BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTrauma 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsHospital-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 evidenceLevel II therapeutic.

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.

No abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence of positive screening for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) amongst trauma patients. Design: Prospective, longitudinal study. Setting: Single urban US level 1 trauma center. Patients and methods: Four hundred fifty-two adult trauma patients were administered the PTSD checklist for DSM-V (PCL-5) survey upon posthospital outpatient clinic visit. This included 300 men (66%) and 152 women with mean age 43.8 years and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) 11.3, with 83% having fractures of the pelvis and/or extremities. Medical and injury related variables were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of screening positive for PTSD. Main outcome measurement: Prevalence and risk factors for screening positive for PTSD amongst the trauma patient population. Results: Twenty-six percent of trauma patients screened positive for PTSD after mean 86 days following injury. These patients were younger (35 vs 46 years old, P < 0.001) and more commonly African American (56% vs 43% Caucasian, P < 0.001). Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles (OR 4.70, P = 0.040) and victims of crime (OR 4.12, P = 0.013) were more likely to screen positive. Psychiatric history, injury severity (ISS), and injury type did not predict positive screening. Conclusion: One-in-four patients suffering traumatic injuries screened positive for PTSD suggesting the prevalence of PTSD among trauma patients far exceeds that of the general population. Predictive factors included victims of crime and pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. Screening measures are needed in orthopaedic trauma surgery clinics to refer these at-risk patients for proper evaluation and treatment. Level of evidence: Prognostic; Level II