» Articles » PMID: 37558824

Impact of Novel Psychosocial Programming on Readmission and Recidivism Rates Among Patients with Violence-related Trauma

Overview
Date 2023 Aug 9
PMID 37558824
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) provides advocacy, mental health resources, and educational materials. This study will report complications, readmissions, and recidivism among crime victims, and who used or did not use victim services.

Materials And Methods: Patients engaged with programming from 3/1/17 until 12/31/18 were included. Control groups were patients injured by violent trauma without VOCARP use (N = 212) and patients injured by unintentional injuries (N = 201). Readmissions, complications, reoperations, and trauma recidivism were reported.

Results: 1019 patients (83%) used VOCARP. VOCARP users were less often male (56% vs. 71%), less commonly married (12% vs. 41%), and had fewer gunshot wounds (GSWs, 26% vs. 37%) and sexual assaults (4.1% vs. 8%), all p < 0.05. Of all 1,423 patients, 6.6% had a readmission and 7.4% developed a complication. VOCARP patients had fewer complications (4.5% vs. 13.7%), infections (2% vs. 9%), wound healing problems (1% vs. 3.3%), and deep vein thromboses (0.3% vs. 1.9%), all p < 0.05, but no differences in unplanned operations (4.5%). GSW victims had the most complications, readmissions, and unplanned surgeries. Prior trauma recidivism was frequent among all groups, with crime victim patients having 40% prior violence-related injury (vs 9.0% control, p < 0.0001). Trauma recidivism following VOCARP use occurred in 8.5% (vs 5.7% for non-users, p = 0.16).

Conclusion: Crime victims differ from other trauma patients, more often with younger age, single marital status, and unemployment at baseline. Complications were lower for VOCARP patients. GSW patients had the most complications, readmissions, and unplanned secondary procedures, representing a population for future attention.

Citing Articles

Characterizing a Common Phenomenon: Why do Trauma Patients Re-present to the Emergency Department?.

Chan W, Smith S, Michael C, Jenkins K, Tripodis Y, Scantling D J Surg Res. 2024; 303:489-498.

PMID: 39426060 PMC: 11602377. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.09.068.


Letter to the editor: Parent perspectives and psychosocial needs 2 years following child critical injury. A call for new recovery program standards.

Vallier H, Breslin M, Slobogean G, OHara N, Quatman-Yates C, Quatman C Injury. 2023; 55(2):111271.

PMID: 38056060 PMC: 11446482. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.111271.

References
1.
Aboutanos M, Jordan A, Cohen R, Foster R, Goodman K, Halfond R . Brief violence interventions with community case management services are effective for high-risk trauma patients. J Trauma. 2011; 71(1):228-36. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821e0c86. View

2.
Becker M, Hall J, Ursic C, Jain S, Calhoun D . Caught in the Crossfire: the effects of a peer-based intervention program for violently injured youth. J Adolesc Health. 2004; 34(3):177-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.04.001. View

3.
Bell T, Gilyan D, Moore B, Martin J, Ogbemudia B, McLaughlin B . Long-term evaluation of a hospital-based violence intervention program using a regional health information exchange. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017; 84(1):175-182. PMC: 5739956. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001671. View

4.
Caputo N, Shields C, Ochoa C, Matarlo J, Leber M, Madlinger R . Violent and fatal youth trauma: is there a missed opportunity?. West J Emerg Med. 2012; 13(2):146-50. PMC: 3415801. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2011.6.6765. View

5.
Cheng T, Haynie D, Brenner R, Wright J, Chung S, Simons-Morton B . Effectiveness of a mentor-implemented, violence prevention intervention for assault-injured youths presenting to the emergency department: results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2008; 122(5):938-46. PMC: 2587407. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-2096. View