Dataset Information

Opioid exposure after injury in United States trauma centers: A prospective, multicenter observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Efforts to reduce opioid use in trauma patients are currently hampered by an incomplete understanding of the baseline opioid exposure and variation in United States. The purpose of this project was to obtain a global estimate of opioid exposure following injury and to quantify the variability of opioid exposure between and within United States trauma centers.

Study design

Prospective observational study was performed to calculate opioid exposure by converting all sources of opioids to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). To estimate variation, an intraclass correlation was calculated from a multilevel generalized linear model adjusting for the a priori selected variables Injury Severity Score and prior opioid use.

Results

The centers enrolled 1,731 patients. The median opioid exposure among all sites was 45 MMEs per day, equivalent to 30 mg of oxycodone or 45 mg of hydrocodone per day. Variation in opioid exposure was identified both between and within trauma centers with the vast majority of variation (93%) occurring within trauma centers. Opioid exposure increased with injury severity, in male patients, and patients suffering penetrating trauma.

Conclusion

The overall median opioid exposure was 45 MMEs per day. Despite significant differences in opioid exposure between trauma centers, the majority of variation was actually within centers. This suggests that efforts to minimize opioid exposure after injury should focus within trauma centers and not on high-level efforts to affect all trauma centers.

Level of evidence

Epidemiological, level III.

SUBMITTER: Harvin JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRegionalized trauma care improves outcomes; however, access to care is not uniform across the United States. The objective was to evaluate whether geographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality across state trauma systems.MethodsLevel I or II trauma centers in the contiguous United States were mapped. State-level age-adjusted injury fatality rates per 100,000 people were obtained and evaluated for spatial autocorrelation. Nearest neighbor ratios (NNRs) were generated for each state. A NNR less than 1 indicates clustering, while a NNR greater than 1 indicates dispersion. NNRs were tested for difference from random geographic distribution. Fatality rates and NNRs were examined for correlation. Fatality rates were compared between states with trauma center clustering versus dispersion. Trauma center distribution and population density were evaluated. Spatial-lag regression determined the association between fatality rate and NNR, controlling for state-level demographics, population density, injury severity, trauma system resources, and socioeconomic factors.ResultsFatality rates were spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.35, p < 0.01). Nine states had a clustered pattern (median NNR, 0.55; interquartile range [IQR], 0.48-0.60), 22 had a dispersed pattern (median NNR, 2.00; IQR, 1.68-3.99), and 10 had a random pattern (median NNR, 0.90; IQR, 0.85-1.00) of trauma center distribution. Fatality rate and NNR were correlated (ρ = 0.34, p = 0.03). Clustered states had a lower median injury fatality rate compared with dispersed states (56.9 [IQR, 46.5-58.9] vs. 64.9 [IQR, 52.5-77.1]; p = 0.04). Dispersed compared with clustered states had more counties without a trauma center that had higher population density than counties with a trauma center (5.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.01). Spatial-lag regression demonstrated that fatality rates increased by 0.02 per 100,000 persons for each unit increase in NNR (p < 0.01).ConclusionGeographic distribution of trauma centers correlates with injury mortality, with more clustered state trauma centers associated with lower fatality rates. This may be a result of access relative to population density. These results may have implications for trauma system planning and require further study to investigate underlying mechanisms.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:BackgroundFemoral shaft fractures are common in major trauma. Early definitive fixation, within 24 hours, is feasible in most patients and is associated with improved outcomes. Nonetheless, variability might exist between trauma centers in timeliness of fixation. Such variability could impact outcomes and would therefore represent a target for quality improvement. We evaluated variability in delayed fixation (≥24 hours) between trauma centers participating in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) and measured the resultant association with important clinical outcomes at the hospital level.Methods and findingsA retrospective cohort study was performed using data derived from the ACS TQIP database. Adults with severe injury who underwent definitive fixation of a femoral shaft fracture at a level I or II trauma center participating in ACS TQIP (2012-2015) were included. Patient baseline and injury characteristics that might affect timing of fixation were considered. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of delayed fixation. Hospital variability in delayed fixation was measured using 2 approaches. First, the random effects output of the hierarchical model was used to identify outlier hospitals where the odds of delayed fixation were significantly higher or lower than average. Second, the median odds ratio (MOR) was calculated to quantify heterogeneity in delayed fixation between hospitals. Finally, complications (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, decubitus ulcer, and death) and hospital length of stay were compared across quartiles of risk-adjusted delayed fixation. We identified 17,993 patients who underwent definitive fixation at 216 trauma centers. The median injury severity score (ISS) was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 9-22). Median time to fixation was 15 hours (IQR 7-24 hours) and delayed fixation was performed in 26% of patients. After adjusting for patient characteristics, 57 hospitals (26%) were identified as outliers, reflecting significant practice variation unexplained by patient case mix. The MOR was 1.84, reflecting heterogeneity in delayed fixation across centers. Compared to hospitals in the lowest quartile of delayed fixation, patients treated at hospitals in the highest quartile of delayed fixation suffered 2-fold higher rates of pulmonary embolism (2.6% versus 1.3%; rate ratio [RR] 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.2; P = 0.005) and required greater length of stay (7 versus 6 days; RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.1-1.19; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference with respect to mortality (1.3% versus 0.8%; RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.8; P = 0.066). The main limitations of this study include the inability to classify fractures by severity, challenges related to the heterogeneity of the study population, and the potential for residual confounding due to unmeasured factors.ConclusionsIn this large cohort study of 216 trauma centers, significant practice variability was observed in delayed fixation of femoral shaft fractures, which could not be explained by differences in patient case mix. Patients treated at centers where delayed fixation was most common were at significantly greater risk of pulmonary embolism and required longer hospital stay. Trauma centers should strive to minimize delays in fixation, and quality improvement initiatives should emphasize this recommendation in best practice guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons delineates 108 requirements for level I trauma centers. Some of these requirements include: minimum of 1,200 trauma admissions per year; an average of 35 major trauma patients per surgeon; residency training programs; and 10 peer-reviewed journal submissions every three years. This study examines the variation in services provided among U.S. level I trauma centers.Methods218 facilities identified as level I trauma centers in 2005 were contacted for participation. 136 centers in 37 states completed the questionnaire. Surveys queried variances in trauma, neurosurgery, plastics, and orthopaedic surgery with regard to type of center, type of accreditation, number and training of participating physicians, number of beds, dedicated OR support (staff/rooms), call pay, and research.ResultsOf the level I centers surveyed, 66% are university-affiliated facilities that employ more surgeons and staffing across trauma and all subspecialties compared to community-based or public centers. However, the community and public centers have more surgeons per capita (44% of the university-affiliated hospitals have six or more trauma surgeons on staff compared to 59% of the community and 70% of the public facilities). University-affiliated centers also provide more in-house subspecialty services (orthopaedic, neurosurgery, and plastics). Thirty-nine percent do not have ACS accreditation and are designated trauma facilities by state or local governments. Only 49% of trauma centers provide on-call pay to trauma surgeons, and these percentages decline for all subspecialties. Dedicated operating rooms and research programs are also lacking among all subspecialties.ConclusionBased on our findings, we conclude that there are no homogeneous criteria for being accredited as a level I trauma center. Reliable resources should be offered at any facility that claims a level I trauma designation. We do not know if such diversity of services truly impacts care or how it can be measured; nevertheless, it would be logical to presume that at some point services that fall below a minimum threshold would potentially adversely affect the quality of care. In order to develop appropriate policy to decrease possible disparities, differentiation in services between trauma centers must be further researched and described.

