Patient Engagement in a Technology-Enhanced, Stepped-Care Intervention to Address the Mental Health Needs of Trauma Center Patients

Beyond surviving: A scoping review of collaborative care models to inform the future of postdischarge trauma care

ABSTRACT

Trauma centers demonstrate an impressive ability to save lives, as reflected by inpatient survival rates of more than 95% in the United States. Nevertheless, we fail to allocate sufficient effort and resources to ensure that survivors and their families receive the necessary care and support after leaving the trauma center. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map the research on collaborative care models that have been put forward to improve trauma survivorship. Of 833 articles screened, we included 16 studies evaluating eight collaborative care programs, predominantly in the United States. The majority of the programs offered care coordination and averaged 9 months in duration. Three fourths of the programs incorporated a mental health provider within their primary team. Observed outcomes were diverse: some models showed increased engagement (e.g., Center for Trauma Survivorship, trauma quality-of-life follow-up clinic), while others presented mixed mental health outcomes and varied results on pain and health care utilization. The findings of this study indicate that collaborative interventions may be effective in mental health screening, posttraumatic stress disorder and depression management, effective referrals, and improving patient satisfaction with care. A consensus on core elements and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care models is necessary to set the standard for comprehensive care in posttrauma recovery.

Hybrid 1 randomized controlled trial of an integrated stepped-care mental health intervention for traumatic injury patients

BACKGROUND

Annually, nearly 3 million individuals in the US are hospitalized after experiencing a traumatic injury (e.g., serious automobile crash, gunshot wound, stab injury). Many traumatically injured patients experience a trajectory of resilience. However, 20-40 % develop mental health problems such as posttraumatic stress disorder and depression; population estimates exceed 600,000 patients annually. Most trauma centers do not provide direct services to address mental health recovery, but the 2022 American College of Surgeons guidelines have established this as a priority. Cost-effective interventions are needed that meet the needs of patients at each stage of the recovery process while achieving sustainability at the level of implementation. This protocol paper describes a study that rigorously tests the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a scalable, sustainable technology-enhanced intervention to support the mental health recovery of patients who have experienced a traumatic injury.

METHODS

We describe a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow up of TRRP vs. enhanced usual care with 350 traumatically injured patients, including recruitment and retention procedures, assessment, implementation and fidelity monitoring, and statistical plans.

CONCLUSION

Novel components of our design include integration of technology-based elements, use of a stepped-care model, and implementation in a trauma center that did not previously have a mental health program. Data collected address the impact of TRRP and inform improvements to the model and its implementation in preparation for large-scale testing and implementation initiatives. This body of work is critical to informing the field as it continues to move toward national standards and recommendations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05497115Clinicaltrials.gov.

Engaging and following physical injury survivors at risk for developing posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A 25 site US national study

INTRODUCTION

Early intervention for patients at risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) relies upon the ability to engage and follow trauma-exposed patients. Recent requirements by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) have mandated screening and referral for patients with high levels of risk for the development of PTSD or depression. Investigations that assess factors associated with engaging and following physically injured patients may be essential in assessing outcomes related to screening, intervention, and referral.

METHODS

This investigation was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a United States level I trauma center site randomized clinical trial. All 635 patients were ages ≥18 and had high PTSD symptom levels (i.e., DSM-IV PTSD Checklist score ≥35) at the time of the baseline trauma center admission. Baseline technology use, demographic, and injury characteristics were collected for patients who were followed up with over the course of the year after physical injury. Regression analyses were used to assess the associations between technology use, demographic and injury characteristics, and the attainment of follow-up outcome assessments.

RESULTS

Thirty-one percent of participants were missing one or more 3-, 6- or 12-month follow-up outcome assessments. Increased risk of missing one or more outcome assessments was associated with younger age (18-30 versus ≥55 Relative Risks [RR] = 1.78, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.09, 2.91), lack of cell phone (RR = 1.32, 95 % CI = 1.01, 1.72), no internet access (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.01, 2.16), public versus private insurance (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.12, 1.92), having no chronic medical comorbidities (≥4 versus none, RR = 0.28, 95 % CI = 0.20, 0.39), and worse pre-injury mental health function (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.98, 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

This multisite investigation suggests that younger and publicly insured and/or uninsured patients with barriers to cell phone and internet access may be particularly vulnerable to lapses in trauma center follow-up. Clinical research informing trauma center-based screening, intervention, and referral procedures could productively explore strategies for patients at risk for not engaging and adhering to follow-up care and outcome assessments.

