Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma firearm injury prevention statement

The Trauma Recovery Clinic: A Stepped Collaborative Care Model for Trauma Surgery Patients to Address Health Disparities

Background: The Trauma Recovery Clinic (TRC) was developed to meet the psychiatric, psychological, and psychosocial needs of traumatically injured patients following discharge from a level-I trauma center. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the efficacy of the TRC as an application of the stepped collaborative care model in order to address health disparities.Methods: Patients with a history of inpatient treatment for a physically traumatic injury at this level-I trauma center were approached and enrolled at initial TRC outpatient appointments. Data was collected, including the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Attitudes towards Guns scale, and the Youth Behavior Risk Survey (questions about weapon carrying practices).Results: A total of 80 patients were included in this study. Patients expressed several social determinants of health risk factors, with 60% of the sample reporting witnessing someone being wounded or killed. Results demonstrated a significant decrease in trauma symptoms (T24 = 3.33; P = .001, d = 0.67) and depressive symptoms (T24 = 2.23, P = .02, d = 0.45) by their 6th clinic visit. Additionally, patients reported significant improvements in role limitations due to emotional problems (T25 = 1.74; P = .04; d = 0.34) and social functioning (T25 = 2.23; P = .02; d = 0.43). Interestingly, patients who reported carrying a weapon in the last 30 days reported significantly higher trauma symptoms (T64 = 3.21, P = .002) and depressive symptoms (T64 = 2.77, P = .007).Discussion: This evaluation of services at the recently implemented Trauma Recovery Clinic demonstrated that the clinic is successfully treating individuals who have experienced traumatic injuries. More specifically, the clinic services are effectively engaging a vulnerable, hard-to-reach patient population.

Funding the war in America: A look in the mirror

BACKGROUND

Health care political action committees (HPACs) historically contribute more to candidates opposing firearm restrictions (FRs), clashing with their affiliated medical societies. These societies have increasingly emphasized the prevention of firearm violence and it is not known if recent contributions by their HPACs have aligned with their stated goals. We hypothesized that such HPACs still contribute similar amounts toward legislators up for reelection opposing FR.

METHODS

We identified HPACs of medical societies endorsing one or both calls-to-action against firearm violence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2015, 2019). House of Representatives (HOR) votes on H.R.8, a background checks bill, were characterized from GovTrack. We compiled HPAC contributions between the H.R.8 vote and election to HOR members up for re-election from the National Institute on Money in Politics. Our primary outcome was total campaign contributions by H.R.8 stance. Secondary outcomes included percentage of politicians funded and total contributions.

RESULTS

Nineteen societies endorsed one or both call-to-action articles. Three hundred eighty-five of 430 HOR members ran for reelection in 2020. Those endorsing H.R.8 (n = 226, 59%) received $2.8 M for $4,750 (interquartile range [IQR], $1000-$15,500) per candidate. Those opposing (n = 159, 41%) received $1.5 M for $2,500 (IQR, $0-$11,000) per candidate ( p = 0.0057). Health care political action committees donated toward a median of 20% (IQR, 7-28) of candidates endorsing H.R.8 and 9% (IQR, 4-22) of candidates opposing H.R.8 ( p = 0.0014). Those endorsing H.R.8 received 1,585 total contributions for a median of 3 (IQR, 1-10) contributions per candidate, while those opposing received 834 total contributions for a median of 2 (IQR, 0-7) contributions per candidate ( p = 0.0029).

CONCLUSION

Politicians voting against background checks received substantial contributions toward reelection from the HPACs of societies advocating for firearm restrictions. However, this is the first study to suggest that HPAC's contributions have become more congruent with their respective societies. Further alignment of medical society goals and their HPAC political contributions could have a profound impact on firearm violence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

INTRODUCTION

The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

METHODS

National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

RESULTS

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.