• Osaid Alser, Numa P Perez, Anthony Gebran, Lydia R Maurer, Gezzer Ortega, George C Velmahos, KaafaraniHaytham M AHMADivision of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA., and Peter T Masiakos.
• Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
• Ann. Surg. 2023 Jun 1; 277 (6): e1324e1330e1324-e1330.

ObjectiveTo characterize the rates and variability in substance screening among adult trauma patients in the U.S.Summary Background DataEmergency Department trauma visits provide a unique opportunity to identify patients with substance use disorders. Despite the existence of screening guidelines, underscreening and variability in screening practices remain.MethodsRetrospective cohort study including adult trauma patients (18- 64-year-old) from the ACS-TQIP 2017-18 database. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to adjust for demographics, clinical, and facility factors, and marginal probabilities were calculated using these multivariable models. The primary outcomes were substance screening and positivity, which were defined relative to the observation-weighted grand mean (mean).Results2,048,176 patients were contained in the TQIP dataset, 809,878 (39.5%) were screened for alcohol (20.8% positive), and 617,129 (30.1%) were screened for drugs (37.3% positive). After all exclusion criteria were applied, 765,897 patients were included in the analysis, 394,391 (52.9%) were screened for alcohol (22.1% tested positive), and 279,531 (36.5%) were screened for drugs (44.3% tested positive). Among the patients included in our study, significant variability in screening rates existed with respect to demo-graphic, trauma mechanism, injury severity, and facility factors. Furthermore, in several cases, patient subpopulations who were less likely to be screened were in fact more likely to screen positive or vice versa.ConclusionsEffective substance-screening guidelines should be predicated on achieving universal screening. Current lapses in screening, along with the observed variability, likely affect different patient populations in disparate manners and lead to both under-detection as well as waste of valuable resources.Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…