Mental health symptoms and engagement in a stepped-care mental health service among patients with a violent versus nonviolent injury

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined mental health symptom trajectories and engagement in mental health follow-up in relation to mechanism of injury. This study examined differences in engagement between survivors of nonviolent and violent injury in the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a stepped-care, technology-enhanced model that provides evidence-based mental health screening and treatment to patients admitted to our Level I trauma service.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from 2,527 adults enrolled in TRRP at hospital bedside between 2018 and 2022, including 398 patients (16%) with a violent injury and 2,129 patients (84%) with a nonviolent injury. Bivariate and hierarchical logistic regression analyses examined relations between injury type (violent vs. nonviolent) engagement in TRRP and mental health symptoms at 30 day follow-up.

RESULTS

Engagement in services at bedside was similar across survivors of violent and nonviolent traumatic injury. Patients with violent injury had higher levels of posttraumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms 30 days postinjury but were less likely to engage in mental health screening. Among patients who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, patients with violent injury were more likely to accept treatment referrals.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a violent traumatic injury have higher levels of mental health needs yet face greater barriers to accessing mental health services following their injury relative to those with a nonviolent injury. Effective strategies are needed to ensure continuity of care and access to mental health care to promote resilience and emotional and functional recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Social support in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among patients with violent versus nonviolent injury

OBJECTIVE

Violent injuries have become increasingly more common in the United States. Individuals experiencing violent injury are at increased risk for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as compared to those experiencing nonviolent injury. Social support is touted as a protective factor against various psychiatric symptoms (i.e., PTSD), though little is known about the relation between PTSD symptoms and social support in traumatic injury populations. The aims of the present paper were twofold: (1) examine the prevalence of PTSD as a function of injury type (2) explore differences in levels of social support as a function of injury type and (3) explore the association between injury type and later PTSD symptoms as moderated by baseline social support.

METHOD

Participants were 553 adults from a level-one trauma center in the Southeast United States who experienced a violent injury or nonviolent injury and completed measures of social support at baseline as well as PTSD symptoms at the 30-day follow-up timepoint. The study utilized data from both the baseline timepoint (i.e., upon admission to the trauma surgery unit), as well as a 30-day follow-up timepoint.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated that those endorsing nonviolent injury reported lower levels of social support and PTSD symptoms. Social support predicted later PTSD symptoms until injury type was included as a covariate in the model. Social support did not moderate the relationship between injury type and later PTSD symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the interrelatedness of key risk variables (i.e., injury type) with protective factors in influencing the trajectory of psychopathology postinjury. Violence intervention and interruption programs may have the capacity to fill patient needs when social support networks are insufficient. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Emergency Department and Inpatient Utilization Reductions and Cost Savings Associated With Trauma Center Mental Health Intervention: Results From a 5-year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and refer patients at high risk for the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma now requires that trauma centers have in-place protocols. No investigations have documented reductions in utilization and associated potential cost savings associated with trauma center mental health interventions.

BACKGROUND

The investigation was a randomized clinical trial analysis that incorporated novel 5-year emergency department (ED)/inpatient health service utilization follow-up data.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to a mental health intervention, targeting the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury (n = 85) versus enhanced usual care control (n = 86) conditions. The intervention included case management that coordinated trauma center-to-community care linkages, psychotropic medication consultation, and psychotherapy elements. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention and control group utilization differences over time. An economic analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Over the course of the 5-year intervention, patients demonstrated significant reductions in ED/inpatient utilization when compared with control patients [ F (19,3210) = 2.23, P = 0.009]. Intervention utilization reductions were greatest at 3 to 6 months (intervention 15.5% vs control 26.7%, relative risk = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.00) and 12 to 15 months (intervention 16.5% vs control 30.6%, relative risk = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.91) postinjury time points. The economic analysis suggested potential intervention cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health intervention is associated with significant reductions in ED and inpatient utilization, as well as potential cost savings. These findings could be productively integrated into future American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma policy discussions.

Implementation of a Stepped Care Program to Address Emotional Recovery among Traumatic Injury Patients

BACKGROUND

Annually, over 600,000 adults served in US trauma centers (≥20%) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or depression in the first year after injury. American College of Surgeons guidelines include screening and addressing mental health recovery in trauma centers. Yet, many trauma centers do not monitor and address mental health recovery, and it is a priority to learn how to implement evidence-informed mental health programs in trauma centers.

