier days (BDs), when a patient is medically cleared for discharge but unable to leave the hospital. We hypothesized that there would be significant demographic and payor factors associated with BDs. METHODS All trauma admissions to a Level II trauma center discharged alive from 2010 to 2012 were queried from the trauma registry. BDs were identified and recorded at daily sign-out. Patients with a hospital length of stay of 24 hours or less or transferred to another hospital were excluded. Univariate logistic regression was used to analyze which factors were significant (p ⩽ 0.05) for BDs. Significant variables were then included in a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS A total of 3,056 patients were included in the study, 105 (3.44%) of whom had at least one BD. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients awaiting nursing home placement and rehabilitation placement were at 6.39 and 2.79 times higher odds of having significant barriers to discharge, respectively, compared with patients who were discharged home. The multivariate model also showed that Medicaid coverage, one or more comorbidities, Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater, and one or more ventilation days had a significant correlation with the incidence of BDs. CONCLUSION This study suggests that discharge destination is a significant factor associated with BDs. Understanding what type of patient is prone to develop barriers to discharge will allow case managers and social workers to intervene with discharge planning early in that patient’s hospital course to secure placement and possibly reduce health care costs and improve functional outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Does prehospital prolonged extrication (entrapment) place trauma patients at higher risk for venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to determine if prolonged immobility and tissue injury from a prehospital entrapment would place patients at higher risk for in-hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE) complications. It was hypothesized that entrapment would increase in-hospital VTE. METHODS All consecutive trauma admissions over a 10-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those who were entrapped according to defined prehospital criteria for entrapment and those who were not entrapped. The complications of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were noted. RESULTS There were 15,159 patients admitted between 1999 and 2008. Of these, 1,176 met the criteria for prehospital entrapment. Those patients who met the criteria for entrapment had a significant risk for developing both deep vein thrombosis (P < .001, χ(2) test) and pulmonary embolism (P = .005, Fishers exact test). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed entrapment to be a significant contributing risk factor to the development of VTE (odds ratio, 1.54; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS Patients with prehospital entrapment are at higher risk for VTE. These results mandate aggressive VTE prophylaxis in patients with histories of prehospital entrapment.

1142: DO INTRACRANIAL PRESSURE MONITORS IMPROVE SURVIVAL IN PEDIATRIC TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PATIENTS?

Crit Care Med 2015 • Volume 43 • Number 12 (Suppl.) patients were analyzed in the pre-intervention and 31 patients in the post-intervention group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The SICU UFH protocol was ordered significantly more in the post group (67% vs 38%, p=0.01).Thirty-two percent of patients had a heparin bolus ordered in the post group and 48.1% in the pre group (p=0.26). Ninety-six boluses were given in the pre group and 23 in the post (p=0.174). There were more aPTTs/patient obtained in the post group (12 vs 19, p=0.04). Conclusions: A CPOE program can be used to improve protocol compliance and potentially improve medication safety.