Belinda DeMario1, Mark J Kalina, Evelyn Truong, Sarah Hendrickson, Esther S Tseng, Jeffrey A Claridge, Heather Vallier, Vanessa P Ho. 1. From the Division of Trauma, Critical Care, Burn, and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (B.D., E.T., E.S.T., J.A.C., V.P.H.), Community Trauma Institute (B.D., M.J.K., S.H., H.V.), and Department of Orthopedic Surgery (H.V.), MetroHealth Medical Center; and Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences (V.P.H.), Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Alex B Haynes; Thomas G Weiser; William R Berry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Abdel-Hadi S Breizat; E Patchen Dellinger; Teodoro Herbosa; Sudhir Joseph; Pascience L Kibatala; Marie Carmela M Lapitan; Alan F Merry; Krishna Moorthy; Richard K Reznick; Bryce Taylor; Atul A Gawande Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sharon Reif; Lisa Braude; D Russell Lyman; Richard H Dougherty; Allen S Daniels; Sushmita Shoma Ghose; Onaje Salim; Miriam E Delphin-Rittmon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Paddy Gillespie; Eamon O'Shea; Gillian Paul; Tom O'Dowd; Susan M Smith Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Laura Bruce Petrey; Rebecca Joanne Weddle; Bradford Richardson; Richard Gilder; Megan Reynolds; Monica Bennett; Alan Cook; Michael Foreman; Ann Marie Warren Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Hwa Yeon Park; Mi Jin Kim; Ju Young Kim; Sarah Kim; Ji Young Choi; Jeong Hyun Kim; Hee Yeong Jeong Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Samara Grossman; Zara Cooper; Heather Buxton; Sarah Hendrickson; Annie Lewis-O'Connor; Jane Stevens; Lye-Yeng Wong; Stephanie Bonne Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2021-12-20