STUDY DESIGN

This report describes our application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment model to implement the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP) in 3 Level I and II trauma centers to address patients' mental health needs. TRRP is a scalable and sustainable stepped model of care-one of the few in the US-that provides early intervention and direct services after traumatic injury.

RESULTS

Trauma centers are well positioned to accelerate patients' mental health recovery via early identification, education, screening, and referrals to mental health agencies that provide best-practice care. We found that TRRP was acceptable to the 3 partnering trauma centers we studied. Early engagement of patient, provider, and hospital administration stakeholders enhanced buy-in during the early stages of the implementation process and promoted sustainability. Active processes to support monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation were critical.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work demonstrates the feasibility of implementing and adapting TRRP, a cost-efficient and sustainable stepped care intervention, in Level I and II trauma centers. Several factors should be carefully considered by trauma centers seeking to integrate behavioral health interventions into their trauma program.

User-Guided Enhancements to a Technology-Facilitated Resilience Program to Address Opioid Risks Following Traumatic Injury in Youth: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Youth with traumatic injury experience elevated risk for behavioral health disorders, yet posthospital monitoring of patients' behavioral health is rare. The Telehealth Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a technology-facilitated and stepped access-to-care program initiated in hospitals and designed to be integrated seamlessly into trauma center operations, is a program that can potentially address this treatment gap. However, the TRRP was originally developed to address this gap for mental health recovery but not substance use. Given the high rates of substance and opioid use disorders among youth with traumatic injury, there is a need to monitor substance use and related symptoms alongside other mental health concerns.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to use an iterative, user-guided approach to inform substance use adaptations to TRRP content and procedures.

METHODS

We conducted individual semistructured interviews with adolescents (aged 12-17 years) and young adults (aged 18-25 years) who were recently discharged from trauma centers (n=20) and health care providers from two level 1 trauma centers (n=15). Interviews inquired about reactions to and recommendations for expanding TRRP content, features, and functionality; factors related to TRRP implementation and acceptability; and current strategies for monitoring patients' postinjury physical and emotional recovery and opioid and substance use. Interview responses were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis to guide new TRRP substance use content and procedures.

RESULTS

Themes identified in interviews included gaps in care, task automation, user personalization, privacy concerns, and in-person preferences. Based on these results, a multimedia, web-based mobile education app was developed that included 8 discrete interactive education modules and 6 videos on opioid use disorder, and TRRP procedures were adapted to target opioid and other substance use disorder risk. Substance use adaptations included the development of a set of SMS text messaging-delivered questions that monitor both mental health symptoms and substance use and related symptoms (eg, pain and sleep) and the identification of validated mental health and substance use screening tools to monitor patients' behavioral health in the months after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and health care providers found the TRRP and its expansion to address substance use acceptable. This iterative, user-guided approach yielded novel content and procedures that will be evaluated in a future trial.

Behavioral Health Screening and Follow-Up Services in Pediatric Trauma Centers Across the United States

OBJECTIVE

Over 120,000 U.S. children are hospitalized for traumatic injury annually, a major risk factor for behavioral health problems such as acute/posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) are well positioned to address the recent mandate by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma to screen and refer for behavioral health symptoms. However, most PTCs do not provide screening or intervention, or use varying approaches. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess PTCs' availability of behavioral health resources and identify barriers and facilitators to service implementation following pediatric traumatic injury (PTI).

METHODS

Survey data were collected from 83 Level I (75%) and Level II (25%) PTC program managers and coordinators across 36 states. Semistructured, qualitative interviews with participants (N = 24) assessed the feasibility of implementing behavioral health education, screening, and treatment for PTI patients and caregivers.

RESULTS

Roughly half of centers provide behavioral health screening, predominantly administered by nurses for acute stress/PTSD. Themes from qualitative interviews suggest that (1) service provision varies by behavioral health condition, resource, delivery method, and provider; (2) centers are enthusiastic about service implementation including screening, inpatient brief interventions, and follow-up assessment; but (3) require training and lack staff, time, and funding to implement services.

CONCLUSIONS

Sustainable, scalable, evidence-based service models are needed to assess behavioral health symptoms after PTI. Leadership investment is needed for successful implementation. Technology-enhanced, stepped-care approaches seem feasible and acceptable to PTCs to ensure the availability of personalized care while addressing barriers to sustainability.