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the distribution and patterns of opioid prescribing in the United States. DESIGN:Retrospective, observational study. SETTING:National private insurer covering all 50 US states and Washington DC. PARTICIPANTS:An annual average of 669?495 providers prescribing 8.9 million opioid prescriptions to 3.9 million patients from 2003 through 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Standardized doses of opioids in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and number of opioid prescriptions. RESULTS:In 2017, the top 1% of providers accounted for 49% of all opioid doses and 27% of all opioid prescriptions. In absolute terms, the top 1% of providers prescribed an average of 748?000 MMEs-nearly 1000 times more than the middle 1%. At least half of all providers in the top 1% in one year were also in the top 1% in adjacent years. More than two fifths of all prescriptions written by the top 1% of providers were for more than 50 MMEs a day and over four fifths were for longer than seven days. In contrast, prescriptions written by the bottom 99% of providers were below these thresholds, with 86% of prescriptions for less than 50 MMEs a day and 71% for fewer than seven days. Providers prescribing high amounts of opioids and patients receiving high amounts of opioids persisted over time, with over half of both appearing in adjacent years. CONCLUSIONS:Most prescriptions written by the majority of providers are under the recommended thresholds, suggesting that most US providers are careful in their prescribing. Interventions focusing on this group of providers are unlikely to effect beneficial change and could induce unnecessary burden. A large proportion of providers have established relationships with their patients over multiple years. Interventions to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing should be focused on improving patient care, management of patients with complex pain, and reducing comorbidities rather than seeking to enforce a threshold for prescribing.