Frail, geriatric patients with pelvic fractures can present differently than non-frail patients. Using the Clinical Frailty Scale(CFS), a retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between patients’ CFS and outcomes after pelvic fractures. We hypothesized that frail, geriatric trauma patients defined as a CFS>4 with pelvic fractures have worse outcomes than non-frail patients with a CFS≤4 despite similar injuries. All geriatric patients with pelvic fractures and documented CFS were included. Seventy patients were included, with 59% (n = 41) frail. The groups were compared with no difference in mortality. The frail group was older and were most likely discharged to a skilled nursing facility (65.8%). Non-frail were most likely discharged to acute rehab (52%). Frail had lower functional status at discharge (median: 14.5v.16, P = .015). Frail patients had worse overall outcomes in this analysis of geriatric pelvic fracture patients. Special attention should focus on this vulnerable population to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.
Objectives Pan scanning in trauma patients has become routine, resulting in increased identification of incidental findings (IF), findings unrelated to the reason for the scan. This has posed a conundrum of ensuring patients have appropriate follow-up for these findings. We sought to evaluate our compliance and follow-up for patients after implementation of an IF protocol at our level-I trauma center. Methods We performed a retrospective review from 9/2020 to 4/2021, to encompass before and after protocol implementation. Patients were separated into PRE and POST groups. Charts were reviewed evaluating several factors including three- and six-month follow-ups on IF. Data were analyzed comparing PRE and POST groups. Results A total of 1989 patients were identified, 31.22% (n = 621) with an IF. 612 patients were included in our study. Compared to PRE, POST showed a significant increase in PCP notification (35% vs 22%, P < .001) and patient notification (82% vs 65%, P < .001). As a result, patient follow-up regarding IF at six months was significantly higher in POST (44%) v. PRE (29%), ( P < .001). There was no difference in follow-up based on insurance carrier. There was no difference in patient age for PRE (63 y) and POST (66 y) overall, ( P = .089); nor in age of patients who followed up; 68.8 PRE vs 68.2 years POST ( P = .819). Conclusion Implementation of an IF protocol with patient and PCP notification was significantly improved in overall patient follow-up for category one and two IF. Utilizing the results of this study, the protocol will be further revised to improve patient follow-up.
Background Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs. Methods The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013. Results 112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% ( P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182). Discussion Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.