Implementation of a stepped care program to address posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in a Level II trauma center

BACKGROUND

The Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP) is a technology enhanced model of care that includes education, screening, and service referrals to address posttraumatic stress disorder and depression following traumatic injury. TRRP has shown high rates of engagement at a Level I trauma center, but Level II centers have fewer resources and face more challenges to addressing patients' mental health needs.

METHODS

We utilized clinical administrative data to examine engagement in TRRP in a Level II trauma center with 816 adult trauma activation patients.

RESULTS

Most patients (86%) enrolled in TRRP, but only 30% completed screens during a 30-day follow-up call. Three-quarters of patients who endorsed clinically significant symptoms accepted treatment recommendations/referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

Engagement at each step of the model was lower than previously reported in a Level I center. Differences likely correspond to lower rates of mental health symptoms in the trauma patients at this setting. We discuss program adaptations that may be needed to improve patient engagement.

Assessment of Traumatic Stress Symptoms During the Acute Posttrauma Period

A substantial majority of adults in the United States will experience a potentially traumatic event (PTE) in their lifetime. A considerable proportion of those individuals will go on to develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Distinguishing between those who will develop PTSD and those who will recover, however, remains as a challenge to the field. Recent work has pointed to the increased potential of identifying individuals at greatest risk for PTSD through repeated assessment during the acute posttrauma period, the 30-day period after the PTE. Obtaining the necessary data during this period, however, has proven to be a challenge. Technological innovations such as personal mobile devices and wearable passive sensors have given the field new tools to capture nuanced in vivo changes indicative of recovery or nonrecovery. Despite their potential, there are numerous points for clinicians and research teams to consider when implementing these technologies into acute posttrauma care. The limitations of this work and considerations for future research in the use of technology during the acute posttrauma period are discussed.

Differences in mental health engagement and follow-up among Black and White patients after traumatic injury

BACKGROUND

Severe injury necessitating hospitalization is experienced by nearly three million US adults annually. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression are prevalent clinical outcomes. The mechanisms by which programs equitably promote mental health recovery among trauma-exposed patients are understudied. We evaluated clinical outcomes and engagement among a cohort of Black and White patients enrolled in the Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program (TRRP), a stepped-care model to accelerate mental health recovery after traumatic injury.

METHODS

Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program is a four-step model that includes (1) bedside psychoeducation about mental health recovery following traumatic injury, (2) a text-messaging symptom tracking system, (3) a 30-day postinjury mental health screen, and (4) referrals to mental health services. Data describe 1,550 patients enrolled in TRRP within a Level I trauma center ( Mage = 40.86; SD, 17.32), 611 of whom identified as Black (74.5% male) and 939 of whom identified as White (67.7% male).

RESULTS

Enrollment in TRRP was nearly universal (97.9%) regardless of race or injury mechanism. Enrollment and usage of the text-message system were statistically similar between Black (35.7%) and White patients (39.5%). Trauma Resilience and Recovery Program reengaged Black and White patients at a similar rate at the 30-day postinjury follow-up. However, Black patients were more likely to report peritraumatic distress at the bedside and clinical elevations in posttraumatic stress disorder and depression on the 30-day screen. Referrals were more likely to be accepted by Black patients relative to White patients with clinically elevated symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Enrollment and engagement were comparable among Black and White patients served by TRRP. Data provide preliminary evidence to suggest that TRRP is feasible and acceptable and engages patients in mental health follow-up equitably. However, research that includes careful measurement of social determinants of health and long-term follow-up examining initiation, completion, and benefit from treatment is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the long-term outcomes research gap Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category.

RESULTS

Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

Are trauma surgical societies adequately addressing mental health after injury?

BACKGROUND

Survivors of physical trauma, their home caregivers, and their medical providers all have an increased risk of developing psychological distress and trauma-related psychiatric disease. The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and change over time of trauma society research presentations regarding mental health to identify opportunities for growth.

METHODS

Archives from 2018 to 2020 from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the Western Trauma Association were reviewed. The studies that measured mental illness, psychosocial distress, and other psychosocial factors were assessed: for (1) the use of patient-reported outcome measures ; (2) the association of psychosocial variables with outcomes; and (3) the interventions investigated. Change over time was assessed using χ2 analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1,239 abstracts, 57 (4.6%) addressed at least 1 mental health-related factor. Mental health was more frequently studied over time (2018 [3.2%]; 2019 [3.5%]; 2020 [7.7%]; P = .003). The most frequently measured factors were post-traumatic stress disorder, quality of life, general mental health, and depression. Seventeen (29.8%) abstracts addressed substance abuse, most commonly opioid abuse. Seven (12.3%) abstracts measured mental health in caregivers or medical providers. Patient-reported outcome measures were used in 32 studies (56.1%). Two-thirds of studies reported findings suggesting that mental illness impairs trauma-related outcomes. Only 5 (8.8%) investigated interventions designed to reduce adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although academic discussion of mental health after trauma increased from 2018 to 2020, the topic remains a limited component of annual programs, patient-reported outcome measures remain underutilized, and intervention studies are rare.

