Routine versus ad hoc screening for acute stress following injury: who would benefit and what are the opportunities for prevention

Screening tools for predicting posttraumatic stress disorder in acutely injured adult trauma patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adult trauma patients are at risk of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Early intervention reduces the development of PTSD, but few trauma patients seek and obtain care. Valid and reliable screening tools are needed to identify patients at risk of developing PTSD. The objective of this review is to identify existing screening tools and evaluate their accuracy for predicting PTSD outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, PsychInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating the predictive accuracy of PTSD screening tools among traumatically injured adult civilians. Eligible studies assessed patients during acute hospitalization and at least 1 month following injury to measure PTSD outcome. Eligible outcomes included measures of predictive accuracy, such as sensitivity and specificity. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each study, and the strength of evidence was assessed following the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included evaluating the predictive accuracy of 38 screening tools. Most tools were assessed in a single study. Questionnaire-style tools had more favorable predictive ability than diagnostic interview assessments. The Injured Trauma Survivor Screen, Posttraumatic Adjustment Screen, the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, and the Richmond et al. tool demonstrated the most favorable predictive accuracy, with high sensitivity (75-100%) and specificity (67-94%). Common sources of bias were selection bias due to high attrition rate and using nondiagnostic tools to assess PTSD symptoms at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Although sensitivity and specificity of PTSD predictive tools varied widely, several emerged with favorable predictive accuracy. Further research is needed to define the ability of screening and intervention to prevent PTSD in injured trauma survivors. The results of this review can inform screening tool options for screening programs and future intervention studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

Treating trauma more effectively: A review of psychosocial programming

IMPORTANCE

Traumatic events are the leading cause of life-altering disability in adults of working age. The management of patients with traumatic injury has substantially improved due to development of sophisticated trauma centers increasing survival after injury. Unlike the adoption of the trauma system framework, the same has not occurred with specialized trauma recovery services to include mental and social health needs. This literature review will discuss unique issues facing trauma survivors, some current recovery programs available, outcomes and benefits of these programs, and barriers that impair widespread incorporation.

OBSERVATIONS

Studies have shown that patients with traumatic injury experience reduction in quality of life and concurrent threats to mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol use disorder, and recreational substance abuse. Patients with traumatic injury also have high recidivism rates, low pain management satisfaction, and poor engagement in care following injury. Screening efforts for PTSD, mental illness, and alcohol and substance abuse are more widely available interventions. Early coordinated efforts included dedicated multidisciplinary recovery teams. Recently, more methodical and organized programs, such as the Trauma Survivors Network, trauma collaborative care, Trauma Recovery Services, and Center of Trauma Survivorship, have been implemented.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The enrollment of patients with traumatic injury in novel programs to enhance recovery has led to heightened self-efficacy, better coping mechanisms, and increased use of mental health services. Additionally, trauma recovery services have been shown to reduce recidivism and have generated cost savings for hospital systems. While positive outcomes have been demonstrated, they are not consistently predictable. Barriers for widespread implementation include limitations of time, funding, and institutional support. This article describes models of successful programs initiated within some trauma centers, which may be duplicated to serve future trauma survivors.

Psychological risk factors that characterize acute stress disorder and trajectories of posttraumatic stress disorder after injury: a study using latent class analysis

Background

The course and different characteristics of acute and posttraumatic stress disorder (ASD, PTSD) in trauma populations are unclear.

Objective

The aims were to identify longitudinal trajectories of PTSD, to establish a risk profile for ASD and PTSD based on patients' sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics, and to study the effect of ASD and dissociation on PTSD during 12 months after trauma.

Method

Patients completed questionnaires after inclusion and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months afterwards. Trajectories were identified using repeated measures latent class analysis (RMLCA). The risk profile was based on a ranking of importance of each characteristic using Cohen's d effect sizes and odds ratios. The impact of ASD and dissociation on PTSD was examined using logistic regression analyses.

Results

Altogether, 267 patients were included. The mean age was 54.0 (SD = 16.1) and 62% were men. The prevalence rate of ASD was approximately 21.7% at baseline, and 36.1% of trauma patients exhibited PTSD at 12 months after injury. Five trajectories were identified: (1) no PTSD symptoms, (2) mild, (3) moderate, (4) subclinical, and (5) severe PTSD symptoms. These trajectories seemed to remain stable over time. Compared with patients in other trajectories, patients with ASD and (subclinical) PTSD were younger and scored higher on anxiety, depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and trait anxiety. Regarding dissociation symptoms, inability to recall memories about the event was significantly more present than an altered sense of reality, (105 (40.7%) versus 56 (21.7%), p = .031), although that symptom had the strongest likelihood for PTSD. Patients with dissociation were significantly at risk for PTSD than patients without dissociation (OR = 4.82; 95%CI: 1.91-12.25).

Conclusions

Psychological factors characterized ASD and trajectories of PTSD during 12 months post-trauma. Healthcare providers who are aware of these findings could early identify patients at risk for ASD and PTSD and refer them for patient-centred interventions.

Barriers to and facilitators of a screening procedure for PTSD risk in a level I trauma center

Background

Patients admitted to the hospital after an injury are at a greater risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to the nature of the injury and the traumatic nature of necessary medical interventions. Many level I trauma centers have yet to implement screening protocols for PTSD risk. The goal of the study was to characterize the barriers to and facilitators of implementation of a screening procedure for PTSD risk in a level I trauma center.

Methods

We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with multidisciplinary academic medical center stakeholders (N=8) including those with clinical, research, teaching, and administrative roles within an urban academic medical center’s Department of Surgery, Division of Acute Care Surgery. We analyzed the qualitative data using summative template analysis to abstract data related to participants’ opinions about implementation of a screener for PTSD.

Results

Participants’ general perception of screening for PTSD risk after injury was positive. Identified challenges to implementation included timing of screening, time burden, care coordination, addressing patients with traumatic brain injury or an altered mental status, and ensuring appropriate care after screening. Reported facilitators included existing psychosocial screening tools and protocols that would support inclusion of a PTSD screener, a patient-centered culture that would facilitate buy-in from providers, a guideline-driven culture, and a commitment to continuity of care.

Conclusions

This study offers concrete preliminary information on barriers to and facilitators of PTSD screening that can be used to inform planning of implementation efforts within a trauma center.

Level of evidence

Level V, qualitative.