Assessing service quality and access in trauma centers through behavioral health screening, education, and treatment after pediatric injury

BACKGROUND

Over 120,000 U.S. children are hospitalized annually for traumatic injury, with approximately 20% developing acute stress disorder (ASD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or depression. The ACS COT recommends that trauma centers address emotional recovery after injury; however, few pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) assess behavioral health symptoms. This study describes results from a survey with PTC providers assessing the landscape of behavioral health screening, education, and treatment.

METHODS

Trauma program leaders from 83 US Level I and II trauma centers across 36 states completed a survey assessing center characteristics and decision-making, availability, and perceptions of behavioral health resources.

RESULTS

Nearly half (46%) of centers provide behavioral health screens for pediatric patients, and 18% screen family members, with screens mostly conducted by nurses or social workers for ASD or PTSD. Two-thirds provide child behavioral health education and 47% provide education to caregivers/family. Two-thirds provide treatment connections, typically via referrals or outpatient clinics. Behavioral health screening, education, and treatment connections were rated as very important (M > 8.5/10), with higher ratings for the importance of screening children versus caregivers. Child maltreatment (59%), observed patient distress (53%), child substance use (52%), injury mechanism (42%) and severity (42%) were prioritized in screening decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Service provision varies by method, resource, and provider, highlighting the lack of a roadmap for centers to provide behavioral health services. Adoption of universal education and screening procedures in PTCs is crucial to increase access to services for injured children and caregivers. PTCs are well-positioned to offer these services.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Scoping review of the literature to ascertain how follow-up care is provided to major trauma patients post discharge from acute care

OBJECTIVES

Survival following traumatic injury has increased, requiring ongoing patient follow-up. While longitudinal outcomes of trauma patients are reported, little is known about optimal delivery of follow-up service for this group. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe the structure, process and outcomes of postdischarge follow-up services for patients who sustained major trauma.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This scoping review was conducted by searching CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Articles were screened by three independent reviewers. The data of selected articles were organised in the categories of the Donabedian quality framework: structure, processes and outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles were included after screening by title/abstract then full text against the inclusion/exclusion criteria; 92% (n=24) were from the USA.Follow-up services were provided by designated trauma centres and delivered by a mixture of health disciplines. Delivery of follow-up was multimodal (in person/telehealth). Protocols and guidelines helped to deliver follow-up care for non-physician led services.Ongoing health issues including missed injuries, pain and infection were identified. No standardised criteria were established to determine recipients, the timing or frequency of follow-up was identified. Patients who engaged with follow-up services were more likely to participate in other health services. Patients reported satisfaction with follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

There are wide variations in how follow-up services for major trauma patients are provided. Further evaluation should focus on patient, family and organisational outcomes. Identifying who is most likely to benefit, when and how follow-up care is delivered are important next steps in improving outcomes.

Life threat during assaultive trauma: Critical posttraumatic stress disorder risk factors for injured patients

BACKGROUND

Rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injury survivors are higher relative to the general population, supporting the need to identify those most at risk for PTSD following injury given negative impact of PTSD on recovery. Perceived life threat and assaultive trauma are consistent risk factors for subsequent PTSD development, although less work has explored them in combination. The current study evaluated whether trauma type (assaultive vs. nonassaultive) and perceived life threat, together, led to greater PTSD symptoms 1 month and 6 months postinjury.

METHODS

Participants included adult injured trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center. While hospitalized, perceived life threat during trauma was assessed and mechanism of injury was collected via record review and was collapsed into two categories: assaultive and nonassaultive. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [Fifth Edition]) was administered at 1 month (N = 137) and 6 months (N = 220) after injury.

RESULTS

The four symptoms clusters of PTSD (intrusions, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative mood/cognitions) were examined using four 2 (time) × 2 (life threat) × 2 (trauma type) mixed methods analyses of variance to assess differences based on risk factors and time. Results showed significant interaction effects of life threat, trauma type, and time for intrusive symptoms and avoidance symptoms. Individuals with life threat during assaultive traumas maintained heightened intrusive symptoms across time and increased avoidance at 6 months. On the other hand, participants with either life threat or assaultive traumas had decreased symptoms at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Experiencing assaultive trauma and life threat led to greater symptoms of PTSD. Individuals with assaultive traumas who experienced life threat may represent a specific at-risk group following injury. Avoidance can protract functional impairment and impede access to care, negatively impacting recovery. This study highlights a need to assess for these peritrauma factors during hospitalization and supports early intervention targeting avoidance and intrusive symptoms in this group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level IV.

Adolescent Suicide—Understanding Unique Risks and Opportunities for Trauma Centers to Recognize, Intervene, and Prevent a Leading Cause of Death

Purpose of Review

This provides up-to-date epidemiology of adolescent suicide and risk factors for suicide and highlights the overlap of risks for suicide and injury. It reviews signs and symptoms, and the up-to-date evidence on screening for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicide, substance abuse, and lethal means, and offers strategies of implementation in trauma centers.

Recent Findings

The incidence of adolescent suicide has continued to rise in the USA to 6.5 per 100,000, with notable racial disparities. The risk factors are complex, but many pre-existing risk factors and sequela after injury such as exposures to violence, suicidal behaviors, substance abuse, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and specific injuries including traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury have further emerged as risks. Studies show rates of suicidality as high as 30% in the acute care setting. There are short screening instruments that can be used to universally screen for depression and suicidality in adolescent trauma patients. Step-up models of care for PTSD are promising to increase screening and services after injury. Lethal means counseling, secure firearm storage practices, and firearm safety policies can reduce the risk of suicide.

Summary

Suicide is the second leading cause of death in US adolescents, and trauma patients have significant risk factors for mental illness and suicidality before and after injury. Trauma centers should strongly consider screening adolescents, establish strategies for mental health support and referrals, and provide lethal means counseling to help prevent suicide.

Stepped Collaborative Care Targeting Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Comorbidity for US Trauma Care Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

To date, few multisite investigations have evaluated early interventions for injured patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.

Objective

To simultaneously assess the effectiveness and implementation of a brief stepped collaborative care intervention targeting PTSD and comorbidity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 25 US level I trauma centers. Participants included hospitalized survivors of physical injury who underwent a 2-step evaluation for PTSD symptoms. Patients reporting high levels of distress on the PTSD Checklist (PCL-C) were randomized (N = 635) per the stepped-wedge protocol to enhanced usual care control (n = 370) or intervention (n = 265) conditions. The study was conducted from January 4, 2016, through November 2018. Data analysis was performed from November 4, 2019, to December 8, 2020.

Interventions

The Trauma Survivors Outcomes and Support collaborative care intervention included proactive injury case management that assisted patients transitioning from hospital inpatient to outpatient and community settings. The intervention also integrated evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapeutic elements targeting PTSD symptoms and comorbidity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary study outcome was PTSD symptoms assessed with the PCL-C at baseline in the surgical ward and at 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and physical function. Subgroup analyses examined the effect of baseline risk factors for enduring PTSD and quality of protocol implementation on study outcomes. Primary statistical analyses were conducted using the intent-to-treat sample.

Results

A total of 327 men (51.5%) were included in analysis; mean (SD) age was 39.0 (14.2) years. The investigation attained follow-up of 75% to 80% of the participants at 3 to 12 months. The intervention lasted a mean (SD) of 122 (132) minutes. Mixed model regression analyses revealed statistically significant changes in PCL-C scores for intervention patients compared with control patients at 6 months (difference, -2.57; 95% CI, -5.12 to -0.03; effect size, 0.18; P < .05) but not 12 months (difference, -1.27; 95% CI, -4.26 to 1.73; effect size, 0.08; P = .35). Subgroup analyses revealed larger PTSD treatment effects for patients with 3 or more baseline risk factors for enduring PTSD and for patients, including firearm injury survivors, treated at trauma centers with good or excellent protocol implementation. Intervention effects for secondary outcomes did not attain statistical significance.

Conclusions and Relevance

A brief stepped collaborative care intervention was associated with significant 6-month but not 12-month PTSD symptom reductions. Greater baseline PTSD risk and good or excellent trauma center protocol implementation were associated with larger PTSD treatment effects. Orchestrated efforts targeting policy and funding should systematically incorporate the study findings into national trauma center requirements and verification criteria.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02655354.